No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 01 - 2 of 4ITEMS BELOW THIS SHEET HAVE BEEN COPIED FOR SUPERIOR COURT ****DO NOT ADD ANYTHING BELOW THIS SHEET **** rw City of, CONSISTENCY OVERviEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density (COMP-RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map, Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's 5`PA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residentlal Development and other applicable cedes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures,, The foltowing Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geatechnicol report. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study, Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to 1111 Ding, Senior Planner, CEO — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5;00 PM on March 24, 2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml: jdingPrentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED—Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. flame/File No_: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP !NAME: MAILING ADDRESS; ......... City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: city of, FU r I NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14.000241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located with€n the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 Sots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet- Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (iUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156th Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS•M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS -M process to give notice that a DNS - M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period. There will he no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Oetemtination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). A 14 -day appeal period will follow the issuance of the ONS -M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC/ 9675 5E 36'h Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 / EMI: Justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (5EPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building, Fire Requested Ftudles: Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hal 1,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public heiar[nk is tentatively schedglgd Ig ril before he Renton Hearing Exa in r inftenton Council Chamber at 20:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED -- Planning Division, 1055 5o. Grady way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ELF, PP NAME: vime W 1 WXV 47 f4 a - MAILING ADDRESS; ! S city/state/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: O S� C nthia Moya From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:36 AM To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com Cc: Jill Ding; Vanessa Dolbee; Cynthia Moya Subject: Re: Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Olbrechts, Thank you for this clarificationM Roger Paulsen ----Original Message -- From: phil olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail -co m> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com>; Cynthia Moya <CMoya@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <jding@rentonwa.gov>; VDolbee <VDalbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Wed, Jul 30, 2014 1:45 am Subject: RE: Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Paulson, Ms. Walton no longer works for Renton as of a week or two ago. I have included the deputy city clerk in this email, Cynthia Moya, so that she can direct you to the proper official_ You are exactly right that the code citations are off in the notice of appeal. I can't figure out how that happened, as the requirements identified in the appeal statement are all accurate but the code citations are not. A corrected appeal statement is pasted below, which contains the same text as before but with corrected code references. As noted in the appeal statement, if you file a timely request for reconsideration, you will not need to file an appeal to the city council until the reconsideration request is resolved. Thank you for pointing out the errors. Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process maybe obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7;h floor, (425)430-6510- Affected 425)430-6510_ Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. From: Roger Paulsen Finailto:ro erapaulsen(@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:07 AM To: bwalton@rentonwa.gov Cc: iding(a)rentonwa.gov; olbrechtslaw(abgmail.com; VDolbee(c Rentonwa.gov Subject: Re: Appeal Process Clarification Ms. Walton, Absent a response to my questions, w, I am assuming that code section RMI -100(G)(9) applies, and that a Request for Reconsideration of the i ,--.ing Examiner's decision can be submitted_ I am also assuming that a subsequent appeal of the hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council, if warranted, can be submitted after the Examiner has issued his response the Request for Reconsideration. Please let me know as soon as possible if either of my assumptions is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message --- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(d?cs.com> To: bwalton <bwalton0prentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <idinp a&rentonwa.q_ov>; olbrechtslaw <olbrechtslaw gmail.com>; VDolbee <VDolbee(d)Rentonwa.__q > Sent: Mon, Jul 28, 2014 10:36 pm Subject: Appeal Process Clarification Ms. Walton, In my review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision for the proposed plat of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA-14-000241) dated July 18, 2014, the language on Page 30, (lines 13-19) appears to intend to convey important information relative to appeal and reconsideration rights under City of Renton Code. Specifically, it suggests that the Code applicable to appeals and reconsiderations can be found in sections 4-8-110(1=)(8) and 4-8-100(G)(4), and that the provisions governing appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions to the City Council can be found in section 4-8-110(E)(9)_ I've reviewed those sections of the City of Renton Municipal Code using an on-line link on the City's webiste, and find that none are applicable to the topic they purport to be in the "Appeal Right and Valuation Notices" section of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. While I doubt this is deliberate, it makes it very difficult to participate in the City's process, where there are strict timelines for performance. Pursuant to the instructions on page 30 of the Hearing Examiner's decision, line 17, my questions to you, as City Clerk, are as follows: 1. Is there a process for requesting reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Decision? If so, where is that process codified so that I can properly make such a request in a complete and timely manner? 2. If there IS a reconsideration process, and I file a request, will I be entitled to an additional 14 day appeal period to the City Council even if the Examiner does not consider, or denies my request for reconsideration? 3. If the answer to #2 is "No", will I then need to file both a formal request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner AND a request for appeal to the City Council by the deadline for requesting a reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner? 4. Does the City have any required forms or instructions you can provide to help me understand either the process for requesting reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner, or an appeal to the City Council? If so, I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of those documents. I sincerely appreciate your patience with my questions, and ask that you reply as soon as possible, since it appears the deadline for filing my request and/or appeal is this Friday (811). As a normal citizen attempting to follow the City's laws, I find this all very confusing and dis-jointed_ As Clerk, I hope you can work with the applicable City Departments, the Examiner and the City Council to make sure that when the City cites a code section, it actually does speak to the issue or circumstance at -hand. Please feel free to contact me if I can explain my questions or concerns. Sincerely, Roger Paulsen (425)228-1589 Cynthia Moya From: Phil olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail,com> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:45 AM To: 'Roger Paulsen'; Cynthia Moya Cc: Jill Ding; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Paulson, Ms. Walton no longer works for Renton as of a week or two ago. I have included the deputy city clerk in this email, Cynthia Moya, so that she can direct you to the proper official. You are exactly right that the code citations are off in the notice of appeal. I can't figure out how that happened, as the requirements identified in the appeal statement are all accurate but the code citations are not. A corrected appeal statement is pasted below, which contains the same text as before but with corrected code references. As noted in the appeal statement, if you file a timely request for reconsideration, you will not need to file an appeal to the city council until the reconsideration request is resolved. Thank you for pointing out the errors. Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7 I floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.coml Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:07 AM To: bwalton@rentonwa.gov Cc: jding@rentonwa.gov; olbrechtslaw@gmail.com; VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov Subject: Re: Appeal Process Clarification Ms. Walton, Absent a response to my questions, below, I am assuming that code section RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) applies, and that a Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision can be submitted. I am also assuming that a subsequent appeal of the hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council, if warranted, can be submitted after the Examiner has issued his response the Request for Reconsideration. Please let me know as soon as possible if either of my assumptions is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message ----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapauisen(a_)cs_com> To: bwalton <bwalton rentonwa. ov> Cc: jding <jdinq(a)rentonwa.gov>; olbrechtslaw <olbrechtslaw(a gmail.com>; VDolbee <VDolbee65�Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Mon, Jul 28, 2014 10:36 pm Subject: Appeal Process Clarification Ms. Walton, In my review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision for the proposed plat of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA-14-000241) dated July 18, 2014, the language on Page 30, (lines 13-19) appears to intend to convey important information relative to appeal and reconsideration rights under City of Renton Code. Specifically, it suggests that the Code applicable to appeals and reconsiderations can be found in sections 4-8-110(E)(8) and 4-8-100(G)(4), and that the provisions governing appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions to the City Council can be found in section 4-8-110(E)(9). I've reviewed those sections of the City of Renton Municipal Code using an on-line link on the City's webiste, and find that none are applicable to the topic they purport to be in the "Appeal Right and Valuation Notices" section of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. While I doubt this is deliberate, it makes it very difficult to participate in the City's process, where there are strict timelines for performance. Pursuant to the instructions on page 30 of the Hearing Examiner's decision, line 17, my questions to you, as City Clerk, are as follows: 1. Is there a process for requesting reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Decision? If so, where is that process codified so that I can properly make such a request in a complete and timely manner? 2. If there IS a reconsideration process, and I file a request, will I be entitled to an additional 14 day appeal period to the City Council even if the Examiner does not consider, or denies my request for reconsideration? 3_ If the answer to #2 is "No", will I then need to file both a formal request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner AND a request for appeal to the City Council by the deadline for requesting a reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner? 4. Does the City have any required forms or instructions you can provide to help me understand either the process for requesting reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner, or an appeal to the City Council? If so, I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of those documents_ I sincerely appreciate your patience with my questions, and ask that you reply as soon as possible, since it appears the deadline for filing my request and/or appeal is this Friday (8/1). As a normal citizen attempting to follow the City's laws, I find this all very confusing and dis-jointed. As Clerk, I hope you can work with the applicable City Departments, the Examiner and the City Council to make sure that when the City cites a code section, it actually does speak to the issue or circumstance at -hand. Please feel free to contact me if I can explain my questions or concerns. Sincerely, Roger Paulsen (425)228-1589 ALBACORE - ACH, LLC July 15, 2016 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner City of Renton Community Economic Development Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98059 Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge — LUA14-000241— Significant Tree Replacement Surety 116)5 5-, A5' Ms. Ding, Please find enclosed the required surety device for the 45 replacement trees we are required to plant due to the damage the 5 existing trees sustained during plat development. I am enclosing a bid from our landscape company for the installation of the trees however the City's Landscape Cost Estimate Worksheet has a higher unit price per tree so I used that number in calculating the surety amount. Per our discussion we will receive reimbursement of the cash surety once all 45 trees are installed. As these trees are spread throughout the development the trees will be installed with each home to insure proper irrigation. It is our understanding that the trees must be planted per the attached replacement plan and that issuance of each home's certificate of occupancy will be predicated on installing the replacement trees. We will include these trees in our building permit submission, showing them on the required landscape plan. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Justin Lagers Senior Director of Land Acquisitions and Development Albacore ACH, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206-588-1147 RECEIVED JUL 18 Mb CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION 10 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CITY OF AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT i enton 0 LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET PROJECT NAME: ADDRESS: PREPARED BY: Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 www.rentonwa.Ezov Enclave at Bridle Ridge — LUA 14-000241 14038-156 1h Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 JUSTIN LAGERS PHONE: 206-588-1147 *OR ESTIMATE BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. 1 RECEIVED 'JUL S CITY OF R- PLANNING C:\Users\Justin\Downloads\LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET - Wetland.docx 0712015 UNIT PRICE* UNIT TYPE QUANTITY PRICE SOD LAWN AREAS $500.00 MSF (1000 SO FT) HYDROSEEDING $50.00 MSF (1000 SQ FT) SOIL PREPARATION A. TOPSOIL (6 INCHES DEEP) $23.00 SY (SQUARE YARD) B. MULCH (2 INCHES DEEP) $4.00 SY (SQUARE YARD) C. PEAT MOSS (TWO INCHES DEEP) $2.30 SY (SQUARE YARD) D. COMPOST 13 INCHES DEEP & TILLING $26.00 CY (CUBIC YARD) E. FERTILIZER $6.67 CY (CUBIC YARD) PLANT MATERIALS A. DECIDUOUS TREES 2.00" MINIMUM CALIPER $250.00 COST & LABOR B. EVERGREEN TREES MINIMUM SIX (6) FEET OR ABOVE $225.00 COST & LABOR 45 EA $10,125.00 C. SHRUBS $35.00 COST & LABOR D. GROUND COVER $4.00 EACH COST & LABOR SUBTOTAL BOND AMOUNT BOND AMOUNT SUB TOTAL $ 10,125.00 *OR ESTIMATE BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. 1 RECEIVED 'JUL S CITY OF R- PLANNING C:\Users\Justin\Downloads\LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET - Wetland.docx 0712015 w *OR ESTIMATE BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. Total Bond Due: $10,363.50 x 150% = $15,545,25 C:\Users\Justin\Downloads\LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET - Wetland.docx 07/2015 UNIT PRICE* UNITTYPE QUANTITY PRICE MISCELLANEOUS TREE STAKES $2.65 EACH PER STAKE & LABOR 90 $238.50 FENCING $28.50 LINEAR FOOT INCLUDE LABOR BERMING $17.50 LINEAR FOOT INCLUDES LABOR IRRIGATION REPAIRS Varies LUMP SUM RELOCATING TREES ON SITE 36" BALL $260.00 EACH 60" BALL $920.00 EACH RELOCATING SHRUBS ON SITE 12" BALL $26.00 EACH 24" BALL $33.00 EACH ADDITIONAL ITEMS SUB TOTAL BOND AMOUNT BOND SUB TOTAL: Page 1 $ 10,125.00 Page 2 $ 238.50 TOTAL BOND PRICE TOTAL BOND PRICE: $ 10,353.50 *OR ESTIMATE BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. Total Bond Due: $10,363.50 x 150% = $15,545,25 C:\Users\Justin\Downloads\LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET - Wetland.docx 07/2015 Grounjeffects 253.333.9477 Office 1 253.333.9475 Fax P.Q. Sox 207 Auburn, WA 98071 Nvww.gelinc.com 7/14/2016 ; 05-6536 RECEIVED jUL J B 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Project; Enclave Tree Installation Estimate Customer ACH Homes, LLC 9675 SE 36th Steet, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Description Total ENCLAVE ENCLAVE SITE TREE TNSTALI,ATION: �i_.-.-.-.--5,769.79T Price to install (40) 6-7 Douglas Fir trees & (5) 5'-6' Cedar Trees. Trees will be staked for stability � and bark rings will be installed. All workmanship is guaranteed against defects in workmanship tar a period of 90 days from the date of installation. Seller will not he responsible for special, incidental.. or consequential damages Scller shall not be responsible for damage to its work by other parties or for improper care of material Therc shall be no use of this estimate, reliance upon it.. or use in a dishonest manner; such as disclosure of this 'confidential' documentation to a competing third party. Buyer shall furnish seller withjoh ready work sites such as final grading, proper drainage, concrete gutters, downspouts, painting completed, and debris removed from site, Acceptance otthis propnsat by the buyer_ constitutes 3cetaner of aYl thz protirsion5 contlmc i in this proposal. RepT'D TERMS Net loth Signature GEL REP Trevor Dance Accepted by Subtotal $5,769.79 Sales Tax ... Total Date $833.13 $9,602.92 Denis Law City of Mayor 7 M Community & Economic Development Department C,E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator December 8, 2015 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Subject: New Plats and Short Plats in the City of Renton a Please see attached new plats, short plats and multi -building developments that have recently been addressed. Some of these have been recorded and I am supplying a list on new parcel numbers with the new addresses. If the plat is not recorded (NR), l am only giving you the plat map with the new potential addresses written on it. Please add these addresses to your City directories and maps. Bob Singh Plat Canyon Terrace Plat (NR) Copperwod (NR) Dhillon Short Plat (NR) Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat (NR) Greenleaf/Panther Lake Plat Highlands Park Short Plat (NR) Jason's Short Plat Jassen Short Plat Jefferson Glade Short Plat (NR) Kelsey's Crossing Plat Kennydale Vue Point Short Plat (NR) Lord Short Plat/3307 (NR) Maertin's Ranch/Concord Place Plat (NR) Morris Ave Short Plat (NR) Nantucket Avenue Short Plat (NR) Sidhu Short Plat (NR) Skagen Short Plat (NR) Talbot & 55th Plat (NR) Vuecrest 11 Short Plat (NR) Whitman CourtTownhomes PH II Plat (NR) incerely, Jan Conklin Energy Plans Examiner Development Services Division Telephone: 425-430-7276 #1:platadd Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov s o " 1� ik N THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RICGEF -xxx-xxxx cu n Ci -,I- z z 0�xa THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RICGEF -xxx-xxxx ITEMS BELOW THIS SHEET HAVE BEEN COPIED FOR SUPERIOR COURT ****DO NOT ADD ANYTHING BELOW THIS SHEET **** 1 ' Denis Law y CitOf, Y _. Mayor Y ' � City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton October 28, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5" Place. Renton, WA 98059 Re. Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: At. the regular Council meeting of October 27, 2014, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision with conditions. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact me at 425-430-6504. Sincerely, Pas- eCity Clerk Enc: P&.D Committee Report CC' Mayor Denis Law Council President Don Persson Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning. Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Garmon Newson, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Larry Warr -en, City Attorney Justin, Lagers, PNW Holdings, Applicant Parties of Record (16) 1..055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • (425) 430-65101 Fax (425) 434-6516 • rentonwa.gov API�R PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEECI- coUNCjL RECOMMENDATION :October 27, 2014 Date1_7�1ZY :Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA-14-000241 (October 23, 2014) -The Planning'and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM. the Hearing Exam iner's.Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13,-2014, subject to the suggested ' modifications made below. Facts: _ On October 23, 2014; the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen,,and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the". project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The FDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguiments the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Nearing Examiner's"Final Decision. As, a result, the PDC adopts the.Hearing'Examiner's Final Decision, .in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the position5 of the Parties, the PDC understands that o[le of Appellants.' concerns relates to the volume' o`f traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume maybe the .result of people seeking to avoid or bypass I-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real, and it is _a concern that the City Council shares in some form or, another: Traffic operating at LOST (the worst possible level), isnot desirable and'needs to -be corrected. Furthertnore,lhe PDC understands that traffic along.156th Avenue SE is a problem, now, will continue to, be a problem in the future, even without this development,.and that the addition of up to 9 more. trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact -and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem,is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle.Ridge: An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. Asa result, the RDC recommends the following: That the City. Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue 5E/SE 142nd Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after thecompletion of the project: The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that 'he proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is.undisputed and therefore. must be.accepted as a verity. Final.Decision, page 18, lines 4-9: This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact:" -Final Decision, page 18,. lines 879. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written - findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and =111 a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1. One aspect'of that -policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider.the impact to the entire ciWs transportation system and `not merely a specific intersection: Another aspect_of that policy is that the -Enclave at Brldle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The.Enciave at Bridle Ridge' subdivision project. istconsistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures. acceptable, levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest -in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. Additionally, there appeared to be'a couple of Scrivener's errors -in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21'should be amended to change the word "County" to `'Renton". The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly. issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a'probable significant. environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed., The sentence will then read. as follows: "In this case the. City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior.to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellants have .failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require 'clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council, -The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. -Ed Prince, Chair. Nat in.Aftendonce Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garmon Newsom II C.E. Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision—AFFIRM z 0 David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 5" PI. 6512 SE 5th PI. Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulsen Marsha Rollinger PNW Holdings, LLC. 6617 SE 5th Pl. 6618 SE 4th PI. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Renton, WA 9$059 Renton, WA 9$059 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE 2936 Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton, WA 98056 Gary & Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166th PI SE, 6220 SE 2nd PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulsen Eloise Stachowiak 14004156 th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98833 Renton, WA 98059 Tom Carpenter Kathy Forsell15006 SE 139th PI. M.A. Hunch nd 154515E 142 PI. RentonWA 98059 660$ 5E 5 PI. , Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Brent Karst VanNess Feldman, LLP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 October 27 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317 APPEAL CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber (Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. SE is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5.b. and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDN5 is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDN5." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. October 27 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 319 MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30, 2014, 2:00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002 108th Ave. SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however, there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be King County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding, and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern — firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr. Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David -Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr. Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION October 27, 2014 Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA -14-000241 (October 23, 2014) APPROVF-1) CITY COUNCILy Date % 7 ZCI f I The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The .PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiners Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real, and it is a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected, Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Avenue SE is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to 9 more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the FDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: That the City Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1. One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire city's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The.Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton". The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "in this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellants have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Fina! Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications ,outlined above. Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garmon Newsom II C -E. Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision —AFFIRM October 27, 2014 Monday, 7 p.m. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Council Chambers M I N U T E S Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF DON PERSSON, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; RANDY CORMAN, GREG COUNCILMEMBERS TAYLOR; ARMONDO PAVONE; ED PRINCE. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER TERRI BRIERS. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer, ZANETfA FONTES, Senior Assistant City Attorney; JASON SETH, Acting City Clerk; IWEN WANG, Administrative Services Administrator; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; CHIP VINCENT, Community and Economic Development Administrator; JAMIE THOMAS, Fiscal Services Director; ANGIE MATHIAS, Senior Planner; COMMANDER JON SCHULD, Police Department. Council President Persson requested a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting incident. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Law was read declaring November 2014 to be "DECA DECA Month & Hazen DECA Month and Hazen DECA Entrepreneurship Month" in the City of Renton and Entrepreneurship Month — encouraging everyone to join in this special observance. MOVED BY TAYLOR, November 2014 SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Gene Kolcynski, Lindbergh High School, thanked City officials for recognizing the achievements of the Renton School District DECA students. He added that Hazen High School's entrepreneurship program exemplifies what DECA students are doing in Renton's high schools. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in CED: Six-month Extension of accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to Medical Marijuana consider the six-month extension, as declared on September 15, 2014, of the Moratorium moratorium on the acceptance of business licenses and permits for medical marijuana businesses declared on November 4, 2013, Senior Planner Angie Mathias reported that the City is required by State law to hold a public hearing within 60 days of declaring the six-month extension of the moratorium. She explained that the purpose of the hearing is to provide the public with an opportunity to speak in favor or opposition of the moratorium extension. She also clarified that the moratorium is related to the submission, acceptance, processing or approval of applications or licenses by or for new business licenses or permits for new establishments in the sale, use, growing, manufacture, distribution or processing of medical marijuana only. Ms. Mathias reported that the City has already adopted regulations related to the zoning of recreational marijuana. She explained that the State Liquor Control Board regulates recreational marijuana, and controls the issuance of licenses for producers, processors, and retailers. She added that the recreational marijuana industry is highly regulated, and noted that the medical marijuana industry is not. October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317 Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber (Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. SE is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.S.b. and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 319 MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30, 2014, 2:00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002108th Ave. SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however, there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be King County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding, and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern — firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr. Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David -Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr. Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. October 27 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 320 Citizen Comment: Dissinger— Lynn Dissinger (Tukwila), from Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN), Human Services Funding expressed appreciation to City officials for supporting the program for many Allocation years. She stated that DAWN is the only comprehensive domestic violence agency in south King County. She explained that the organization's mission is to lead and support efforts to end domestic violence by providing the critical services and education to survivors to make informed choices for their future, and to engage the community to raise awareness to take action. She added that DAWN provides legal advocacy, children and youth programs, mental health counseling, and safety planning and preventive programs to survivors. Citizen Comment: McOmber — Howard McOmber (Renton) requested support for the A.R.I.S.E. (Area of Homelessness Advocacy Renton Interfaith Shelter Endeavor) program. He stated that the Renton Ecumenical Association of Churches (REACH) supports the program and is asking anyone who has the means to pledge $10 per month to the program. He explained that if 150 people pledged $10 a month there would be enough money to support the program ad infinitum. He stated that people can go to the REACH webpage and sign up. Councilmember Taylor remarked that this is an excellent opportunity for people who oppose panhandlers to make a difference in someone's life and in the community. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council: Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/20/2014. Council concur. 10/20/2014 Court Case: Rubinchikov, Court case filed by Amanda Speed, represented by Michael J. Kelly, Attorney for Forfeiture Removal, CRT -14- Plaintiff, versus the City of Renton, et al, regarding alleged false arrest and 007 seeking damages from an incident that began on 2/3/2013. Refer to Ci r Attorney and Insurance Services. CAG: 13-149, Sunset Community Services Department recommended approval of a Job Order Neighborhood Park Fourplex Contract Work Order with Forma Construction in the amount of $192,673.05 Demolition, Forma for Sunset Neighborhood Park Fourplex demolition project. Council concur. Construction MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Vice -Chair Palmer presented a report recommending Finance Committee approval of Claim Vouchers 333186 — 333644, five wire transfers and one Finance: Vouchers payroll run with benefit withholding payments totaling $7,679,825.42 and payroll vouchers including 713 direct deposits and 61 payroll checks totaling $1,582,820.11. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Lease: 1st Floor of 200 Mill Finance Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence Building, Amazing Grace in the staff recommendation to approve a five-year lease with Amazing Grace Lutheran School Lutheran Church to operate the Amazing Grace Christian School on the first floor of the 200 Mill Building. Revenue generated over the duration of the lease will be $705,728.47. October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 321 Budget: 2015/2016 Solid An ordinance was read amending Section 8-1-10 of Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title Waste Rates VIII (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, relating to year 2015 and 2016 services and utility rates for all customer classes. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Adopt Business & An ordinance was read amending Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of Occupation Tax City Code, imposing a Business and Occupation Tax and adopting a new Chapter 5-25, entitled "Business and Occupation Tax Code." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the lease. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION.* Councilmember Pavone recused himself from voting on the Amazing Grace Lutheran School lease Committee report. He explained that both of his children attend the school. Councilmember Taylor explained that his daughter had attended the school approximately five years ago. He asked the City Attorney to clarify whether or not he too should recuse himself. Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes replied that he did not have to recuse himself from voting on the report. *MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the ORDINANCES 11/3/2014 Council meeting for second and final reading: Budget: Authorize 2015 An ordinance was read authorizing the property tax levy for the year 2015. Property Tax Levy MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Establish 2015 An ordinance was read establishing the property tax levy for the year 2015 for Property Tax Levy general City operational purposes in the amount of $36,420,000. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: 2015/2016 Utility An ordinance was read amending Sections 8-2-2 and 8-2-3 of Chapter 2, Storm Rates and Surface Water Drainage, Sections 8-4-12, 8-4-24, 8-4-31 and 8-4-33 of Chapter 4, Water, and Section 8-5-15 of Chapter 5, Sewers, of Title VI 11 (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, allowing for adjustments to current utility rates for 2015 and 2016, clarifying the water shutoff fee language, and clarifying the qualifications for reduced rates. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED, Budget: 2015/2016 Solid An ordinance was read amending Section 8-1-10 of Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title Waste Rates VIII (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, relating to year 2015 and 2016 services and utility rates for all customer classes. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Adopt Business & An ordinance was read amending Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of Occupation Tax City Code, imposing a Business and Occupation Tax and adopting a new Chapter 5-25, entitled "Business and Occupation Tax Code." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. October 27 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 322 Budget: Clarify Business An ordinance was read amending Section 5-5-3 of Chapter 5, Business Licenses, License Fees of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of City Code, by clarifying the methods of calculation of Business License Fees and restating the Section entitled "Exemption." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Modify Senior Citizen An ordinance was read amending Subsection 5-4-2.0 of Chapter 4, Animal Threshold for Pet Licenses Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of City Code, by reducing the age for City residents to qualify for discounted animal licenses available to low income seniors. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Adopt 2015/2016 An ordinance was read adopting the Biennial Budget for the years 2015/2016, Biennial Budget in the amounts of $243,543,692 and $242,343,675, respectively. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1113L2014. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. TIM E:7 p.m Jason . Seth, , Acting City Clerk Jason Seth, Recorder October 27, 2014 w Council Committee Meeting Calendar October 27, 2014 November 3, 2014 Monday CANCELED Utilities Committee, Chair Pavone CANCELED Public Safety Committee, Chair Corman CANCELED Community Services Committee, Chair Taylor 5:30 PM Planning & Development Committee, Chair Prince — Council Conference Room 1. Title IV (Development Regulations), Docket #10 6:00 PM Committee of the Whole, Chair Persson — Council Chambers 1. Inclusion Project Update 2. Presentation: Adopt the Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION October 27, 2014 Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA -14-000241 (October 23, 2014) ApplRovet) By CITY ca Date—In The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Derision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014; the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic Overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact -and Conclusions of Law: " The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's'Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing'Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDCunderstands that one of Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume maybe the result of people seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real, and it is a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another: Traffic operating at LOS"F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and'needs to be corrected. Furthermore, -the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Avenue SE is a problem, now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to 9 more_trips during rush hour will not make it better.. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. Asa result, the PDC recommends the following: That the City Council require city staff to reprioritize the 1561h Avenue. SE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of the project: The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not'violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore. must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 44 This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18,. lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the POC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written . findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiners Fina! Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity- Renton's. Comprehensive larity:Renton's.Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1. One aspect of that.pol.icy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire city's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection: Another aspect of that policy is that the -Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is Consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land -Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The.Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project. is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it. promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. Additionally, there appeared. to be a couple of Scrivenees errors in the -Hearing Examiner's decision that need to -be corrected. These errors are amended as follows Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton". The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing,whether Renton staff Correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant, environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read. as follows. "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDN5." In sum, the Appellants have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. £d Prince, Chair Not in Attendance . Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garman Newsom it C.E. Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision —AFFIRM 2 Denis Law ---_ Ma or 7,1i 0 Y ju s.I., City Clerk -Bonnie LWalton October 28, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: At the regular Council meeting of October 27, 2014, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to affirm the Nearing Examiner's Fna! Decision with conditions. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact me at 425-430-6504. Sincerely, Pas. e gCity Clerk Enc: P&D Committee Report CC Mayor Denis Law Council President Don Persson Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Garman Newson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren, City Attorney Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, Applicant Parties of Record (16) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov APP`ROVFE) By PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY coUNCIL RECOMMENDATION 7 ZG October 27, 2014 Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA -14-000241 (October 23, 2014) The Pianning'and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13,2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014; the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the dosed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments; the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find.any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Exam iner's'Final Decision' . As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, .in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern isreal, and itis .a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another. Traffic operating at LOST (the worst possible level), is not desirable and'needs to be corrected. Furthermore, -the PDC understands that traffic along.1561h Avenue SE is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to 9 more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave_ at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. . .Asa result, the PDC recommends the following: That the City. Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue. SE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of the project: The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore, must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18; lines 4-9: This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact:" Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1. One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider.the impact to the entire city's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the -Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land- Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The.Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with. Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable, levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest.in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. . Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of SCriVener'5.errors in the -Hearing Examiner's decision'that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line .21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton''. The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing•whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant. environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read. as follows: "In this case the. City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic. impacts prior to issuance of the MD.Ns." In sura the Appellants have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-5-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists. in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final recision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garmon Newsom 11 C.E. Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision—AFFIRM 2 4 .y David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 51h PI. 6512 SE 5" PI. Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulsen Marsha Roliinger PNW Holdings, LLC. 6617 SE 5th PI. 6618 SE 4th PI. 9675 SE 361h 5t, Suite 105 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Gary & Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166 1h PI SE 6220 SE 2"d PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulsen Eloise Stachowiak 14004156 th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 51h PI. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98833 Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 1391" PI. M.A. Huniu 15451 SE 142nd PI. 6608 SE 5 PI. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Brent Karst VanNess Feldman, LLP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 October 27 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317 APPEAL CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge C_(1/41 ! q-c-nC 24 Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber (Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. SE is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this (development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: October 27 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5.b. and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. October 27, 2014 Renton CitV Council Minutes Page 314 MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30, 2014, 2:00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002 108th Ave. SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however, there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be King County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding, and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern — firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr. Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David -Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr. Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION October 27, 2014 Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA -14-000241 (October 23, 2014) p+11 pj:,oVED B CI 1 1 COUNCIL Date le 7 � 11 The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the' project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's'Final Decision As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real, and it is a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Avenue SE is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to 9 more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: That the City Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the FDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1. One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire city's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The. Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Pian as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton". The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellants have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-5-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing. Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications -outlined above. Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garrison Newsom II C.E. Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision — AFFIRM Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Planning & Development Appeal Hearing Jill Ding, Senior Planner October 23, 2014 00 00 TIC) rl r Community and Economic Development Brief Description RE~N Located on the west side of 156th Ave SE just north of SE 142111 PI. 8.8 acre site located within the RLD Comp Plan designation and the R-4 zoning classification. 1 - i _7 �T' _ L IT- RE~N Located on the west side of 156th Ave SE just north of SE 142111 PI. 8.8 acre site located within the RLD Comp Plan designation and the R-4 zoning classification. 1 1 RENTON Brief Description 31 lots (two tracts) at a density of 4.45 du/ac Ranging in lot size from 8,050 to 12,566 sq. ft. Tract A is 32,174 sq. ft. and Tract B is 490 sq. ft. ' Brief Description cant. • A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was processed concurrently, removing 30,175 sq. ft. of parcel 142305-9057 from the subdivision. • Access is proposed via a new "looped" public street off of 156th Ave SE with an extension to the southeast that terminates in a temporary cul-de- sac turnaround. It is anticipated the road would extend under a future development application. • The site is currently developed with an existing single family residence and detached garage proposed for removal. RENTON F 11/24/2014 2 Brief Description Cents • There are no critical areas identified onsite. • 303 significant trees have been identified on the project site, 35 trees along the east property line are proposed for retention. • A 14 day Notice of Application period commenced on March 10, 2014 and ended on March 24, 2014. Two citizen comment letters were received during the comment period (Staff Report Exhibits 20 and 21). One additional comment letter was received after the comme d ended ( Staff Report Exhibit 27j. ; % RENTON '. . Brief Description Cont. • On March 31, 2014, the ERC issued a DNS -M which included 1 mitigation measure requiring compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on April 4, 2014 and ended on April 18, 2014. • A Request for Reconsideration of the DNS -M was filed on April 17, 2014 citing public notice and traffic concerns, specifically the project's impact to SE St" PI. In response additional traffic analysis was ucted by the applicant and the City. Rk N -ION 11/24/2014 3 Brief Description Cont. The applicant's analysis concluded the project would not result in a significant adverse impact to the intersection of 156th Ave SE and SE 5th PI. The City's traffic analysis concluded that a signal is warranted at the 156th Ave SE/SE 142nd PI intersection. • On May 19th, 2014 the ERC issued a revised DNS - M requiring payment of the project's fair share of a new traffic signal ($3,435). • A new appeal period commenced on May 23rd,, ended on June 6th. An appeal was filed. RE11 NTON '+t „1 Brief Description Cont. • On June 24, 2014 a public hearing was held for the SEPA Appeal and the Preliminary Plat. • On July 18, 2014 the Hearing Examiner approved the Preliminary Plat and denied the SEPA Appeal. • A Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed on July 30, 2014. • The Hearing Examiner denied the Request for Reconsideration on August 13, 2014. • An appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed on August 26, 2014. �g R E N T O N '� .,.•� 11/24/2014 2 Preliminary Plat Analysis The proposal is consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies. R The proposal is compliant with all relevant zoning regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with. RE' N� o Availability of Pubic Services * Police and Eire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. • Extensions of existing water and sewer main in the new roadway would be required in order to serve v� a plat. RENTON 'r 11/24/2014 5 Availability of Pubic Services • The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. • A stormwater wetpond is proposed within Tract A on the southwest corner of the property. • The project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. • The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstr f'.. R Ens. .. RENTON Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, as depicted in Staff Report Exhibit 3 subject to the 21 conditions of approval listed in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Jr. 4 � �., r 11/24/2014 0 _ Hz� � M` a+ .-- :sex• ; I -'. � � � Denis Law Mayor ----------- mmommillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillI October 14, 2014 'City of •"Of. City Council APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Paulsen & Jason Paulsen (POA for Judith Paulsen) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038 156«' Ave SE (File NO. LUA-14-000241) To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above - referenced item on the following date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:30 p.m. 7t` Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Sincerely, Ed Prince, Chair 0 Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council Renton CityHall 9 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov September 8, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 253 Appointment: Parks Mayor Law reappointed the following individuals to the Parks Commission for Commission terms expiring on 10/1/2018: Cynthia Burns and Michael O'Donin. Council concur. Appeal: Enclave @ Bridle City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Enclave Ridge, Paulsen (LUA-14- @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (LUA-14-000241) by Roger Paulsen, 000241 accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CAG: 14-088, Runway City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/17/2014 for CAG -14-088; Runway Blastwall Replacement, Gary Blastwall Replacement Project; three bids; engineer's estimate $979,501; and Merlino Construction submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the lowest Company responsive bidder, Gary Merlino Construction Company, in the amount of $1,252,565.24. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee for discussion of funding. Annexation: Trace Matthew, Community and Economic Development Department submitted King County 154th Ave. SE & SE 139th PI Boundary Review Board Closing Letter for the proposed Trace Matthew Annexation and recommended approval of the annexation. Council concur. (See page 256 for ordinance.) Community Services: Cost Community Services Department recommended approval of the Recreation Recovery & Pricing Guidelines Division's Cost Recovery and Pricing Guidelines. Refer to Community Services Committee. Lease: 720 Building at Airport, Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment #3 to Rainier Flight Services LLC LAG-11-OD3, with Rainier Flight Services, in order to terminate the lease because the business has moved to another location at the airport. Refer to Transportation Aviation Committee. Transportation: Airport Master Transportation Systems Division requests authorization to execute a grant Plan, FAA Grant application and related documents with the Federal Aviation Administration in order to receive $753,935 in grant funds for the Airport Master Plan project. Council concur. Transportation: Airport Master Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Plan, Mead & Hunt Inc Mead & Hunt, Inc. in the amount of $837,705 to complete the Airport Master Plan, and requested authorization to transfer $120,000 from the 820 Building Demolition CIP fund to cover the budget gap. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation: Growing Transportation Systems Division requested authorization to participate in the Transit Communities Compact Growing Transit Communities Compact, a non -legally binding agreement with various government and non-government agencies, that supports implementation of VISION 2040 and local comprehensive plans. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Utility: Emergency Sale of Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an Emergency Sale of Water Water, King County Water agreement with King County Water District No. 90 in order to provide water to District No. 90 the district in the event of an emergency. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. 4 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Sr C~ Subject/Title: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision by Roger Paulsen regarding the Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (LUA-14-000241) Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 08 Sep 2014 Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Clerk's Appeal Notification Letter (8/27/2014) City Clerk Appeal to Council from Roger & Jason Paulsen (8/26/2014) Hearing Examiner's Order and Decision on Reconsideration (8/13/2014) Staff Contact: Request for Reconsideration from Roger & Jason Jason Seth, x6504 Paulsen (7/30/2014) Heaping Examiner's Decision (7/18/2014) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $ Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $ SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat was filed on August 26, 2014 by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen/POA for Judith Paulsen, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat. Denis Law City. Of � , Mayor . . Cty Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton August 27,'2014. APPEAL FILED BY; Roger PauLsen & Jason Paulsen ( OA for Judith Paulsen) RE: �PofHpeal earing Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the Enclave at dge located at 1403 8 1560' Ave SE. (File No. LUA-14-000241) To Parties of Record. 'Pursuant to Title IV; Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances; written appeal of the hearing exami'ner's decision op Enclave. atBridle Ridge land use application has been filed with, the City . Clerk. In accordance with Renton. Municipal-Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt .of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within.ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the- filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional..letters is 5:00 pr,.Monday, September 8, 2014. _ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other .pertinent documents will be _ reviewed "by the Council's Planning and Development Commitee. The Council Uaison yvill . notify all parties, of record of the date • and.time of the Planning' and Development Comnnittee meeting; if you are not listed in local telephone directories and wisli to, attend the meeting, please fall the Council Liaison at. 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the. Committee will be presented for consideration by the frill Council at a subsequent Council , meeting:. . Enclosed you will find a copy of the .appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions orrecommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based'upon thele Written record previously established Unless a showing canbemade that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by. the Hearing Examiner; no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted bythe City Council. For additional information or assistance, please. feel .free to ,call me at 425430-6504. sincerely, n ee. cting City Clerk Enclosures cc: Counc>7 Liaison 1055 Sabth Grady Way + Renton, Washington 98x57 + (425)430-6510/ Fax (425)43D-6516* rentonwa.gov- City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - Appeals 4-8-110C4 Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2, the fee scheddle of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-11OF: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person (s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6, Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application- submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070H1, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord- 5675, 12-3- 2012) 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 3658,9-13-1982; Ord. 4389,1-25-1993; Ord. 4660,3-,17-1997; Ord. 5558,10-25-2010) CITY OF RENTO�VJ APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COLINCIL AUG 2 6 201 OF HEARING EX WSZ RAS DECISION/RECONA NDATION 5 RECEIVED CI C FELE No � APPLICATION NAt��ER r i ME C �G CII��f AT �IQ�D�� �i�%GC' The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated- 41 f cl�11N6 - 21JLq• 1. EDEN I ;KATION OF PAR__TyyY APP NamPl�-&, JV - - AdZ;ZTj9Qrq J �+ . Phone Email: I �I. Sfitj lei �.S.Cdrs� vad rAt jr0e T / PA&csw Address_ 31 11lIMI M4 AA S [J - Phone N..u��m++ber:.yT • 1 fr, r/co Em, i1, _�iSol) TW— .Cd�l1 1 SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below axe the specific ermrs or law or fact apon which this appeal is based: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REDUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant tl'te following relief: ( r, Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to tl1e Examines for further consideration. as follows: Other: A resentative S agmahxre Typelpdrited Name Date NOTE: Please refer tD Tine IV. Chapter 8, of the Re=n Municipal Code, and Section 4-&-1 ] OF. for specific appeal procedures. August 25, 2014 City of Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 11u wcss� Vel bee, top 154we 1 LC I elm CIO) PKI tt� rufzt , rf x ff,-U C W b APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. CITY OF PENTON AUG 26 2014 2,y; ti"'" RECEJVED l CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Standing As the record shows, we have attempted to utilize each of the City's provided appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council, and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via SE 5th Place adjacent to the proposed plat (See Exhibit A), we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at -large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(x) and (b). The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of "appropriate provision" with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. Lastly, we find that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We. thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal Arguments In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D) to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit C), the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Level of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for "appropriate provision" (RCW 58.17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 16, Lines 8 -9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting "...Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18) The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that "Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project -specific traffic impacts, we disagree with his finding that Renton's LDS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact, the record shows clearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre -application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its clear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review (Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review (Exhibit 1F) after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that "The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A,B,C" system used in most other jurisdictions." We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads: "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact, the City's own policy governing site-specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 156u'/ 142nd intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site-specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --- LOS level "F" (Exhibit Ga b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that "...it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PL. / 156th Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit 1) d) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit l) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. (Exhibit B) f) in response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level "C". (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9th on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) 3 i) The City's 2014-2019 6 -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanlsm to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the city of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11-13). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13 t Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18: In this section, the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. B. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat, it would be in the position of "...compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development, as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of a project -specific application establishes a de -facto moratorium, nor that it entitles an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 Amendment. In fact, the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property -specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17) the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de -facto moratorium and runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counter to the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et aL u. TAHOE REGIONAL, PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-i167. Argued January 7,2002 --Decided April 23, 2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development The interest in informed decisionmaking counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim measures as takings regardless of the planners' good faith, the landowners' reasonable expectations, or the moratorium's actual impact on property values. The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether. " Further, a careful reading of Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'! Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the opposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. In further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate, please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL., INC., et aL v. TAHOE REGIONAL. PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-1167. Argued January 7,2002—Decided April 23, 2002 `For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use, we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings content to regulatory takings claims. Land -use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact properly values in some tangential way—often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford.." 5 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning, including project -specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argurnent under the Fifth Amendment. c. Page 3, Lines 1S-18: The Hearing Examiner, explaining why the denial of this project is not an option, concludes "it is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact, we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCW 58.17 was adopted, and has been amended over time, to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.110(1a&b) and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent of the state legislature, they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme, the Hearing Examiner's basis for approving this subdivision would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. D. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section, the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE 5E/ SE 142nd PI. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents_ To rely. upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law, the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. N E. Page 4, Lines 25 — 26. In this section the Hearing Examiner states that "Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LDS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required by their growth plans, its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact, this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use planning of municipalities, shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.70A,020(12) which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Act: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Conclusion Given the record before you, and as supported by our arguments above, we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development -related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 Since , ✓ f en 6617 Se 5th Place Renton, XXIA 98059 on Iii Paulsen, P 11 for /Judith N1 Paulsen 31 Mamma Pines Lane 'VL3zama, WA 98833 Exhibits from the public record (included by reference): F-\Iu lit A Neighborhood Detail Map from Paulsen Comment Letter (24 Jun 201 4) Exhibit B Original i'in11 Decision fot Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (18 Jul 2014) F-xhibit C Request for Reconsideration of Hcating azarniner's Decision (30 Jul 2014) Exhibit D Fiml Decision on Reconsideration (13 slug 2014) Exhibit E Response to Request for Reconsideration of SEP, Determination (1 d Apr 2014) Exhibit F Rer'iSed SEPA Determination (19 May 2014) Exhibit G Report to the Hearing Examiner (24 jun 2014) Exhibit H Cit} of Renton 2014-2019 Sit -Year Transportation Improvement Program Exhibit l Traffic Impact AnaIysis - 2nd Addendum (20 Jun 2014) a-zhibir J Traffic Concurrency. 'lest for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (18 -Apr 2014) Exhibit K Memo from C. Barnes to R. Mar (5 May 2014) Exhibit L SEPA '11ireshold Deternzination (31 Mar 2014) Exhibit M Cite of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for Neje Development 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE; The Enclave at Bridle Ridge } Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION Prelinainary Plat and SEPA Appeal ) LUA14-000241 i SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single- family residential lots on the east side of 156' Avenue SE between SE 139' Place and SE 143rd Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. This decision includes a response to a Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger and Judy Paulsen on July 30, 2014. Other than correcting some minor grammatical and typographical errors and adding some clarifications, the original July 18, 2014 remains the same except for the added section entitled "Reconsideration Response", which follows this "Summary" section. The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the PRELMUNARY PLAT - 1 2 3 4 5 ., 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create (e -g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expended in five years or returned to the applicant It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in five years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record do not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) of this decision RECONSIDERATION REQUEST As previously noted, Roger and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014. The request is denied and this decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this "Reconsideration Request" section. Mr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideration.. His concerns have already been addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only be evident to an experienced planner or land use attorney. The general public has every right to be fully apprised in as clear terms as possible why cities and counties are often stuck with approving new development in areas that suffer from traffic congestion. Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request provides an opportunity to provide further clarity on the issue. Mr. Paulsen's fust point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17.110(2) prohibits the approval Df a subdivision unless a city or county makes a finding that "appropriate" provision is made for "...streets, roads, alleys, other public ways..." This finding was made in three places in the Enclave decision. Finding of Fact No. 4 generally determines that the proposal is served by "adequate" infrastructure. The subsections of Finding of Fact No. 4 elaborate how this determination was made For specific types of infrastructure. Finding of Fact No. 4(E) elaborates how this finding was made for roads. Conclusion of Law No. 7 concludes that the proposal provides for adequate public facilities in -esponse to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), which requires that subdivisions "[m]ake adequate provision for .... -treets, alleys, other public ways..." PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 2 ki 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 It could be argued that a finding of "adequate" public facilities is not the same as a finding oi "appropriate" public facilities as required by RCW 58.17.110(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate sucl parsimonious word play. "Adequate" within the City's regulatory standards for subdivision review clearly encompasses the "appropriate" criterion of RCW 58.17.110(2). The intent of the City Counci; is paramount in interpreting the regulations adopted by it It can be presumed that the City Counci] intends to have its regulations interpreted in a manner that is consistent with state law. The RMC onl} requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW 58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(])(1). Consequently, to the extent possible, the subdivision criteria of the RMC should be interpreted as encompassing RCW 58.17.110 requirements in order to ensure that a subdivision that is required to be approved under the RMC is also valid under state law. It is fairly easy to apply this interpretation to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), since the language pertaining to roads in that provision is almost a direct quote from RCW 58.17.110(2). The City Council clearly intended RMC 4- 7-080(B)(4) to encompass the road findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2). Conclusion of Law No. 7 of the Enclave decision finds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met, so the required finding of RCW 58.17. 110(2) has also been made'. The remaining part of Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd PI intersection and the limitations of the mitigation recommended by City staff, The original Enclave decision expressly acknowledged these problems and explained that the preliminary plat application stili had to be approved because the proposal met adopted City level of service standards. The decision noted that fiscal and legal constraints prevent the City from imposing any additional mitigation or deny the project on tate basis of traffic congestion. Additional explanation will be provided in this section in response to Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request. In short, Mr. Paulsen wants .a finding that the proposal will not be served by "appropriate" streets because the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection operates at LOS F. As shall be explained, this puts the City in the position of either having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably doesn't have or denying the subdivision request and compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is unlikely that the state legislature intended cities and counties to be put in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110. A far more reasonable approach and the approach that would likely be adopted by the courts is to construe a road as "appropriate" for purposes of RCW 58.17.100(2) if that road meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As partially discussed in the original final decision of this case, an adopted City LOS standard represents the road system that the City can afford to require. Requiring more than the adopted LOS likely exceeds the financial capabilities of the City, which cannot be ignored because the: City is required to fill in the funding gaps that it cannot require to be filled by developers. In this case, the road system meets the City's LOS, which is why mads were determined to be adequate. The reason why the consequences of the interpretation advocated by Mr. Paulsen are so dire is because of the strict rulings of state and federal courts in the application of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, i -e. government cannot take property without just compensation. There are two ' The references to "adequate" in this decision will also be modified to include "appropriate" to remove any doubt on the issue. PRELWINARY PLAT - 3 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 significant limitations imposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make "growth pay for growth". The fust limitation is proportionality. The courts consider it to be an unconstitutional takings if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e_g.,. Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant can only be made to pay for 10% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd Pl intersection. So with only a proportionate share contribution from the applicant to pay for the intersection, the City only has two options on how to proceed with the Enclave application if it cannot find the intersection "appropriate" at its current LOS, as advocated by Ivlr. Paulsen: (1) the City can pay for the remaining costs of the intersection improvements itself; or (2) it can, deny the preliminary plat application. As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its long term transportation planning and simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid denying a preliminary plat application. Of course, such haphazard and random fiscal planning would likely not result in a very efficient expenditure of public funds. The LOS standards required to be adopted by the Growth Management Act ("GMA") were designed to avoid this randomized form of fiscal planning. The GMA requires cities to adopt an LOS and then put together a 6 year specific and 20 year general budget that identifies where the City will get the funds to finance the LOS it has adopted_ By requiring cities and counties to pencil out the numbers for financing an LOS standard, the GMA essentially places cities and counties in the position of only adopting LOS standards they can afford. That is why an LOS standard serves as a realistic and effective standard for measuring whether a road is "appropriatc" to serve a proposed subdivision. The second course of action, denial, implicates the second obstacle placed upon cities and counties by the takings clause. The US Supreme Court considers it to be an unconstitutional takings to impose development moratoria of unreasonable length See Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'1 Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or two will be difficult to justify. As noted in Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request, the City's funding priorities for the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd PI intersection suggest that needed improvements won't be onstructed for 18 years. Consequently, if the Enclave application is denied because of the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd P1 intersection, the City is essentially placing an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to that intersection_ The applicant would be in a very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium. In understanding the use of LOS to gage the adequacy of roads for subdivision review, there is on additional point that helps put the Renton LOS into the proper context. Although the Renton LOS ,tandard is somewhat unique in that it doesn't adopt the more traditional "ABCDEF" system of review, he Renton system isn't at all unique in having an LOS system that designates some congested areas as adequate or appropriate. Cities such as Seattle that have the letter system adopt an LOS of F for aortions of their transportation system. Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to )nly adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to tccept the fact that there simply aren't enough frmds available to improve an intersection or street PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 I segment above a failing level of service. So even if Renton had adopted a letter system for its LOS, Renton could still assign an LOS of F to the intersections in the Enclave area if it determined that its 2 limited transportation funds were more effectively spent elsewhere in the city. 3 Hopefully the explanation above provides some additional clarity as to why an adopted LOS standard 4 is the best tool for assessing whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a development for purposes of subdivision review. Enforcing the type of standard contemplated by Mr. Paulsen would place the City 5 in the impossible position of having to commit funds it doesn't have to upgrading all failing intersections for new development beyond the applicants' proportionate share, or paying the applicants millions of dollars in taking claims_ The LOS standard is the culmination of some very difficult and 7 detailed policy choices made by the City Council on where to spend limited public funds to improve its transportation system. It is the only2 practical and reasonable way to address congestion in a manner g that recognizes that there is a limit to how much money is available to address the problem. 9 TESTIMONY 10 1 I SEPA Appellant Testimony 12 Mr. Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the 13 city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors_ He believes the city has 14 continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was 15 misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. 16 17 Applicant Testimony 18 Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the 19 traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and 20 how it will not negatively impact traffic. 21 Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with Tra$Ex_ His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, 22 2 One other potential option that hasn't been addressed due to space limitations is to reduce the density of the 23 proposed subdivision. The R4 designation does not have a ,pini,num density requirement. However, the GRA requires cities to accommodate assigned 24 year population projections and a city's zoning designations are 24 designed to accommodate these numbers. Further, the GMA requires residential development within cities to occur at "urban" densities which at a minimum is usually four dwelling units per acre. Routinely requiring reduced 25 densities to reduce traffic impacts would arguably violate these GRA principals. Further, in this cast the intersection at issue is already operating at LOS F -so that from the standpoint of "appropriate" roads it makes no 26 substantial difference if the subdivision has a density of one unit per acre as opposed to four units per acre. PRELEMO NARY PLAT - 5 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection is a stop -controlled sign intersection to the south of the project: The original study looked at the pm peak -hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. TraftEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th PIace and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables I and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service -C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the sough side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a -m_ and p.m peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pin, peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is tamed The south side access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulsen_ In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Gegha noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. Mr_ Paulsen stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers >oth queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 iercent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very -are that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 1 In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garman Newsom, Assistant Renton City 2 Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record 3 and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr_ Paulsen was able to understand the 4 process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise this issue because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative 5 DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. 6 The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment 7 period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. 8 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21). 9 10 Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." 11 However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm 12 peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For 13 projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil 14 Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak 15 hour_ She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In 16 some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area In regard to the 156th and 142nd 17 intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if 18 traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a 19 signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the 20 signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal 21 installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 22 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd_ In this new analysis, the city analyzed what Ievel of service would be with a signal. The city found that the Ievel of service would be good, and the queues would not 23 back up. to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and 24 the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not_ The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know 25 the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on 26 existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, PRELB41NARY PLAT - I specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development 2 such as a mall being built close -by. 3 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pai study would be 4 required. 5 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not 6 deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The 7 SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to 8 be installed as part of the project. 9 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable 10 addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. 11 Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the 12 city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development" This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when 13 reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more 14 trigs generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a 15 guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet 16 the five percent threshold If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any 17 analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 18 Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and 19 noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The 20 response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, 21 and location of the review hearing. 22 Applicant Response 23 Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that 24 traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built The project contributes very few trips to the 25 problem areas. 26 Appellant Response PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Paulsen stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulsen's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA14­000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded.. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14 -day notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on Manch 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th PIace. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th_ The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required 35 trees will be retained and the rest will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well_ All students will be bussed. The applicant PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 I submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around 2 stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only I Oft and increasing the size would result 3 in the loss of a lot_ Staff recommends the 1 Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to I 1 conditions of approval. 4 In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are 5 policy, not code. 6 Applicant Testimony 7 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal 8 Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to 9 traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal- The independent studies found that 10 current conditions warrant a signal. 1 I .Public Testimony 12 Tom Carpenter testified that be resides within half a mile of the project He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it 13 implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that 14 will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny 15 development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel -shed 12 which would result in this area failing 16 concurrency. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true 17 impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional 18 transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards 19 smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for 1-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city 20 should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to 21 the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He 22 submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 23 Roger Paulsen testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 24 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6- 25 year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Trak Improvement Plan says the city 26 builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. PRELIMMARY PLAT - 10 I The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a 2 request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He 3 entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. 4 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 5 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses_ There is more traffic at 6am than later in the 6 morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will 7 not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. g Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in 9 regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 10 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight_ The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, 11 You cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage 12 provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a 13 stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic 14 analysts, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as 15 needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91 fi.. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order 16 to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a 17 busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for 18 improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to 19 deal with the impacts of new development. 20 In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural 21 damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have 22 responsibility over the drainage facilities_ There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is 23 unclear what will happen with the project The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an 24 enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the 25 area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks 26 should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff The city has failed to provide the arborist report, PRELFAINARY PLAT - I I I the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made 2 them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, 3 route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as 4 Exhibit 13. 5 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 6 impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this 7 particular instance. If 156th; is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this neat intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this g light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She 9 also noted that not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There 10 will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to pant somewhere. 11 These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of 12 Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive lan13but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan- 13 14 Staff Rebuttal 15 Ms. Ding noted that the city affiorist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the 16 landscaping around the storm water pond, the I Sft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 1Ofh In regard to 17 the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff 18 report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city Ig would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but 20 is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency 21 analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will 22 talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 23 Applicant Rebuttal 24 Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 25 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant 25 believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. PRELEVI]NARY PLAT - 12 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulsen- Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts_ With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a -h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Toni Carpenter comments Exhibit 8 Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulsen Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit I 1 Paulsen second request for reconsideration Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulsen's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map Exhibit I6 6126/14 email from Roger Paulsen to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6127/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit 18 6127/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulsen comments PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13 Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6127114 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 711114 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulsen 2 3 4 Procedural: 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. Applicant PNW Holdings, LLC. FINDINGS OF FACT 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written, comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits S, 13 and 14- 3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156x` Avenue SE between SE 139` Place and SE 14P Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156`' Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end.access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Adgguacy of lnfrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, specifically including all the infrastructure and services identified below. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the Iity's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrasixwturelservices are addressed as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 1566 Avenue SE. B. Police and Fixe Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site fails within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required_ PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15 I D. Parks/Qpen Suace. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to 2 building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for 3 residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks 4 and open space. 5 E. Streets, The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets, roads, alleys and public 6 ways. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. 7 However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City. Council 8 adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" or "appropriate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review g and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly 10 arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of 11 the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies_ for 12 infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that 13 developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For 14 these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels 15 makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as .well as a specific project review basis. 16 17 Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to is appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS 19 requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. 20 LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, 21 Chapter 36.70A ("GM)V). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that "...prohibit development 22 approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation 23 facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are 24 referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities 25 and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well - 26 functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment PRELINENARY PLAT - 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to an LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance identified in the preceding paragraph. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this Iocalized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single -occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes_ See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI -26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a Half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on bow bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose . a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element_._ " This language is taken, very literally by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards3 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156h Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that ' The applicant's enginms used the Transportation Research Board.ffighmy CmachyManual to calculate LOS. PRELMNARY PLAT - 18 I mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt See RCW 82.02.020. This 2 means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned 3 to the developer. 4 In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly 5 rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. ,13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. 6 The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor 7 was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% 8 growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. 9 Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site 10 distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department Project 11 opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is 12 found more compelling. 13 One of the SETA issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement 14 required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156` Ave. SE/SE 142", 15 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to 16 support this position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, 17 establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat acecss points. The applicant's traffic study 18 addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced 19 no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that 20 the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the 21 intersection. 22 F. Parkin, Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking 23 for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 24 G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional 25 students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed 26 development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 PRELUVENARY PLAT - 19 I mile from the project site at 156'h Avenue SE & SE 5'h Place. The proposed project 2 includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 1561s Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156" Avenue SE north 3 of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be 4 adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walling conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 5 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to 6 allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would 7 be required to cross 1560' Avenue SE at SE 5d' Place via the existing crosswalk. The 8 driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 1561° Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the 9 conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. 10 A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family tot, will be re quired in order to 11 mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at 12 $6,392-00 per single family residence. 13 5. Adverse IMRacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate 14 public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are 15 no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. 16 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation_ RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the 17 trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The 18 replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. 19 The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence_ Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been 20 determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that 21 have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 22 150 2 -inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention 23 requirements. 24 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 25 26 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014- Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration with the City on PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156` Ave. SEISE 1424 Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of the156'h Ave. SEISE 1424 Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulsen argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat in response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points_ Conclusions of Law 1. Authori . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoning_IC2inprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Si cant Adverse Environmental lrx_pacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. ,See WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts_ In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). B. Adequate Environmental Review PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA" Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn_ App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn_ App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e_g., Boehm v City of Vancouver, III Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App_ 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows. The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA o#'ial asked for additional information in the farm of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App_ at 23-24. WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must -make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulsen in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. PRELEVHNARY PLAT - 22 I The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non - 2 Significance -Mitigated, alt. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "[c]omment periods for the project and proposed DNS M are integrated into a single comment period." The 3 second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in 4 writing.... by S: 00 pm on March 24, 2014.... P7 comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments._. " 5 Mr. Paulsen asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment 6 period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the 7 hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the 8 above application", not the MDNS. Further, the fust page of the Notice also notes that "[1 here will 9 be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Detcy7nination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-*." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on 10 commenting on the MDNS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. I I The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a 12 new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for 13 standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to 14 issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulsen does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because be was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public 15 bearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulsen submitted numerous comments on the 16 MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 20I4. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 17 5_ Intersection Miti ag tion. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulsen 18 asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately 19 assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access points to the proposed preliminary plat It is concluded that the SEPA review was 20 adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse 21 environmental impacts. 22 On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon 23 ffiinformation reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been 24 applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with 25 site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The 26 environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23 1 legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site 2 and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. 3 1n this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing 4 impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intcrsections, 5 even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's 6 engineering department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues 7 that were assessed by City engineering staff. 8 All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. 9 It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal 10 will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only wake a "prima 11 facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to 12 establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of 13 course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it 14 could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the 15 MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulsen 16 presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit 17 further environmental review. 18 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse 19 environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts_ This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the 20 determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an 21 engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signaliaation of the I56h Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection will not interfere with the access 22 points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no evidence to the contrary. 23 PRELEMNARY PLAT 24 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 25 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 26 RMC 4-7-084(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: PRELiT 41NARY PLAT - 24 1 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3 3, Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 4 because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 5 4, Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 6 supplies and sanitary wastes. 7 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 1(2) of the staff report is adopted by 8 reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this 9 decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is 10 adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public 11 facilities as required by RMC 4-8-080(B). 12 RMC 4-7-0$00(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 13 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 14 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined 15 in Finding 1(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 16 RIC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 17 or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 18 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public 19 road 20 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 21 City. 22 10. The City's adopted street pians are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would 23 be to an extension of SE 8'h Street, which is accommodated by a stub road Consequently, the 24 criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 25 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way orfor easements to the City for trail 26 PRELDA NARY PLAT - 25 I 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 2 trail. 3 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 4 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to he unsuitable for subdivision includes 5 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such 6 as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 7 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 8 a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is g subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 8616 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 14 such subdivision. 11 b. Steep Slopes: A plat short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a 12 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- OSOJI a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 13 approved. 14 15 3, Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 16 Clearing Regulations. 17 4. Streams: 18 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, 19 and wetland areas. 24 b. Method. • If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which 21 indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed 22 c. Culverling: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going 23 under streets. 24 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris 25 and pollutants. 26 PRELBONARY PLAT - 26 1 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not 2 contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of 3 Fact No. 5. 4 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi - 5 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 6 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The 7 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. 9 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing 10 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department_ Prior to approving a street 11 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section_ The roadway classifications shall be as 12 defined and designated by the Department 13 14. As shown in Stag' Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the 14 only road connection possible for the project. 15 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 16 15, As conditioned. 17 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 18 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 19 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. 20 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 21 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-064 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be 22 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety 23 measures. 24 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. . 25 RMC 4-7-150(E): 26 PRELINIINARY PLAT - 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implemenlation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD Mand Policies CD -50 and CD -60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a '.flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site-- i. ite:i. Infeasible due to topographicallenvironmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allowfuture connectivity. S. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is notfeasible... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger streetpattern is physically possible. 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met.. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights -0f --way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the PlanningBuilding/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 19. As proposed. PRELUVIINVARY PLAT - 28 1 2 3' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 �1 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required_ RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines_ 21. As depicted in Staff' Report Ex_ 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. RMC 4-7=170(0): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-1 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (M) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirtyfive feet (359.. 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied- RMC atisfied RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15). 25. As conditioned. PRELUATNARY PLAT - 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8 j into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development_ 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit-fu11-•4idth roadway and required slopes. -T%e-drainage :system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacityfor future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No_ 4_ The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(0: The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. PRELIM NARY PLAT - 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 i 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer andlor land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 130. As conditioned. 1 RMC 4-7-210: I A. MDNM� ENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURYEY.- All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15`). PRELDAWARY PLAT - 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each Iot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees_ Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. T'he cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as casements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner, .The applicant shall be responsible _only for -conduit to serve hisdevzlopment-Conduit- ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 8_ City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156h Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(6) if this is not already proposed 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014- 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A)_ PRELIIVIINARY PLAT - 32 1 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to 2 recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences - 3 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the 4 trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement 5 should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the 6 stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the 7 Final Plat. 8 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 9 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review 10 and approval by the City's Platy Reviewer. 11 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat 12 - map -shall be submitted -to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording -of the 13 final plat. 14 18- Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. i5 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. if the grading is to take place during the 16 wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow 17 for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 18 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities 19 for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be 20 submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELMNARY PLAT - 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 13th day of August, 2014. 7 . City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen.. _(14),... day .__ appeal.. period shall. commence.... upon.. ..the- ._issuance.._. of.- the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7'h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELM NARY PLAT - 34 July 30, 2014 City of Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 City of Renton Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY O� r EN-CjPJ jUL 3 0 21014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(9) Dear -Mr. Examiner, Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18, 2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LL:A14-000241). Roger was a Party of Record prior to the close of the hearing, he participated in the hearing, and we jointly submitted written comments to the Heating Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date, and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in light of the following. 1. Streets: We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified, and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately, we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17, and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affirmative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is trade for services, including streets. Despite raising this issue in out earlier testimony, nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 admowledged in your findings or decision. Further, RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as your record shows, NO provision is actually being trade as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact Following are facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 15th Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL intersection currently operates at a failing level -- LOS level "F" b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed -intersection. c) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection d) The City acknowledges that it Jnay need to impose left turn restrictions on the access road from the proposed development e) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed pkat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion_ g) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of traffic signal at the 156`b Ave. SE / SE 142°a PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level "C". h) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's adverse impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. i) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9"' on their Traffic Signal Priority List j) The City's 201¢2019 6 -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years k) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has dearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection., absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement- The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, or your approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by out State Legislature in RCW 58.17.110. Relief ExQuested We respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affttmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development -related traffic will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic_ In 5inccrel-N-, ��ulscn 66175E 5" Place Menton, WA 98059 'rte �l ��� �i Paulsen 130A fi r ludv Al Paulsen 31 Manama Pines I nne rlazama, \VA 98833 0 CITY CE RENTON JUL 24 ?014 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ) 10 Preliminary Plat ) FINAL DECISION 11 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal 12 LUA14-000241 } 13 14 SUMMARY 15 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family 16 residential lots on the east side of 156`h Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143`d Street. An 17 appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The 18 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied 19 The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City 20 Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic 21 congestion.. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. 22 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's 23 transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the state's Growth 24 Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) 25 limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for 26 the tragic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELIMINARY PLAT -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required- Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation., the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. TESTIMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to hum and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincem Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with Tra$Ex His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project.. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the 3cope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be ;objected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked Tra$Ex to look at the two 3ite access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 2 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is a stop -controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak -hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project TraffBx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour_ After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffBx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. The Southside access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected_ In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the projecf will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pati peak hour. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peals hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration.. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Gegha said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems likely others would have as well_ Additionally, Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELDVf1NARY PLAT - 3 2 4 5 6 7 1 10 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 because he understood the process The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city suet as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21). Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold r impacts is not gh based on her experience. In some places she has worked, tfie threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd interswtion, the city has studied the traffic in this area_ The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the Likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close by. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of `sbould," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or ptn study would be required.. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 2 4 5 6 7 Z] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 after the close of the comment period The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record_ The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects- The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met_ The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis- The applicant used a three percent growth -factor in its analysis. Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review hearing. Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. Appellant Response Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the :exclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice states that there will be no comment period aft the DNS issuance. LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony .Till Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgfL Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via anew looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul -de, -sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage: These stractures wilfbe destroyed There are no critical areas on the sate. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the cast property line. The 14 -day notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31 st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th_ The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required 35 trees will be retained and the rest will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A_ Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only loft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot Staff recommends the 10ft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 1 l conditions of approval. In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are policy, not code_ Applicant Testimony PRELD41NARY PLAT - 6 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions warrant a signal. Public Testimony Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel -shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. cy. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards as too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed_ He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. Roger Paulson testified that his aocess to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). Ke entered the city's 6 -year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal.. The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 1561h Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. PRELI AINARY PLAT - 7 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the acoess street The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7$ north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately I I9ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the 1-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4 -lanes at 41$ There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The picture changes are slow and never meet the threshold ,for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development 12 In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance 13 system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes.. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have 14 responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear 1 S what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project Trees are 16 part of the character of Renton and its development To Iose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from 17 accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the Iandscapmg around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for 18 newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, the tree retention plan, the landscaping 19 plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are 20 required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route I 1 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact 21 on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. 22 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, 23 there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 24 impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is also 25 a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light She estimated that over 2000 26 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELLMO NARY PLAT - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection- There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Baraboo should be taken from the plan_ Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 1Oft. In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available- With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 25 attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. Applicant Rebuttal Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th The applicant believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at there on a citywide, basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. W. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code- He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response PRELUviINARY PLAT - 9 4 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination, With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section_ Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a -h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments Exhibit 8 Paulson Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulson second request for reconsideration Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulson's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map Exhibit 16 6126114 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6127/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6127114 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 711114 email to Jill Ding from Roger. Paulson FINDMGS OF FACT Procedural: licant PNW Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearin . A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 PRELRVIINARY PLAT -10 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to reply The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits S, 13 and 14. 3. Project Description The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139`' Place and SE 143`d Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance {"MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156`h Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property Iine. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract, The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and grotuidwater ..".The site -is currently occupied by a -single fauiiIy resiaenbe; ii detacfie i -&—age, arid _- associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services_ The project xNU be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City_ Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection_ Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELBUNARY PLAT - I i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 an on-site storm detention/water quality pond Iocated in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of canal plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition_ The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project.- Appropriate -individual -lot -flow control BMPs will be required to help -mitigate the new runoff created by this development The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application.. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required D_ Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets_ Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area fmd the stmets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" traffic mfiwtructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be Iegally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers Only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELI N41NARY PLAT -12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A ("GMA" ). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that "...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b){the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"Y.In-furtherance -of-this-Tequirernmrt; _most- cities --and counties- adopt- LO S for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection $turn an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph- Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion.. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single -occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELIMWARY PLAT -13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. X1-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time_ It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of -Cit) -planning or funding-dir-etives-te- lower severe -congestion in a -particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes "_._the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element.._ " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELD41NARY PLAT -14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards' to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex- 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156' Ave. SEISE 142'" Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions, is very limited because state law requires that mitigation funds be expended -within five years -of-receipt---.See--RCW -82:02:-020--This- means -that if the -remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer - In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex- 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156t` Ave. SEISE 1424 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. 1 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board ffighymy C aci Manual to calculate IAS. PRELMINARY PLAT - 15 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion_ Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Park . Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately A6 mile from the project site at 156`h Avenue SE & SE 5f Place. The proposed project includes the - - -- installation --of -frontage--improvements--along-- the-- i 5,6' - Avenue - SE-4antage, -including._ sidewalks. incl g. -- sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156"' Avenue SE north of the project site along the mad shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right -of --way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south studeats would be required to cross 156`' Avenue SE at SE 5`b Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156` Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing-, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District_ The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single flmily development so compatibility of use is not an issue. PRELRvD ARY PLAT -16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4--130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required.to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2 -inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City ofRenton's Tree Retention requirements. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the . proposal on Marcia 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014, Ex- 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, theCity required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156` Ave. SEISE 142_ Street intersection. Mr. Paulson then wedtie subject SEPA- appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel56`s Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulson argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Conclusions of Law 1. Authori . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. ZoninjComprehensive Plan Desienations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has PRELIAAWARY PLAT - 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below- A- Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Im�sacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11- 330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). B. Adequate Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA" Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, I56 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wm App. 59, 73 (1973)_ In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, i I 1 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review, The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. PRELEV"ARY PLAT -18 t 4 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that " fc]omment periods for the project and proposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing --by 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in w--iting by the trate indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments... " Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[t]here will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Signicance Mitigated (DNS-*." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulson does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulson submitted numerous comments on The MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 5. Intersection Miti tion As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulson asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELMUNNARY PLAT -19 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable siccant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it adequately reviewed traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering 4martment The--addvisory notes--to--th,MDNS-..Fx--IA--identify-cix UrprP ---.- assessed by City engineering staff. All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal_ It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared afler issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The tragic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the I56tb Ave. SE/SE 1424 Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6_ Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: I- Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code_ 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4_ Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes_ 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. RMC 4-7-080(l)(1): ...The Heating Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes �fthe Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... S. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full_ RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be zpproved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road �r street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. As shown in Staff Report Em 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the amity. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record._ However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8"' Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 11. There is nothing in the record .to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated trail_ RMC 4-7-130(0: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall he prepared in conformance with the following provisions_ L Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such -as--lands _ adversely_--affe_cte,"Y_ flooding- steep slope --o-r_ rock_ formations).—Land--which ..-_the__. Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. F76oding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050JI a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention_ Shall comply with AMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. PREM41NARY PLAT - 22 JO x .- 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 b_ Method_ If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimLe the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 44-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. 9 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi - 10 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 11 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the _.__ .adv-rse--- .effects___of...de-ielopment._-cpon. _the._..existing_ pazk.._and_. recreation. service___Lv.els_The.____ 12 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation 13 Resolution. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 113. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Oficial shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(5): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing orproposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum_ 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PRELEWNARY PLAT - 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. . I RMC 4-7-150(E): 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this .Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation EIement Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T -I6 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -ill and Policies CD -50 and CD -60. a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographicaUenvironmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allowfuture connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern exceptfor properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alleys) is not feasible... 6_ Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are PRELIlVIINARY PLAT - 24 46 1' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the FlanningBuilding/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 19. As proposed RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-17(1(A}: luso ar as practical, side Iot Iines shall -be ai right ang es to street Ines or ra is to curved street lines_ 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80010) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35). 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex_ 3, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-1700"0: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offrfteen feet (15). 25. As conditioned RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets_ Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King Gounty-l-eakh-Department, sanitary sewers shall -be provided -by -the developer--at-no— cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (89 into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural waterflow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6 030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. ne drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity far the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensue compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above_ RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offtre hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordancewith City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. PRELDAINARY PLAT - 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strap shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees_ Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department_ 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner_ The subdivider shalt be responsible -only for co—nduit-to serve his d -eve opmen .onduit ends shat'-be--elbowed-ro final ground elevation and capped. The cable TVcompany shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards_ B. SURVEY.- All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards_ C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned.. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 im 1 DECISION The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15). 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material_ Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped_ The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. S. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156h Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Stag' shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. PRELITAWARY PLAT - 28 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 J 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(G) if this is not already proposed. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014, 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 14. An casement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat reap shall he submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring montbx a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 J 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(G) if this is not already proposed. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014, 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 14. An casement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat reap shall he submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring montbx a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 18th day of July, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be .filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration,. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 30 M CITY OF RENTON S r P 0 8 2014 ,mnnH*CAR RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CommuAi`ky Alliothce -to Reach. Du` &'Ehgage P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 246.888.7152 highland s_neighbors@hotmai1.corn Renton City Council City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 September 8, 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat - LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Council Members, I am attaching a copy of the comments we submitted during the Hearing for the subject project's Hearing for your easy reference. In general, we support Roger Paulson's appeal statement. He has done an outstanding job of capturing the traffic impacts that our entire community will endure from approval of this project as currently proposed. It is very painful to have to write these comments. Ultimately, there is little new to say that you haven't heard from our community for a decade. The PAA again will suffer for lack of planning for infrastructure and cohesive planning and design. We will continue to suffer from least -common -denominator syndrome. Enclave is merely one of several new developments in this corridor. More and more traffic will flow in this undersized and inadequate arterial of regional significance as an officially recognized 1405 Bypass Route. The developments in this corridor aren't even being required to dedicate the width of ROW to meet the Road standards for the for the class of arterial that is designated for 1 56t1 Ave SE, so there will never be sufficient space to retrofit the road to carry the actual impact_ Renton's Transportation Concurrency Program, as applied in project makes it clear that, effectively, there is no mitigation for traffic impacts for subdivisions in the City of Renton_ The only projects that would ever trigger mitigation under this program must 1) generate tens of thousands of trips during the afternoon peek commute, and 2) create gridlock throughout the entire city limits. That is not a plan. But since Renton has an unchallenged Transportation Concurrency Program, there is no mechanism under which a SEPA appeal may be successfully brought. It's a particularly pernicious Catch-22 that guarantees that projects must be approved regardless of actual unmitigated lived conditions that communities are inflicted with. The community was briefly heartened that, after much public input, Renton Staff determined that the nearest (and most problematic) intersection of 156th Ave SE and SE 142,d PI was inadequate and placed the intersection in the #9 priority position on the Traffic Signal Priority List. But then we Noticed that the Traffic Signal Priority List itself indicates that historically, only one intersection is improved every 2 years. Thus, we have no hope for improvements to address the impacts of this project (or the several others in the pipeline) for 18 years_ Having staff propose, and the Hearing Examiner approve proportionate monetary contribution to this intersection improvement under the listing on the Traffic Signal Priority List is meaningless, given that developer mitigation funding must be returned after 6 years if the funds are not used for the mitigation purposes within 6 years. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-400241 Once more, our community begs your careful consideration of the impacts you impose upon us. Despite years of calm and careful participation in official processes, despite uncounted requests for adequate planning and infrastructure investment to adequately provide for the inevitable development and new neighbors joining our community, here we are again. At the end of the last building cycle in 2008, we begged, pled and urged that adequate planning be implemented during the interim period in the usual boom and bust of the development business cycle. I am personally devastated that my 5 year volunteer commitment on the Planning Commission failed to achieve much more than a requirement of minimal palette of exterior paint colors. Now we have developments of every color of mud! But the actual functional impacts that negatively affect the shared experience of the many thousands of our neighbors continues unabated. What a literal shame that there appears to be nothing that can or will be done. Please consider our pleas! Please return the Enclave project to staff with instructions to reconfigure the plat to minimize the traffic impacts in the 1561" Ave SE corridor. Thank you, Gwendolyn Gwendolyn High CARE President CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 • JOIA • • .1* m�� nn i i CAR Comm"y AlkoiKce +a Reack bvi & UAgage P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examine City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 June 24, 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat - LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Olbrechts, This copy of my notes is provided for easy reference in the record. We offer a few attached exhibits as well to which I will refer in my remarks. Thank you, Gwendolyn High CARE President Gwendolyn High will represent CARE in this matter. She is co-founder and President of CARE and has led CARE's previous participation in these comparable Land Use Actions in the community: Evendell Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L01P0016 and L01TY401) Liberty Grove Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L03P00061L03TY403) Liberty Grove Contiguous Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L03P000511-03TY401) Nichols Place Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L03P0015) Highlands Park Preliminary Plat (Renton LUA -05-124, PP, ECF) Threadgill Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L05P0026) Heritage Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Cavalla (KC DDES file No. L06P0001 and Renton LUA08-097) Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (KC DDES fife No. L04P0034 and Renton LUA08-093) Heritage (KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Saddlebrook (Renton LUA12-077) CARE has represented the needs and concerns of the East Plateau residents since 2001, as a group of concerned and likeminded neighbors. We incorporated and were recognized as a 501c4 nonprofit in 2003. We have an email list of over 400 households. CARE households own properties and reside in the community surrounding the proposed project. There is considerable potential for this community and the environment to be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is permitted without adequate conditions to mitigate increased traffic, light and stormwater. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 CARE's participation in this matter is in the public interest. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible land use decisions in this community consistent with state and local laws and regulations. We bring historical experience and familiarity with the existing conditions of our community as well as the detailed understanding of the potential negative impacts that must be adequately mitigated. Our intent is to facilitate the appropriately thorough consideration of the facts that bear on this proposal. This document is not a formal legal argument, but documents the concerns of the community and our requests for adequate mitigations to properly accommodate the impacts from the construction and eventual occupation of the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision (Enclave). GENERAL ERRORS: Staffs Report to the Hearing Examiner page 3: "E. 1-b. Sewer. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. " Contradicted on p.12 of same report. "E.1.c. Surface/Storm Water: There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 156th Avenue SE to the north of the project. " Pipe is to the south of the project and an open ditch is to the north. TRANSPORTATION: TraffEx TIA page 3: "15e Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. " This is a true statement, but it is insufficient to fully describe the situation. SE 142nd PL is not straight at this location and has terrible sight distance. When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 156`h Ave SE, any vehicle waiting to turn either right or left from SE 142 PL onto 156:h AVE SE will not be able to see_ This will be particularly dangerous when vehicles is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project. The driver will be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of the stop sign and the southbound car, and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street. In a scenario with a southbound vehicle turning left into the project, the driver will be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation_ If the tractor trailer truck that lives at parcel# 5336700015 is parked where is usually is — the driver will see that truck and very little else_ Please see the accompanying Sig htLinelllustration.pdf. TraffEx TIA page 4: "A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. " There is no citation to support these assumptions, we therefore ask that the following questions be answered and considered in evaluating the reliability of these unsupported assertions. • Where did this data come from and by what standard is it justified? • How have the pipeline projects being built and occupied now been accounted in the analysis?? • How have past and proposed cuts in transit service accounted in the analysis? • How have the effects of the improving economy, and the resulting increase in people commuting to work accounted in the analysis? 41 Did TraffEx regularly measure the traffic rates over "the last several years" in order to be have this data available for this TIA? ROAD STANDARDS: Report to Hearing Examiner page 10 under Streets section: 'As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. " TraffEx TIA page 4 and on to 5: CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-004249 "The south site access is located approximately 250ff north of the 15e Ave. SENSE 142nd Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. " The southbound stop sign and crosswalk for this intersection is located about at the center point of parcel# 5336700015 which is approximately 70 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Figure 2 of the TIA shows that the stormwater tract is proposed to be 95.24 feet wide and Lot 19 is proposed to be 94.59 feet. This yields a measure of 189.86 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site as the proposed location for the south access to 156th Ave SE. 189.86-70 yields a measure of 119.86 feet which fails to meet the intersection distance standard of 125 feet. Please see the accompanying 156thAveSElntersectionLocation. pdf. Therefore, we request that the street access as proposed be rejected. The original Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit _B_ -_Traffic_ Impact_Analysis.pdf) states (bottom of page 2) that 156th Ave. SE is a "minor arterial". Based on the traffic volumes Renton reported as a result of the citizen recommendation to investigate the need for signalization earlier this year (and which Roger Paulsen graphed) the road segment including this intersection should be classified as at least a minor arterial (12K Average Daily Trips). The table in the code indicates a need for 4 lanes and 91' of pavement to properly accommodate such such levels of use. If the project is permitted as proposed, there is no indication that sufficient right of way will be required to accommodate the eventually required upgrades - particularly considering this is officially designated as a bypass corridor in need of arterial improvements in the attached WADOT 1405 Corridor Plan (1405M asterPIan_052808. pdf). Report to Hearing Examiner Page 9 under Streets: `The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. " Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Public Services: No comment recorded from Fire Department re: cul-de-sac. There is no evidence in the Exhibits made available to the public that the cul-de-sac meets the specified standards. Therefore, we request that the street plan as proposed be rejected. Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Schools: 'Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately. 06 mile from the project site at 15e Avenue SE & SE 5t6 Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156t1i Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 1561h Avenue SE north of the project along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide safe walking conditions (exhibit 25).. . Continuing on Page 11: The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 15e Avenue SE at SE 5ta Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus. New sidewalk from this project will only extend less than halfway to SE 5'h PL. The crosswalk sign is obscured by vegetation. Kids will walk along this arterial, in the dark and rain, in the shoulder ROW, and cross before the bus arrives in order to be there waiting when the bus arrives. Without a lighting plan the public has no way to evaluate what lighting improvements will be made. There should be some improvements to the crosswalk, such as the flashing lights in the pavement on the nearby Duvall Ave SE which is also and arterial on the same 1405 Corridor bypass route, to ensure students' safety under normal conditions during most of the school year. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: Carlos e-mail.pdf From: Nancy Thompson <Nthompson@rentonwa.gov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast To: "cmbayne@gmaii.com" <cmbayne@gmail.com> Cc. Chris Barnes <CBarnes@rentonwa.gov7, Ron Mar <Rmar(�rentonwa.gov> CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic volumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. From the MEMORANDUM of 4/18/2014 from Neil Watts (PRR-14-085-Memo.doc): "Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. " 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program page 5-25 (TIP sheet.pdf): (hjistorically, on average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed every 2 years. It is our understanding that funds from the developer for the project's impact must be used for that purpose within 6 years or returned to the developer. Since the available evidence indicates the signalization cannot be expected within that time limitation, we must expect the mitigation funds to be forfeit and an even longer wait than the 18 years as a result of this loss of funds. This project should not be approved until a plan for the required intersection improvements are programmed — planned and funded. From 4/15/14 email from Steve Lee responding to Roger's Records Request (Public Records Request —1_Reply.pdf): "The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, 'Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1- 405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SEto access Cemetery Road. " These statements contradict everything we have ever heard since 2001. We have been assured by WA DOT, King County, and the City of Renton that there is no option to provide additional north -south access to the East Plateau from the Cedar River Valley. Additionally, while widening of 1405 might add capacity, we are not aware of any even preliminary plans for such activity. If such work has been done, please provide copies. If it does not exist, then this is irrelevant speculation and of no use in evaluation the impacts of this project or the appropriate mitigations/improvements for this corridor. What is not speculation is all the other development activity in the area. • The Enclave project at the 3 Way stop, Hearing on Tuesday, will add 31 houses. • Alpine Estates (Alpine Nursery) is in pre -app for 29 lots (which requires two access/exit roads. it lies between 160th Ave SE and 161 st Ave SE). • The 4.5 acres on the west side of 156th at SE 6th (SE 139th Place) is in annexation (the plan is for 14 lots with a through street between 154th Ave SE to 156th Ave SE.) They tried to include the 5 acres on the west side of 154th in their annexation also, but could not get the required 60% signatures. • The Burnstead Co. is putting 14 homes, Maplewood Park East, on the parcel at 6101 NE 2ND ST (SE 132nd and 152nd Ave S). • The parcel at Nile (148th Ave SE) and NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd) is slated for 7 lots. • There is also an 8 lot parcel in pre -app on the east side of 160th Ave SE at SE 140" St. • There is 2 lot short plat at 156th Ave SE and SE136th St. • There are 46 homes planned for the Copperwood project which is slightly southwest of Maplewood Heights Elementary. The listed address for the project is 5001 SE 2nd PI. The project sign is on SE 2nd PI just west of where it intersects 144th Ave SE • And there are 4 plats being actively developed at 210 Duvall Ave SE CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 31 +29+14+14+7+8+2+46+4=155 The Highway manual standard is to calculate 9.9 vehicle trips per day per house so: 155 x 9.9 = 1534.5 new trips per day. Most will travel some portion of the 156th Ave SE corridor, but each project will be considered independently. The cumulative impact will continue to accrue, and the infrastructure deficit will remain for decades. Virtually all of this traffic will traverse the corridor from the intersection of 154th Ave SE & SE142 PI (the first intersection at the top of the hill — Tom Carpenter has more detailed information, and there is an email from a neighbor at the end of this document) through the 1561h Ave SE and SE 142nd Pl all the way through the intersection of 1561h Ave SE and SE 128th St. The proposed new connections to SE 156th Ave SE from this project are at the heart of this vital regional corridor. The travelshed is already over -burdened. We are in the midst of a new development surge. This quality of life in this community and safety of thousands of daily commuters in this corridor new, and it is the City of Renton's responsibility to provide infrastructure to meet the needs of the development it permits. STORMWATERIDRAINAGE: Report to Hearing Examiner page 11 under Public Services at the bottom of the page: "The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of the maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. " Despite the garbled sentence structure, it seems clear the intent is for the HOA to be responsible for maintenance of the pond and stormwater system. It was our understanding that the code had changed and Renton was taking ownership of all new subdivision stormwater facilities now. ERC Report page 5: 'According to the TIR (Exhibit 9)the upstream areas are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible." Even though this community is on a plateau and not in any flood plane, there are historical drainage complaints everywhere (Drainage Complaints). Even this project site itself has experienced flooding due to a plugged culvert as recently as 1997. The site is directly north of the major groundwater induced landslide in 2006 that blew out the side of the cliff above the Cedar River and filled several houses with mud and debris. The vast majority of development on this plateau occurred in the 1960s, well before the first King County Drainage Manual (the basis of Renton's stormwater regulations) were adopted in 1964. It will take many more decades to slowly address the systemic lack conveyance and water quality. The system that exists is poorly maintained and chronically undersized. Our homes exist is a state of fragile equilibrium. Every new development pushes the system CARE has the longest and most consistent participation in land use applications and project implementation in this area. In every single project we have participated in (see list above) we have won Level III drainage mitigations. Nonetheless, these measures have consistently proved insufficient. We have had to participate repeatedly when these mitigations have failed and neighbors downstream of those projects have suffered serious damages to their homes and properties (list drainage complaints and list properties affected by the different projects). Due to our highly compacted Alderwood soils, surface flows are intense to begin with. Since the major wave of development in the 1960s, existing homeowners have implemented site-specific mitigations to deal with this situation, but every time a new project is cleared, new measures have to be installed. Level III drainage mitigations should be required here, too. LANDSCAPINGITREE RETENTION: Report to Hearing Examiner page 6: Proposal to plant Heavenly Bamboo, which is an invasive species with berries poisonous to native birds and should not be used in a plat landscaping plan, http:ilwww.oregonIive.comlhills borolindex.ssfl2013112/heavenly bamboo the red_ berrie_html (Heavenly bamboo .htm) CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 RCP Policy CD -17 (page 7 of Report to Hearing Examiner) "Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. " But on page 8 of the Report to Hearing Examiner, staff say that installation of the required 15 foot landscaping buffer around the storm drainage pond could not be done because it would cause the loss of at least one lot, even though the project is proposed at 4.45 lots per acre when it is zoned at R-4. In the next paragraph, staff removes the specific requirement of trees in the on-site landscape strips along all frontages. Not only is there no justification for this, and it violates RCP Policy CD -15. In repeated surveys of our community, the trees are the consistently reported as the defining characteristic of our community. We are already losing over 300 significant trees in this project. We ask that this exemption be disapproved for this project. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: To the condition requiring a tree protection easement under section J.5, please add a requirement for prominent and permanent signage announcing the protection of the trees in order to prevent accidental homeowner or HOA removal. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 MISSING DATA: This Hearing is the last opportunity for the public to participate and to ensure that adequate administratively and legally enforceable mitigations are required of and implemented with this project. Staff has allowed several documents essential for the surrounding impacted community to evaluate the effects of the proposed project to be prepared and submitted after this Hearing is concluded. This makes it impossible for meaningful community input on the following: 1. Report to Hearing Examiner page 8: City of Renton Arborists report promised 2. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Landscaping Plan 3. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Retention Plan 4. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Protection Easement 5. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Street lighting plan 6. Report to Hearing Examiner page 13: HOA maintenance agreement If items 1-4 are not required until application for construction permits, the trees will have already have been removed during the development/site preparation phase of the project and the issues becomes moot. The trees in our community have been consistently and enthusiastically identified in every single one of the land use actions CARE has participated in since 2001. Without item 5, the public cannot evaluate the adequacy of the protections for school children walking to the bus stop on 156th Ave SE or the potential impact to the privacy and enjoyment of their properties. Community members on SE 4'h Place had a months' long challenge of emails and meetings with the City and Puget Sound Energy when new lighting meeting the new standards was installed just 2 streets away. The new lighting was a huge disruption, and we need to ensure the new development does not make sleep at night impossible. A statement from an affected neighbor is included at the end of this document. Renton has a responsibility under RCP Policy CD -15 to ensure that this project is "reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architechtural stypes, and/or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation," etc. We understand that new development will be more dense and the housing styles will be different. Further, we appreciate to beginnings of plans for the tree easements. However, we have repeatedly heard lovely aspirational allusions to responsive development during past preliminary plat Hearings, only to see radically different realities built in our neighborhoods. Cavalla was supposed to save and replant giant specimen rhodies and japanese maples. That didn't happen. There was supposed to be no road in the 162nd Ave SE ROW, but the bulldozers plowed right through — stream and all. The only things we have a hope of actually seeing must be conditions by reference in the Hearing Examiner's report for this project. Given the intense concern about and established history of drainage issues resulting from development projects in the area, the community needs the opportunity to review the "maintenance and responsibility" for the "stormwater facilities" that the HOA will voluntarily take on to ensure adequate measures are in place to prevent off-site damage. We cannot do that without item 6. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:47:46 -0700 Subject: Re: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda From: <deleted> To: highlands—neighbors@hotmail.com You can also add that nobody goes the speed limit up/down our hill. Ever. Well, unless it's crawling that is. - One neighbor requested "a light" outside of their home (date unknown and I believe the request was directly to PSE) - Nobody, including the requester, was notified before PSE installed 4 extra large cobra head led street lights (large roadway type) on our tiny cul-de-sac (7 houses deep) on 7117113 - Residents had light pollution/trespass everywhere; in backyards, bedrooms, etc. - City was notified with a list of the issues they caused on 7122113 - Didn't hear back from the city on the initial email: sent until 7126113 (after emailing them again) - Petition emailed (with pics) on 7130/13 with one signature missing due to him being gone on vacation - Completed petition hand delivered 815/13 along with a chat with Mr. Barnes at City Hall - The issues weren't resolved until 9117113 Summary.- For ummary.For two months, the residents on SE 4th Place had to deal with overly bright LED lights that were completely inappropriate to the neighborhood. This disrupted people's sleep, made yard use unpleasant and in some cases was a safety hazard (blinded while backing out of garages)_ Neighborhoods should have a choice/say in the types of lighting used and a study of existing neighborhood houses should be considered. Lighting should also be appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood with minimal light pollution to disrupt the natural world. Marsha Rollinger From: <deleted> To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:08:14 -0700 Gwendolyn: I live at <deleted> 152 PL SE and regularly come up from the Maple Valley Highway to access my home. That involves a left turn at 154th Ave SE and SE 142 PL. It is a challenging enough intersection with limited sight visibility, no left turn lane, and long waits during commute hours. Under existing conditions, the traffic can back up already from the 3 way stop. Frustrated drivers finally decide to go for the left after long waits for breaks in traffic. Unfortunately, I've seen too many oncoming cars slam on their brakes because the left turner didn't really have a big enough break to pass through easily. The Enclave development will increase congestion at our left turn and make more drivers make a left turn into a too - small traffic opening. As the development increases in the East Highlands around Maplewood Heights Elementary, we are seeing an increasing number of people who are making that left turn to access their homes. The increased traffic from the Enclave and its odd street layout will complicate the 3 way stop traffic, increase the number of cars, and back that traffic problem back to our already dicey left turn. 1 realize that the Enclave development will go through even though I question the wisdom of having its two streets funnel out so close to the 3 -way stop. Seems like it is almost making it into a 5 -way intersection. But I doubt the County has the appetite to force the builder to change his site plan. For us left turners, a left turn lane would provide some welcome mitigation and straightening out the curve - even just a little - would give more visibility and help safety tremendously. Not sure you can do anything with this but thanks for trying. Kathy Johnson CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - L11A14-000241 From: <deleted> To: highlands neighbors@hotmail.com Subject! RE: CARE Update: 1000+ new trips, Wild Babies, and Meeting Monday Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:3925 -0700 Gwendolyn, The 111 bus line which goes out to Lake Kathleen is scheduled to be truncated in September to not go east of 156th but rather to leave Maplewood and go directly up 156th St. This would only happen during the morning and afternoon commute hours as there is no service other times_ That will be another major disruptive factor to the 156th st corridor. In addition to the bus traffic along 156th, there will be the bus commuters who will drive and try to park along the bus route to connect to the new stops. This will impact the residents along this path plus adding the congestion. An example of this type of "staging" for the bus line is in Kennydale where the entire area is parked up along the 111 route as it heads to the Park and Ride. It adds a lot of congestion at the worst time of the day for it. Not to mention making a number of us no longer have a commuter bus to downtown on weekdays. It also will affect the kids at Liberty who need the bus to get to the Running Start program at Bellevue College whereby they take college classes for both high school and college credits during their high school years. One of my points was that with the bus stopping all along 156th..... traffic would be disrupted greatly at the worst time of day at a point where many trips are being added. The parking mess is true all along the Kennydale section of the 111 with people driving to park at bus stops instead of the P&R. John Nanney <deleted> Alyssa Nanney <deleted> CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-040241 Van Ness Feldman LLP CITY OF .R E,NTON SEP 0 8 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OL:FIC:E September 8, 2014 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY AND EMAIL City Council City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104-1728 206-623-9372 vnf.com Re: Applicant's Response to Paulsen Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Dated July 18, 2014 Regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (File No. LUA-14-000241) Honorable Councilmembers: I submit this letter on behalf of PNW Holdings, LLC, the Applicant for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge ("Enclave" or the "Project"), a 3l -lot single family residential subdivision. I urge you to deny the Paulsen Appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of this Project. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Your staff conducted a thorough review of this Project. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) determined that the Project would have no significant environmental impacts and issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated (DNS -M). Exhibit 2, Attachment 17.1 The City staff recommended approval of the plat subject to several conditions. Ex. 2, p. 13. Mr. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration of the DNS -M. Ex. 2, Attachment 29. The ERC, upon reconsideration, reissued the DNS -M, adding one additional condition requiring the Applicant to contribute its fair share to a future traffic signal at the intersection of 156 Ave. SEISE 142n Place. Ex. 2, Attachment 30. Mr. Paulsen appealed the reissued DNS -M to the Hearing Examiner. Ex. 11. The Hearing Examiner, after a full public hearing, and after giving Mr. Paulsen the opportunity to provide additional written testimony, denied the Paulsen SEPA Appeal and approved the Project. Hearing Examiner Final Decision, July 18, 2014. On July 30, 2014 Mr. Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration. On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner reaffirmed his decision to deny the Paulsen SEPA Appeal and to approve the Project. I References to "Exhibits" or "Ex" refer to one of the Exhibits listed on page 13 pf the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration dated August 13, 2014 (the "Decision"). Exhibit 2, the Staff Report, contains several attachments labeled as "Exhibits" in the Staff Report, but referred to as "Attachments" in the Decision and in this letter. 56812-4 Renton City Council - 2 - September 8, 2014 On August 27, 2014 Paulsen appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council (the "Paulsen Appeal"). For the reasons set forth below, we ask the City Council to deny the Paulsen Appeal and to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision in this matter. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PAULSEN APPEAL The Paulsen Appeal should be denied and the I fearing Examiner's decision, approving the Project with conditions, should be affirmed for the following reasons: 1. The Project fully complies with all adopted City standards for subdivision approval set forth in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-7. These standards include: • RMC. 4-7-080.13.4. The Project, as approved, includes "adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, [and] other public ways ... " • RMC 4-7-120.A, The Project, as approved, includes a new street "connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway," • RMC 4-7-120,13. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "conform to ... adopted plans for streets in the City." • RMC 4-7-150.A. The Project, as approved contains streets that "extend and create connections between existing streets ..." • RMC 4-7-150.0. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials [have been] held to a minimum." • RMC 4-7-150.D. The Project, as approved, contains an alignment of all streets that have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. • IUMC 4-7-150.E. The Project, as approved, includes linkages, including streets and sidewalks within and between neighborhoods. • RMC 4-7-150.F. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "All abutting rights-of-way and new rights -of' -way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Public Works Administrator." See Decision, pages 25-30. 2. The Project has been conditioned to meet all city street standards including, but not limited to, the following: Renton City Council - 3 - September 8, 2014 The new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53 -foot wide right-of-way, with 26 feet of'pavement, curb, gutter, an 8 -foot planter strip and a 5 -foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. The Project's access onto 156't' Ave. SE is 250 feet north of the 156`" Ave. SEISE 142"d Place intersection. Ex. 12, page 4. If, in future, there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156"' Ave, SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156`' Ave. SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8 -foot planter strip and a 5 -foot roadway, per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. • Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road, LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. See Exhibit 2, page 10. The Project fully complies with the City's Level of Service (LOS) Standards, as adopted in the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and as codified in RMC 4-6-070. Decision, page 16; Ex, 2, Attachment 26. The City's adapted LOS standard is based on a city-wide time of travel model, See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Policy T- 13, pages XI -15 through XI -17. The City does not regulate intersection LOS. Decision, page 17. 4. The intersection of 156`h Ave. SF./SE 142"d Place, which is the focus of the Paulsen Appeal. currently operates at an intersection LOS F. Ex. 12, p. 6. Until a traffic signal is installed, the intersection will continue to operate at LOS F, with or without the Project. Id. While a LOS F indicates a congested intersection, no City standards preclude approval of a subdivision that adds trips to a LOS F intersection. Decision, page 17. The Project adds only 9 trips to the 1,375 trips passing through the intersection at 156`h Ave. SEISE 142n`' Place. Ex. 12, page 4. This 0.65% increase in trips is well below the 5% volume increase that even triggers an analysis of intersection traffic impacts under the City's Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, Ex. 2. Attachment 29, ex. C. "These 9 Project related trips will have no perceptible impact. causing less than 4 seconds of additional delay_ Ex. 12, Page 6. 6. Although the intersection Level of Service at 156" Ave. SEISE 142nd Place is LOS F, this intersection is not a high accident location. Since 2009 there has only been one accident amm Renton Citv Council - 4 - September 8, 2014 at this intersection, Ex. 2, Attachment 30. There is no evidence of any hazardous condition from this Project adding 9 trips to this intersection. 7. To mitigate its traffic impacts, the Project will pay the City a Traffic Impact Fee at the time of building permit application. The current traffic impact fee is $1,430.72 per new lot. Ex. 2, Attachment 18. 8. Additionally, the Project will contribute its "proportionate share" to the cost of a future traffic signal at the 156`h Ave. SEISE 142,d Place intersection. Ex. 30. 9. Federal and state constitutional limitations preclude any City from imposing conditions on a development when there is no nexus or reasonable relationship between impacts from the development and the proposed condition and where the proposed condition is not roughly proportional to impacts caused by the development.2 I Iere, where the 156`" Ave. SEISE 142"d Place intersection is already at LOS F, where the project will only add 9 trips to an intersection with 1,375 trips, and where the Project causes no impacts to safety, the City cannot require the Project to install a traffic signal at this intersection. The Hearing Examiner properly conditioned the Project to pay its proportionate share of the cost of a traffic signal at this intersection. 10. The public interest is served by this subdivision. The Project will provide additional housing in full compliance with the designation of the property as Residential Low Density (RI_D) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the zoning of the property as R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre). The Project is consistent with the policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted to promote the public interest (See RMC 4-1-060.5.c). Although the Paulsen Appeal seeks Project denial because an express "public interest" finding was not made by the Hearing Examiner per RCW 58-17,110(2)(h), this finding is clearly inferred by the Project's full compliance with the City's detailed procedures for subdivision, set forth in RMC 4-7-080, which were expressly established "to comply with the provisions of'chapter 58.17 RCW.' Nonetheless, we ask the City Council, based upon the existing record, to supplement the Hearing Examiner's findings and add a specific finding that the Project as designed and conditioned serves the public use and interest. APPLICANT'S DETAILED RESPONSE TO PAULSEN APPEAL The Paulsen Appeal 16cuses on concerns about the operation of the intersection at 156`' Ave. SEISE 142"" Place. While these concerns may be heart -felt, the Paulsen Appeal must be denied because the Project fully complies with all applicable City requirements and because the arguments raised by Paulsen are without merit, both factually and legally. The Pro'ect Complies with Renton's Subdivision Code and as a result satisfies State Subdivision Requirements in Chapter 58.17 RCW 2.5ee Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994), Nollan v. California Coustal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed,2d 677 (1987); Benchmark Lund Company v. Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999) Burton v. (WAC.'nunn,, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). :c,e 1=-4 Renton City Council - 5 - September 8, 2014 One of the fundamental misunderstandings in the Paulsen Appeal is the relationship between the state subdivision statute, Chapter 58.17 RCW, and Renton's subdivision code. Paulsen seeks denial of the Project because of an alleged failure to demonstrate compliance with specific provisions in RCW 58.17.110. Renton, however, has adopted its own provisions for the review of subdivisions in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-7. These code provisions were adopted specifically to comply with the state subdivision statute: E. State Enabling Legislation As It Applies to This Chapter I his Chapter is in conformance with chapter 58.17 RC_'W regulating platting, subdivision, adjusting lot lines, and the dedication of'land .... RMC 4-7-010,E. Compliance with state subdivision law is also restated in the opening paragraph of RMC 4-7-080: A. 1'111 -pose: The procedures regulating subdivisions, including segregations 0f len (10) or more lots, are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots, avoiding placing undue burdens on the subdivider and to comply with provisions of chapter 58.17. The Applicant for Enclave followed each of the applicable provisions of the City's subdivision regulations in RMC Chapter 4-7, The Staff, in considering this application, reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with each of the applicable provisions of city code. See Ex. 2. Likewise, when the Hearing Examiner reviewed the Project, he applied the criteria adopted by the City Council for the review of subdivisions. See Decision, page 24-31. The Paulsen Appeal appears to be challenging the adequacy of the City Code, not the adequacy of the Enclave subdivision in complying with City Code. Paulsens' challenge is misplaced and untimely. Moreover, the specific sections of state law cited by Paulsen have been incorporated into City Code, applied to the Project, and appropriate findings and conclusions made, demonstrating that the Project meets these provisions. The Paulsen Appeal cites RCW 58.17.1 10(2) as one statutory subsection that has allegedly been forgotten by the City. However, Paulsen fails to recognize that Renton's adopted code includes these substantive requirements. RCW 58.17.110(2) reads: (2)A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safely, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including ;A1'4 Renton City Council - 6 - September 8, 2014 sidewalks and other planningfeatures that assure safe walking conditionsfor students who only walk to and from school: and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the plaiting of such subdivision and dedication. The Renton subdivision code at RMC 4-7-010 B states 7'he purpose of this Chapter is to provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City, and fir administrative procedures for adjustments of lot lines in the City, ensuring that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of'the City shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land .shall be ensured: that proper provisions for all public facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that the site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions setforth in the City "Zoning Code and Comprehensive flan shall be insured. Additionally, the Renton subdivision code at RMC 4-7-08.8 reads: A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. Z. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: have suitable phvsscol characteristics. A proposed plat may he denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as o condition of approval; and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. W. Drainage: Make adequate provision.for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. By reviewing the Project under these subdivision code provisions, and finding that the Fnclave plat satisfied each of these requirements, the Hearing Examiner confirmed that the requirements of state subdivision law have been met. The Project Fully Complies with Renton's Adopted Level of Service Standard which is based on City -Wide time of travel not Intersection Con estion Paulsen misunderstands the City's adopted Level of Service Standard and its relationship to the review and approval of this plat. The Growth Management Act (GMA) at RC W 36.70A.070(6) mandates that all cities required to plan must adopt a Comprehensive Plan that includes a 'Transportation Element. The Transportation Element must identify Levels of Service Standards that the City will apply to all locally owned arterials to judge performance of the City's transportation system. RC'W 36.70A.070(6)(a)(111)(B). After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. cities must adopt and 5n81d-a Renton City Council - 7 - September S. 2014 enforce ordinances that prohibit development approval if the development causes the Level of Service to decline below the Level of Service Standard adopted in the Transportation Element of the comprehensive plan, unless improvements are planned or financially guaranteed to meet those Level of Service standards. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). In establishing Level of Service standards within the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element, cities must address their transportation facilities and service needs, identify specific actions for bringing their facilities into compliance with adopted level of service standards and assess their financial needs to accomplish that objective and identify a financing planning strategy. In full compliance with GMA, Renton adopted its Comprehensive Plan, including the mandated "Transportation Element. With regard to a Level of Service Standard, the City decided not to adopt an intersection -based standard. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan established a Level of Service policy that emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. It is based on travel time standards. (An excerpt of this section of the Comprehensive Plan is attached to this letter as Appendix A). The Level of Service Standard adopted in the Comprehensive Plan rejected the typical intersection Level of Service approach that the Paulsen Appeal suggests should have be applied. Instead, the adopted Level of Standard is based on travel time and is measured by a traffic model implemented by City staff. .See Appendix A. Under the City's adopted Level of Service Standard, every development that creates additional demand on the City's transportation facilities must be reviewed under the City's Traffic Model to determine if the City's transportation system has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and maintain the travel time objectives established by that Standard. RMC 4-6-070. In this case, the Project applied for and was found to pass the City's adopted Traffic Concurrency Level of Service standards. Ex, 2, Attachment 26. Renton does not have an intersection Level of Service standard. There is no provision in the City's subdivision standards or in any other regulation that prohibits a subdivision or any other development from generating trips that flowthrough an intersection that has an intersection LOS 1. While the Paulsen appeal may bemoan this fact, the Bearing Examiner properly applied the adopted Level of Service Standard and all other applicable subdivision standards and correctly approved the Enclave subdivision because it satisfied these adopted standards. The Enclave Project meets all of the applicable provisions in RMC 4-7, which establish the minimum street standards for plats. 'These include: + RMC 4-7-080.B.4_ The Project, as approved, includes "adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, [and] other public ways. . . RMC 4-7-120.A. The Project, as approved, includes a new street "connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway." • RMC 4-7-120.13. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "conform to .. . adopted plans for streets in the City." ;69 1'-a Renton City Council - 8 - September 8, 2014 • RMC 4-7-150.A. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "extend and create connections between existing streets • RMC 4-7-150.0. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials [ have been held to a minimum," • RMC 4-7-150.D. The Project, as approved, contains an alignment of all streets that have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. • RMC 4-7-150.E. The Project, as approved, includes linkages, including streets and sidewalks within and between neighborhoods. • RMC 4-7-150.F. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "All abutting rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their lull width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Public Works Administrator." See Decision, pages 25-30. The Enclave Project has been conditioned to address specific code compliance including the following: The new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53 -foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8 -foot planter strip and a 5-1`6ot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking, • As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 beet. The Project's access onto 156`h Ave. SE is 250 feet north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. If in future there are significant concerns re arding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156" Ave. SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. • To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156`h Ave. SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8 -foot planter strip and a 5 -foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required, It is shown on the plans. • Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. See Exhibit 2, page 10. Renton City Council - 9 - September 8, 2014 The Unrefuted Traffic Analyses Prepared for the Pro'ect Confirmed that the Enclave Plat Will Have Minimal Impacts. City staff has adopted a document entitled "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development" that it applies during SEPA review to assess the significance of traffic impacts from development. 'These Policy Guidelines ask developers to review project impacts on all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of a proposed development. Ex. 2, Attachment 29, ex. C. With regard to the Enclave Project, the Applicant retained an expert traffic engineering firm, TraftEX, to evaluate project impacts. TraffEX found that no roadways or intersections would experience a 5% peak hour traffic increase caused by the Project, Ex. 2, Attachment 10. Thus, under the Policy Guidelines, no intersection review was necessary. Nonetheless, the Applicant voluntarily provided traffic analyses to demonstrate that the Project would have minimal impacts. "1TraffLX produced three- separate Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports. The first "TIA (Ex. 2, Attachment 10) demonstrated that the Project would not change the Level of Service at any intersection. At the intersection of 156`}' Ave_ SEISE 142nd Place, the TIA found that the intersection currently operates at an intersection LOS F and will continue to operate at an intersection LOS P in the future with or without the project. The TIA further demonstrated that the Project would add only 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through that intersection. Because this is only 0.65% of the total trips, substantially less that the Policy Guidelines' 5% threshold. Traff6x concluded that the Project would have no significant impact. For southbound traffic (the worst travel movement), vehicles are expected to experience 133.2 seconds of delay without the Project and 137.1 seconds with the Project, a nearly imperceptible 3,9 second change. The first TIA also verified that the Project's roadway intersection was 250 feet from the 156`h Ave. SE/SE 142" d Place intersection, in full compliance with the City's minimum 125 feet separation standard. In response to questions, TraffEx produced an Addendum to the TIA in April 2014. Ex. 1, Attachment D. The Addendum added an AM Peak Hour evaluation and a queuing, analysis. In the AM condition, the intersection of 156`" Ave. SEISE 142" d Place was found to operate at LOS F with or without the Project, with the Project adding only 1.1 seconds of delay. At the intersection of SF 5`}' Pl/156i" Ave. SE, the next intersection to the north of the Project, the calculated level of service with or without the Project was LOS C. In April 2014, based on Mr. Paulsen's requested reconsideration of the City's DNS -M, the City evaluated whether the 156`x' Ave. SF./SF: 142nd Place intersection met traffic signal warrants. Based on that assessment, the City reissued the DNS -M, imposing on the Project an additional condition to pay a "fair share" contribution toward a future traffic signal, based upon the relative number of trips from, the Project to this intersection. Ex. 2, Attachment 30. In response to this condition. Traf1FX produced a Second Addenda to its TIA evaluating the effect of a traffic signal. Ex. 4. TraffEX found that the signal, when installed, would improve the intersection level of service from F to B in both the AM and PM peak hours and would significantly reduce the southbound queue on SE 156`'' Street. No adverse impacts from the traffic signal were identified. ,bs 1'-a Renton Citv Council - 10- September 8, 2014 The three TIA's were subject to review by the City's Engineering Department who voiced no objections to their methodology or conclusions. Decision, page 19. Neither Mr. Paulsen nor any member of the public provided any engineering analyses or other traffic studies to address the adequacy of roads, traffic impacts or compliance with City road standards. Id. As such, the conclusions from the Applicant's traffic studies were properly taken, as verified, and supported the determination that the Project met the City's adopted street standards. Id. These traffic studies confirmed that the Project will have a minimal impact on traffic operations and that the Project has been designed for compliance with adopted City traffic standards. There is simply no basis for Paulsen to claim that the Project fails to meet adopted City standards. The Hearin Examiner's Findings of Fact Support the Conclusion that there are Adequate Provisions for Streets to Serve the Project Paulsen's' argument that the Findings of Fact do not support the finding of adequate streets is ludicrous. Finding of Fact 4 expressly found that "the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services ...", Decision, page 14. Concerning streets, subsection E in Finding of Fact 4 presents four pages of detailed explanation on the adequacy of streets based on the City's adopted code provisions. Decision, pages 16-19. Ofparticular note are the Hearing Examiner's findings with regard to the City's city-wide Level of' Service Standard. Id. The I Learing Fxaminer went to considerable length to address Renton's unique Level of Service standards and how these standards are applied in reviewing proposed developments in Renton. He specifically contrasts IZenton's city-wide Level of Service standards with those in other jurisdictions that may allow for a localized assessment of Level of Service at specific intersections. "[T]he [Renton] City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion." Id., page 17. The Examiner also notes that City staff conducted an analysis and concluded that the proposal meets the City's adopted Level of Service standard. Because no one disputed this determination, the Examiner found no evidence to contradict it. Id. page 19. Because the Project meets the City's Level of Service standard, the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the Project. The Hearing Examiner's Findings Demonstrate that the Public Interest is Serviced by Approval of the Enclave Plat The Paulsen Appeal suggests that the Hearing Examiner's decision must be reversed because the decision is missing reference to RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) and a specific finding that the public interest would be served by the Project. This argument is without merit and should be rejected by the City Council. As noted earlier, the City's subdivision code was adopted by the City Council to comply with the state subdivision law Chapter 58.17 RCW. The l fearing Examiner found the Enclave Project to be in full compliance with the provisions of the City's subdivision code. As such, the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW have been met. M116 Renton Citv Council - 11 - September $, 201 4 Moreover, the Ilearing Examiner's Decision demonstrates that the public interest is served by approval ol'thc plat. The Examiner (bund that the Project is in compliance with the zoning code (Finding I(2) of the staff report was adopted by reference (.see Decision, page 25)), in conformance with the general purposes and adopted standards ol'the Comprehensive Plan (Finding I(1) of the staff report was adopted by reference (Id.)), and in compliance with the specific provisions of the City's subdivision regulations. Id. pages 25-31. To suggest that the City Council must reverse the I -fearing Examiner's decision because the specific words "in the public interest" are missing from the decision is absurd. Nonetheless. we request that the City Council, based upon the record, supplement the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and include the following additional Finding of Fact: The public use and interest will he served by the platting of (his subdivision. The subdivision will provide housing opportunities to the City consistent with the Project site's designation q Residential Lotiv Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land l 'se Map and the proper( _v's underlying R-4 (Residential 4 swelling units per acre) zoning designation. Moreover, the Project is consistent with the policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, which were adopted in part, to promote the public interest (.See RMC 4-1-060.5.c). The Project is compatible with existing surrounding uses, which are also single-family residences and designated R-4 on the City's zoning maps and King County maps. The Hearing Examiner Decision is ]Based on the Factual Record and Applicable Law, Not Opinion. The City Council can easily reject the argument in the Paulsen Appeal that claims the Hearing Examiner's Decision is based on opinion not fact. The Hearing Examiner went to great length to summarize all of the testimony and voluminous exhibits that support his decision. His decision presents multiple Findings of Fact and incorporates many of the Findings of Fact identified in the staff report. The Hearing Examiner should be commended for trying to explain to Mr. Paulsen, in response to Mr. Paulson's Request for Reconsideration of the Ifearing Fxarniner's initial decision, the background behind the City Council's choice in adopting a city-wide Level of Service standard and the legal limitations established thereby. While much of this discussion may have been unnecessary, it was obviously presented to help Mr. Paulsen understand the policy choice made by the City Council in its adopted Level of Service standard and the consequences of that decision. Unfortunately, Mr. Paulsen confuses the Hearing Examiner's helpful attempt at explanation as being pure opinion. That was clearly not the Hearing Examiner's intent. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner was careful to fully support his Decision with strong factual findings based upon a detailed factual record. Renton City Council - 12 - September 8, 2014 The Heariniz Examiner Correctly Noted that Constitutional Limitations Preclude the Ci from Conditioning the Project on Installation of the Traffic Si nal The Paulsen Appeal questions the Hearing Examiner's legal response to Paulsen's suggestion that the City require the Enclave Project to pay for the entire traffic signal, rather than only its "proportionate share." The I learing Examiner got this right — Paulsen does not. Rulings by the United States Supreme Court and the Washington Courts make it clear that cities are legally constrained in imposing conditions on a development where such conditions result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. When government imposes an exaction on a land development, the government must show an "essential nexus" between a "legitimate state interest," and the condition imposed.,Vollan v. Califbrniu Coastal Cumm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L,Ed.2d 677 (1987). Further, to satisfy the Fifth Amendment, the government must establish that its proposed condition is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public problem. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391, 114 S,Ct, 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994). See also Benchmark Land Company v. Battle Ground, 94 Wn, App. 537 (1999) (City failed to establish essential nexus between its requiring developer to make half -street improvement and alleged traffic problems); Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998) (City failed to demonstrate rough proportionality between problems created by short plat and the required road improvements). In addition to these cases, two state laws constrain a city's imposition of mitigation conditions. First, under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), mitigation measures can only be imposed to mitigate specific adverse impacts and those mitigation conditions must be reasonable." RCW 43.21c.060. The reasonableness of mitigation conditions has also been addressed by the legislature in RCW 82.02.020, which prohibits cities from imposing any condition on a plat that is not "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development." The Washington courts have ruled that the same nexus and rough proportionality requirements under federal constitutional case law apply to mitigation measures under RCW 82.02.020. City of'Federal u'ay v. Town & Counay Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17 (2011). The Hearing Examiner correctly noted in his response to Paulsen's reconsideration request, that the City was constrained by this body of law to impose only a "fair share" contribution by the Enclave development for a future traffic signal. The Hearing Examiner also correctly noted that precluding development until a signal was installed could amount to an illegal moratorium. Tlie Examiner correctly cites to Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal takings law does apply when a government action deprives an owner of'all economically valuable use and that a moratorium lasting more than one year could be adjudged an unconstitutional taking of property, Based on this legal precedent, the Hearing Examiner properly observed that denial of the Enclave plat until a traffic signal is installed is not only unsupportable by the facts, but could subject the City to the serious consequences of a takings lawsuit. This statement shows no bias, as suggested by Mr. Paulsen, but rather the Hearing Examiner's proper understanding of the lain, mom Renton City Council - 13 - September S, 201 4 The Hearing Examiner's decision, which approves the plat and affirms a fair share contribution by the Project to a traffic signal, is supported by the record and all applicable law. CONCLUSION The Enclave Project meets all of the City's subdivision requirements and fully complies with the City's adopted level of Service Standard. The City staff thoroughly reviewed this application and recommended its approval_ The Environmental Review Committee found no significant environmental impacts and imposed conditions to mitigate impacts reasonably related to the Project. The Hearing Examiner carefully considered all testimony and the voluminous record and produced a thorough Decision supported by detailed Findings of Fact. For the reasons presented above, the Paulsen Appeal should be denied and the Hearing Examiner's Decision affirmed. Very truly yours, VAN NESS F ELDMAN LLP } i 1 -C �Z� Brent Carson BC:jes Enclosures cc: Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk Client Appellant SBH 12,-4 APPENDIX A Amended 09/19/11 APPENDIX A Excerpt from Renton Comprehensive Plan and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability. Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined using letter designations -- A, B, C, D, E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the 1-105 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision -makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. Renton's LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non - motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally -linked, locally -oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level -of -Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit elements of the LOS standard are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non -motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi- modal goals of Renton and the region. Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections, and it provides a multi -modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi -modal travel. The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following: XI -1.5 Amended 09/19/11 • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and HOV travel times for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intra -Renton travel time to regional system, and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (index) using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system, including State-owned facilities; and • Selecting a plan that maintains the established LOS standard. Other elements of the LOS implementation process include: • Monitoring the area to re -validate transportation plans; • Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; and • Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). Level Of Service Standard A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30 - minute travel distance for SOV, HOV, and Transit as follows; 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30 -minutes from the City in all directions 2 times Transit LOS SOV HOV (includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* * Rounded As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle (SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle (HOV - carpool, vanpool) could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes, It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive, The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002) is then weighted by doubling it (to 6.8 miles) to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger -carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard, presented in Renton's Comprehensive Pian adopted in 1995, was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-2010) transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and examining the raw data, the 2002 LOS index was found to be 42. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: i) reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints (e.g. passage of Initiative 695); ii} limited implementation of k_16 Amended 09/19/11 Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990 — 2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30 -minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. With the 2002 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30 -minutes from the City in all directions 2 times Transit LOS SOV HOV (includes access time) Standard 15* miles 17* miles 10* miles 42 * Rounded This standard will require that the travel time of SOV (15) + HOV (17) + 2 T (10) or the sum of these three modes (42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years. The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub -Elements that are designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development. To test against the LOS standard, the 2022 planned Arterial, HOV, and Transit improvements identified later in this Transportation Element are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traffic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV, HOV, and Transit* modes along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments of known distance) including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42. *Other factors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access time. Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton's LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995. LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) (i.e. 1-5, 1-405, SR 167) have been adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). For urban areas the adopted LOS standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways (non - HSS) in the Central Puget Sound region (i.e. SR -900, SR -169, SR -515) were adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 30, 2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges from LOS E/mitigated (pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E) to the traditional LOS D. (Further information on LOS standards for HSS and non -HSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton's modeling estimates of Renton's projected growth, and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities. These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton's city-wide travel -time based LOS standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Renton's Transportation Element has identified XI -17 Amended 09/19/11 SOV, HOV, and transit -oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway system, Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi -modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi -modal concept, Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7. The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system, (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annua! Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit Plan and HOV improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of Service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2022. XI -18 Sandi Weir From: Julia Medzegian Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:28 PM To: Sandi Weir Subject: FW: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Attachments: 154th -156th Arterial Corridor 2014--08-31 RCC Written.pdf, ATT00001.htm From: Marcie Palmer Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:26 PM To: Julia Medzegian Subject: Fwd: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Tom <TDCarp@comcast.net> Date: September 6, 2014 at 9:08:43 AM PDT To: <mpalmer@rentonwa.gov> Subject: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Marcie, I'm not sure whether the Planning and Development Committee or the Transportation/Aviation Committee will get the appeal. The good news is your on both so you get be the contact. I'm a party of record, and the attached adds no new data to the official record, other than describing my support regarding the Appellant's submittal. I'd appreciate it if you'd make sure this got into the official channel for the appeal. Thanks Tom Carpenter 1 5 September 2014 Renton City Council re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Ruling and Reconsideration regarding the Enclave at Bridal Ridge development preliminary plat LUA14-000241 The Renton Hearing Examiner ruling on the Enclave at Bridal Ridge preliminary plat was appealed for reconsideration. The reconsideration decision is being appealed to the Renton City Council. I'm a Party of Record for the Enclave at Bridal Ridge development preliminary plat Hearing Examiner decisions and rulings. This letter summarizes my original submittals. These are the unmodified items submitted originally to the Hearing Examiner's first preliminary plat meeting that were accepted as part of the official record, Date Type Description 24 -Feb -14 Letter Tom Carpenter to Renton Hearing Examiner; The proposed Enclave development along 156th Ave SE 18 -Dec -13 Letter Jennifer Henning (Renton) to Josh Peters (King County); Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 10 -Dec -12 Resolution City of Renton, Washington Resolution No. 4165; Request to King County for an Interlocal Agreement regarding Renton Potential Annexation Areas. Flyer WA State Department of Transportation Interstate 405 Corridor Program Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects 22 -May -14 Letter Chip Vincent (Renton) to Roger Paulsen; Enclave at Bridal Ridge Preliminary Plat/LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Map King County (Failing) Travel Shed 12 with Transportation Needs 23 -Jun -14 Map Transportation Road Corridors 18 -May -14 Map 154th PI 5E/156th Ave SE Arterial 3 -Jun -14 Map 154th PI/156th Ave Corridor Arterial The submittals focused on: • The holistic corridor context (i.e. crossing jurisdictional boundaries) of Enclave development, and • The intent of the City of Renton's relationship with King County for Transportation Concurrency and joint planning relevant to the Enclave development area. The Holistic Corridor Context • The Enclave development is within feet of unincorporated King County, and is adjacent to an arterial that crosses in and out of King County and Renton jurisdictions multiple times over it 1.8 mile length. • The corridor's entire length is within, or immediately adjacent to, Renton or one of its PAAs. • The corridor is part of the Interstate 405 Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, and is an alternate route for 1405 from SR167 to the Factoria interchange. • All the unincorporated urban area, and the neighboring rural King County areas are in an area failing King County Transportation Concurrency_ Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139"' Place, Renton, WA 98059 • The three-way intersection in question for the appeal, 1) intersects two Renton road segments and one King County road segment, 2) is within the Renton jurisdiction, 3) is functioning, in at least one direction, at Level of Service 7", and 4) is immediately adjacent to an unincorporated area failing King County Transportation Concurrency. • King County Transportation Needs Report identifies issues along the corridor, and on roads the arterial corridor connects to on the East Renton Plateau. • The Enclave development would not have been issued a Transportation Certificate if the property were still in King County. • Renton does not appear to have any policies or codes that are based on recognition of the holistic arterial corridor context. Renton's Intent for Joint Planning and Transportation Concurrency • Through Resolution and input to the King County Transportation Plan update, Renton has made its intentions clear regarding joint planning for PAAs, and for Transportation Concurrency coordination. • "Should consider areas within and outside its jurisdictional boundaries when applying the concurrency test" • "Requests that King County establish Level of Service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary" • "This will provide the ability to understand and evaluate the true impact and movement of vehicles on our road infrastructure. This will in turn give clear information on which impact fees and mitigation can be based." • Requests King County work with Renton staff to develop an interlocal agreement regarding Renton's PAAs. • Testimony and comments to the King County Hearing Examiner • Comprehensive planning and pre -zoning • Transportation, including concurrency, level of service, and high incident accident areas • Transfer Development Rights • Renton appears to have made no meaningful progress with King County on either the ILA or concurrency. stand in general support for the appellant I supp the appellant's stand on adequate mitigation for the 3 -way intersection. I suopori the appellant's stand on the question of Renton's ability to provide the mitigation within the 6 -years required by RCW. do not support any assumption that the appropriate mitigation for the 3 -way intersection is a stop light. That proposal was developed without the benefit of a holistic plan for the arterial corridor, and based only on the guidelines used by the Renton Transportation Utility department. Given the 1.8 mile arterial corridor is part of the 1405 Program, and functions as a significant traffic connector (the only north route off SR -167 between Cedar Grove Road and 1405), a holistic -based analysis could determine a stop light was not the appropriate mitigation. What's needed is a comprehensive plan (e.g. connector, safety, local access, multi -modal), with no firm mitigation decisions or further development permitting allowed until that plan is developed and approved. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, WA 98059 2 August 27, 2014 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 27th day of August, 2014, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Roger Paulsen of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (File No. LUA-14-000241). Jas# A. Seth, 46ng City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 27th day of August, 2014. CyMt� R. M%�'a � Notary Public i1� and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 Denis Law Mayor ri August 27, 2014 'City of v Y ff J City Clerk-Bonniel.Walton APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Paulsen & Jason Paulsen (POA for Judith Paulsen) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038 156` Ave SE (File No. LUA- 14-00024 1) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on Enclave at Bridle Ridge land use application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5.00 pm, Monday, September 8, 2014. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee ,Mll be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6504. Sincerely, Actinee g ity Clerk Enclosures cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 9 (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516* rentonwa.gov City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV Chapter 8 Section 110 — Appeal 4-8-110C4 Filing of Appeal and Fee. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-11OF: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) S. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070H1, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012) 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) C!TY yr REN TO n , APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL i�1 'G 2 6 2 01 OF HEARING EXAMI]\\TER'S DECMON/RECOMNIE'-NTDATION aEcr�vK;� C l CITY LERK' r i �� APPLICATION NAME C�I/C (011f Xr &af/140G�i! FILE NDL, I �- The undersigned interested party hereby files its ,Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated. `( ,�dN� , Z0/ I_ D]ENTIECATION OF PARTY NP I- ame-. 2 Addre s: Wa Phone NWber: Email: 4106 SFIJ 8 CS.60A4 mol Jrdvt irviorril Pa(lcw) Address: 31 )WYMW P 4)5 QJ - ^ 4 46 Phone Number. Email:s+7Jt%�%�%IU�i G'/�+ ,C,d/Zl �. SPECIHCATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based.- 3. ased: 3. SUMNCkRY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the €oUowing relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and rant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: A p eprese;otative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title N, Chapter S, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F. for specific appeal procedures_ Cil4ffft1�r►C�rlV � C Ci )'OF FN-! 1,J j n *t"4_91 Cep August 25, 2014 Valbee,, 0-ev AUi1 $ 6 2014 She. ", tep - �1 6 -arm -tit, C" RECcIVED City of Renton cJ 'n ALL- kVA X4%4_- er 0 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk Qh;`i! Olbrech_b, I-fel 1055 S. Grady Way Sri'nt t~ w D Renton, WA 98057 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Standing As the record shows, we have attempted to utilize each of the City's provided appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council, and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via SE 51r' Place adjacent to the proposed plat (See Exhibit A), we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at -large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and (b). The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of "appropriate provision" with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. Lastly, we find that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal Arguments In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D) to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit C), the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Level of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for "appropriate provision" (RCW 58.17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 16, Lines 8 -9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting "...Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18) The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that "Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project -specific traffic impacts, we disagree with his finding that Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact, the record shows clearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre -application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its clear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review (Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review (Exhibit F) after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that "The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A,B,C" system used in most other jurisdictions." We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads: "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact, the City's own policy governing site-specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(x) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 156th/ 142nd intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site-specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --- LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that "...it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5tr, PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PL. / 156t" Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit 1) d) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit J) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. (Exhibit B) f) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level "C". (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9th on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) i) The City's 2014-2019 6 -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11-13). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13th Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18: In this section, the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. B. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat, it would be in the position of "...compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development, as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of a project -specific application establishes a de -facto moratorium, nor that it entitles an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 Amendment. In fact, the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property -specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17) the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de -facto moratorium and runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counter to the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et aL v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et al.certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-1167. Argued January 7, 20o2 --Decided April 23, 2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development. The interest in informed decisionmaking counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim measures as takings regardless of the planners' good faith, the landowners' reasonable expectations, or the moratorium's actual impact on property values. The financial constraints of compensating properly owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether. " Further, a careful reading of Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'I Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the opposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. In further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate, please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aI.certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-1167. Argued January 7,2002 --Decided April 23, 2002 "For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use, we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings context to regulatory takings claims. Land -use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way --often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford." 5 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning, including project -specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argument under the Fifth Amendment. c. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner, explaining why the denial of this project is not an option, concludes "It is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact, we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCW 58.17 was adopted, and has been amended overtime, to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.110(1a&b) and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent of the state legislature, they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme, the Hearing Examiners basis for approving this subdivision would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. D. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section, the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE SE/ SE 142nd PI. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law, the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. R E. Page 4, Lines 25-26: In this section the Hearing Examiner states that "Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required by their growth plans, its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact, this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use planning of municipalities, shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.70A.020(12) which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Act: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Conclusion Given the record before you, and as supported by our arguments above, we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development -related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 SinceT:Ov, A 3 3lsCn 6017 S1"" 5th Place Renton, 1\x_1 98059 :-OnM Paulsen, P 1 for .Judith N1 Paulsen 31 INIazanla Pines Lane ?1lazarm, WA 98833 Exhibits from the Public record (included by reference): Exhibit A Neighborhood Detail N1ap from Paulsen Comment Letter (24 Jun 2014) Exhibit B Original final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Prelin-tinary Plat (18 Jul 201 1) ILxhibit C Request for Reconsideration of Hearing l'xamincr's Decision (30 Jul 2014) 13xhibit D Final Decision on Reconsideration (13 Aug 2014) Exhibit L Response to Request for Reconsideration of SEPA Determination (16 Apr 2014) Exhibit F Reviscd SLTA Determination (19 lIa} 2014) E.\hibit G Report to the Hearing Evaniiner (24 Jun 3010 Exhibit 1-1 Cir)- (if Renton 2014-3019 Si-z-Year'Fransportation Iniprovertlent 111-ograin Exhibit I Ti liffic linpact _lnal�?sis — 2"" Addendum (20 Jun 2014) Exhibit j Traffic ConcurrencN- 'fest for tic Enclave at Bridle Ridge (1 S :fpr 2014) Exhibit K Memo froin C. Baines to R. Mar (5 Mai- 2014) Exhibit I.. SEPA '11ireshold Detcrnunation (31 Nlar 2014) Exhibit A•1 City, of Renton Policy- {guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Eta David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 5th PI. 6512 SE 5th PI Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. Roger Paulsen Marsha Bollinger 6617 SE 5 PI. 6618 SE 4 thPI. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Gary & Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166th PI SE 6220 SE 2nd PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulsen Eloise Stachowiak 14004 156th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98833 Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Farrell Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th PI. M.A. Huntu 15451 SE 142nd PI. 6608 SE 5 PI. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 PHW Attorneys: Brent Karst: brc@vnf.com mol@vnf.com APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL l U G 2 6 OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOM IENDATION ' RECEIVE[) C CITY LERK-'S F Iy,E APPLICATION NA11fIE C 4/c cew /I r detafliece-7 FILE NOLr I! I r 1 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearin; Examiner,1 dated.1y. , 201Y . I. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APP Nance: Adds-' / SF ��. 3UfpAl�ti1/( UO3-1 Phone NW_ber-r:_ Vzf -- j0zf' 1.1 gf Email: 161X fw8 cs•can4 ?47d or.Nt XV101TY Af C/4 sa) Name: Address: _ 31 &MAN64:( ./+! AMIM4 0 u4/ IFE33 Phone Number: « f`r C(/CL Email: 2. SPECIFEATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and meant the following relief: ('C't lr Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: t•�6�1 I�il GCGS� ��II �G.Zrll� Ape4yliepresentative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11 of for specific appeal procedures. LL)J-rre�, 604 VJAC,Pr�Cep Ci TY O�- RE^J'i C, t,^#u P-r }{CAWA19 , een 11�;Lv e_ss,, Volbee G August 25, 2014 5,�e—Ixc c E�IJI 2 Zai �� � 8iti"ucl(, City of Renton 5-"vlAt, �1/Levw+�iC, t-V CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk ph-1 ptux 1055 S. Grady Way0 D Menton, WA 98057 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Standing As the record shows, we have attempted to utilize each of the City's prodded appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council, and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via SE 5th Place adjacent to the proposed plat (See Exhibit A), we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at -large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and (b). The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of "appropriate provision" with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. Lastly, we find that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal Argument In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D) to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit C), the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Level of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for "appropriate provision" (RCW 58.17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 16, Lines 8 -9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting "...Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18) The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that "Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project -specific traffic impacts, we disagree with his finding that Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact, the record shows clearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre -application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its clear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review (Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review (Exhibit F) after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that "The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A,B,C" system used in most other jurisdictions" We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads. "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact, the City's own policy governing site-specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(x) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 156th/ 142nd intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site-specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --- LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that "...it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PL. / 156th Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit 1) d) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit J) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. (Exhibit B) f) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level "C". (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9th on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) i) The City's 2014-2019 6 -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 55.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11-13). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13{" Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18: In this section, the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. B. Page 3, Lines 15-15: The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat, it would be in the position of "...compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development, as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of a project -specific application establishes a de -facto moratorium, nor that it entitles an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 Amendment. In fact, the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property -specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17) the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de -facto moratorium and runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counter to the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al, v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et al.certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-1167. Argued January 7,2002 --Decided April 23, 2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development. The interest in informed decisionmaking counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim measures as takings regardless of the planners' good faith, the landowners' reasonable expectations, or the moratorium's actual impact on property values. The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether. " Further, a careful reading of Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the opposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. In further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate, please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et al.certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-1167. Argued January 7, 2002 --Decided April 23, 2002 "For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use, we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings context to regulatory takings claims. Land -use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way --often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford." 5 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning, including project -specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argument under the Fifth Amendment. c. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner, explaining why the denial of this project is not an option, concludes "It is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact, we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCW 58.17 was adopted, and has been amended over time, to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.110(1a&b) and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent of the state legislature, they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme, the Hearing Examiner's basis for approving this subdivision would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. D. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section, the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 155 AVE SE/ SE 142nd PI. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law, the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. A Page 4, Lines 25 — 26: In this section the Hearing Examiner states that "Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required by their growth plans, its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact, this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use planning of municipalities, shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.70A.020(12) which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Act: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Conclusion Given the record before you, and as supported by our arguments above, we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development -related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 Sincclt��`, ash; iISCII "oil \I Paulsen, 11 A for Judith \I Paulsen 0617 til 5th Place 3'1 {1laiama Pines Lane Renton, WA 98050 itlaiama, WA 98833 Exhibits from the public record (included by reference): FNI11blt A NeIghborhood Detail flap from Paulsen (:omment better (24 Jun 3014) I.lshibit B Originat Final Decision for l-.nclave at Bridle Ridge 11rcliminan. Plat (18 [ul 2014) I�:xhibit (; Request for Rcconsicleratiorn of Hearijig Fxaminer's Decision (30 Jul 2014) 1?xhil�it 1Final Decision on Rcconsideratiort (13 Ayg 2014) F�,,hibit I : Response to Request for Recornsidcration ofSI;PA Determitnation (Iii .lpr 2014) I:\hibit I; Rcv1scd til :PA Dctctanination (19 May 2014) 1:sllibIt G Report to the Hearing 1?xamincr (24 jun 2014) l:shibit 1-1 Cit)- of Renton 2014-2019 51x-1'ear'1'rarisportatioil Improvcmenr Program I',.htbtt 1 Traffic Impact ,lnalti sis — ?"" ,ldcicncium (20 dun 2014) I:shibit j 'Traffic Concurrcnc�. Test for the Enclave at Bridle Ridgc (1 h .fpr 31)14) 1:tihibit K Memo from C. Barnes to R. Mar (5 Mai- 2014) Fshibit 1. SI :PA 'Threshold Derermination (31 Mar 3014) FX111bit I11 Cit`• of Renton Polic4' (Fuidclines for Traffic Impact Anal}-sis for New Uevelopmcnt 8 Im i 1 x rn un a. N w z Q i hY Gam. City Clerk's Office Distribution List + + Appeal to Council, Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA-14-000241 Date: 8/27/2014 *City Clerk's Letter & PCXR List only 1 City Attorney Larry Warren 1 City Council * Julia Medzegian 7 Community and Economic Development Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Mgr Jill Ding, Planner Steve Lee, Development Engineering Mgr Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division 1 Fire Marshall 1 Fire & Emergency Services Mark Peterson 9 Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties of Record (see attached list) 1 Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman 1 PW/Transportation Services Doug Jacobson 1 PW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby 1 LUA-14-000241 *City Clerk's Letter & PCXR List only Denis Law --- Ma or Oka C1Ji City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton August 14, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26t' St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Final Decision on Reconsideration for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000241 Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration dated August 13, 2014, in the above -referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me or Jill Ding, the Senior Planner at (425) 430-6598. Si erely, 1 V e0/t so A. sting City Clerk Enc.: HEX Final Decision on Reconsideration cc: Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Garman Newson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren, City Attorney Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Parties of Record (17) 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 - rentonwa.gov Easy Peel@ Labels i • Bend along line to � AVERY0 5160( Use Avery(' Template 516019 Feed Paper +"""" expose Pop -Up EdgeTM J 1 ti ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle 18225 SE 147th St. Renton, WA 98059 Gary & Janice Smith 14504166th PI SE Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert 14004156 1h Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell 15451 SE 142nd Pl. Renton, WA 98059 PHW Attorneys: Brent Karst: brc c vnf.com moi@vnf.com David Michalski 6525 SE 5th PI. Renton, Wa 98059 Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5" PI. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Nipert 900 Queen Anne Av N. Seattle, WA 98109 Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2"d PI. Renton, WA 98059 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln. Mazama, WA 98333 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 1391h PI. Renton, WA 98059 Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5" PI. Renton, WA 98059 Marsha Rollinger 6618 SE 4th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd. Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5" Pi. Renton, WA 98059 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th PI. Renton WA 98059 ttiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez h la hachure afin de www.avery.comSens d ; Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® chargement rdvrler le rebord Pop-UpTM 1 1 -800 -GQ -AVERY i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON } RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge } Preliminary Plat } Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal ) } LUA14-000241 ) FINAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single- family residential lots on the east side of 156x' Avenue SE between SE 139h Place and SE 1434 Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. This decision includes a response to a Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger and Judy Paulsen on July 30, 2014. Other than correcting some minor grammatical and typographical errors and adding some clarifications, the original July 18, 2014 remains the same except for the added section entitled "Reconsideration Response", which follows this "Summary" section. The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expended in five years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in five years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record do not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) of this decision. RECONSIDERATION REQUEST As previously noted, Roger and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014. The request is denied and this decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this "Reconsideration Request" section. Mr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideration. His concerns have already been addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only be evident to an experienced planner or land use attorney. The general public has every right to be fully apprised in as clear terms as possible why cities and counties are often stuck with approving new development in areas that suffer from traffic congestion. Mr. PauIsen's reconsideration request provides an opportunity to i provide further clarity on the issue. i Mr. Paulsen's first point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17.110(2) prohibits the approval of a subdivision unless a city or county makes a finding that "appropriate" provision is made for "...streets, roads, alleys, other public ways..." This finding was made in three places in the Enclave decision. Finding of pact No. 4 generally determines that the proposal is served by "adequate" infrastructure. The subsections of Finding of Fact No. 4 elaborate how this determination was made for specific types of infrastructure. Finding of Fact No. 4(E) elaborates how this finding was made for roads. Conclusion of Law No. 7 concludes that the proposal provides for adequate public facilities in response to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), which requires that subdivisions "[m]ake adequate provision for .... streets, alleys, other public ways..." PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 It could be argued that a finding of "adequate" public facilities is not the same as a finding of "appropriate' public facilities as required by RCW 58.17.110(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate such parsimonious word play. "Adequate" within the City's regulatory standards for subdivision review clearly encompasses the "appropriate" criterion of RCW 58.17.110(2). The intent of the City Council is paramount in interpreting the regulations adopted by it. It can be presumed that the City Council intends to have its regulations interpreted in a manner that is consistent with state law. The RMC only requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW 58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(I)(1). Consequently, to the extent possible, the subdivision criteria of the RMC should be interpreted as encompassing RCW 58.17.110 requirements in order to ensure that a subdivision that is required to be approved under the RMC is also valid under state law. It is fairly easy to apply this interpretation to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), since the language pertaining to roads in that provision is almost a direct quote from RCW 58.17.110(2). The City Council clearly intended RMC 4- 7-080(B)(4) to encompass the road findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2). Conclusion of Law No. 7 of the Enclave decision finds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met, so the required finding of RCW 58.17.110(2) has also been made'. The remaining part of Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection and the limitations of the mitigation recommended by City staff. The original Enclave decision expressly acknowledged these problems and explained that the preliminary plat application still had to be approved because the proposal met adopted City level of service standards. The decision noted that fiscal and legal constraints prevent the City from imposing any additional mitigation or deny the project on the basis of traffic congestion. Additional explanation will be provided in this section in response to Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request. In short, Mr. Paulsen wants a finding that the proposal will not be served by "appropriate" streets because the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection operates at LOS F. As shall be explained, this puts the City in the position of either having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably doesn't have or denying the subdivision request and compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is unlikely that the state legislature intended cities and counties to be put in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110. A far more reasonable approach and the approach that would likely be adopted by the courts is to construe a road as "appropriate" for purposes of RCW 58.17.100(2) if that road meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As partially discussed in the original final decision of this case, an adopted City LOS standard represents the road system that the City can afford to require. Requiring more than the adopted LOS likely exceeds the financial capabilities of the City, which cannot be ignored because the City is required to fill in the funding gaps that it cannot require to be filled by developers. In this case, the road system meets the City's LOS, which is why roads were determined to be adequate. The reason why the consequences of the interpretation advocated by Mr. Paulsen are so dire is because of the strict rulings of state and federal courts in the application of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, i.e. government cannot take property without just compensation. There are two ' The references to "adequate" in this decision will also be modified to include "appropriate" to remove any doubt on the issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 lI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 significant limitations imposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make `'growth pay for growth". The first limitation is proportionality. The courts consider it to be an unconstitutional takings if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant can only be made to pay for 10% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd Pl intersection. So with only a proportionate share contribution from the applicant to pay for the intersection, the City only has two options on how to proceed with the Enclave application if it cannot find the intersection "appropriate" at its current LOS, as advocated by Mr. Paulsen: (1) the City can pay for the remaining costs of the intersection improvements itself; or (2) it can deny the preliminary plat application. As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its long term transportation planning and simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid denying a preliminary plat application. Of course, such haphazard and random fiscal planning would likely not result in a very efficient expenditure of public funds. The LOS standards required to be adopted by the Growth Management Act ("GMA") were designed to avoid this randomized form of fiscal planning. The GMA requires cities to adopt an LOS and then put together a 6 year specific and 20 year general budget that identifies where the City will get the funds to finance the LOS it has adopted. By requiring cities and counties to pencil out the numbers for financing an LOS standard, the. GMA essentially places cities and counties in the position of only adopting LOS standards they can; afford. That is why an LOS standard serves as a realistic and effective standard for measuring whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a proposed subdivision. The second course of action, denial, implicates the second obstacle placed upon cities and counties by the takings clause. The US Supreme Court considers it to be an unconstitutional takings to impose development moratoria of unreasonable length. See Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or two will be difficult to justify. As noted in Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request, the City's funding priorities for the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection suggest that needed improvements won't be constructed for 18 years. Consequently, if the Enclave application is denied because of the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection, the City is essentially placing an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to that intersection. The applicant would be in a very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that IS year moratorium. In understanding the use of LOS to gage the adequacy of roads for subdivision review, there is on additional point that helps put the Renton LOS into the proper context. Although the Renton LOS standard is somewhat unique in that it doesn't adopt the more traditional "ABCDEF" system of review, the Renton system isn't at all unique in having an LOS system that designates some congested areas as adequate or appropriate. Cities such as Seattle that have the letter system adopt an LOS of F for portions of their transportation system. Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 segment above a failing level of service. So even if Renton had adopted a letter system for its LOS, Renton could still assign an LOS of F to the intersections in the Enclave area if it determined that its limited transportation funds were more effectively spent elsewhere in the city. Hopefully the explanation above provides some additional clarity as to why an adopted LOS standard is the best tool for assessing whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a development for purposes of subdivision review. Enforcing the type of standard contemplated by Mr. Paulsen would place the City in the impossible position of having to commit funds it doesn't have to upgrading all failing intersections for new development beyond the applicants' proportionate share, or paying the applicants millions of dollars in taking claims. The LOS standard is the culmination of some very difficult and detailed policy choices made by the City Council on where to spend limited public funds to improve its transportation system. It is the onlyx practical and reasonable way to address congestion in a manner that recognizes that there is a limit to how much money is available to address the problem. TESTIMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraffEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, '' One other potential option that hasn't been addressed due to space limitations is to reduce the density of the proposed subdivision. The R4 designation does not have a minimum density requirement. However, the GMA requires cities to accommodate assigned 20 year population projections and a city's zoning designations are designed to accommodate these numbers. Further, the GMA requires residential development within cities to occur at "urban" densities which at a minimum is usually four dwelling units per acre. Routinely requiring reduced densities to reduce traffic impacts would arguably violate these GMA principals. Further, in this case the intersection at issue is already operating at LOS I~ so that from the standpoint of "appropriate" roads it makes no substantial difference if the subdivision has a density of one unit per acre as opposed to four units per acre. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 2 4 10 lI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 attachment 12)_ The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection is a stop -controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak -hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. TraffEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. The south side access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft. which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulsen. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. Mr. Paulsen stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulsen was able to understand the process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise this issue because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21). Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour_ She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more Iong-term studies, PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 D 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close -by. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of ,.should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be required. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms_ Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour txips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review hearing. Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. Appellant Response PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Paulsen stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "if comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulsen's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14 -day notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only l Oft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the 10ft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are policy, not code. Applicant Testimony Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions warrant a signal. Public Testimony Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel -shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. Roger Paulsen testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a continent letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6 - year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. Kathy ForseIl stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I -Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the 1-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4 -lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks_ The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 1 Oft. In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. Applicant Rebuttal Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulsen. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a -h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments Exhibit 8 Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulsen Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulsen second request for reconsideration Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulsen's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map Exhibit 16 6126/14 email from Roger Paulsen to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulsen comments PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulsen FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: I . Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. Proicet Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE I39t' Place and SE 143d Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public_ Services. The project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, specifically including all the infrastructure and services identified below. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 156h Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D. Parks/Open Space_ City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets, roads, alleys and public ways. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" or "appropriate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system., some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that "...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well- functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices. (1) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an IAS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from. an LOS of A, B or C to an LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance identified in the preceding paragraph. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single -occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. X1-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions_ However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards3 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 150 Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that 1 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calcuiate LOS. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156a' Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parkin. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mile from the project site at 156a' Avenue SE & SE 5a' Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156"' Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156h Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at 56,392.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2 -inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration with the City on PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 I 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156b Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel56a' Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulsen argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Conclusions of Law I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals_ 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Desimations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). B. Adectuate Environmental Review PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner suffzcient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Ww App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the continent period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulsen in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "[[c]omment periods for the project and proposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing.... by 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments..." Mr. Paulsen asserts that since the comment period on the MONS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application', not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[t]here will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated on-Signfcance- Mitigated (DNS -M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulsen does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulsen submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014, See Ex. A to Ex. 5. Intersection Miti_ag tion. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulsen asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23 2 3 C! 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues that were assessed by City engineering staff. All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulsen presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156h Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no evidence to the contrary. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 12. Access: Establish access to a public roadfor each segregated parcel. 3, Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because offload, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the f nal plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public facilities as required by RMC 4-8-080(B), RMC 4-7-080(1)(1.): ,.. The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8a' Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated trail. RMC 4-7-130(0): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall he prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is,found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RC before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of 'a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050JIa, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort ,shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan .shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifcations shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names .shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures, 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. . RMC 4-7-150(E): PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27 2 3 4 5 6 7, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2, Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -M and Policies CD -50 and CD -60. 3. Exceptions-- a xceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made, At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except fbr properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Oficial shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the ,street .standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, 19. As proposed. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 28 2 3 4 5 6 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards_ 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. RMC 4-7-170(0): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable coning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80I) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty.fve feet (35 ). 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15). 25. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, orprovided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 30 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 129. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity,for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210- A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SUR VEY.• All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). PRELIMINARY PLAT - 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156h Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(G) if this is not already proposed. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). PRELIMINARY PLAT - 32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 16. A street lighting pian shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 33 1 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal_ 2 3 DATED this 13th day of August, 2014. 4 5 I'i A. ()ihrei�t 6 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 7 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 8 9 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's 10 decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 11 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new 12 fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from 13 the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th floor, (425) 430-6510. 14 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 15 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 34 Denis Law Mayor July 31, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26`fi St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 City ofY City Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton Re: Request for Reconsideration for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000241 Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your ropy of the Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger & Jason Paulsen in the above -referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me or Jill Ding, the Senior Planner at (425) 430-6598. Chris Chau Deputy City Clerk Enc.: Request for Reconsideration cc: Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Senior Planner Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Neil Watts, Development Service Director Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Garmon Newson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren, City Attorney Parties of Record (16) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (475) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Easy Peep Labels Send along line to I Use AveryF Template 51600 ed Paper expose Pop -Up Edge -1 David Michalski ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD; 6525 SE 5th PI. Renton, Wa 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. Roger Paulson 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 6617 SE 5 PI. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98059 Peter & Debi Eberle Michael Nipert 18225 SE 147" St. 940 Queen Anne Av N. Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Gary & Janice Smith Ronda Bryant 14504 166" PI SE 6220 SE 2nd PI. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson 14004156 th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98333 Kathy Forsell Tam Carpenter 15451 SE 142nd PI. 15006 SE 139t'Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 ttiquettes faciles 6 peler A Repllez A le hachure afin de Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 5160® Sens rWler le rebord Po UpT^^ , 9 � charaement J AVERY9 51600 1 Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Marsha Rollinger 6618 SE 4" PI. Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE P.O, Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd. Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowlak 6614 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl. Renton WA 98059 www.avery.com ; 1 -800 -GO -AVERY ' CiTY 017 RCPJ T ON July 30, 2014 City of Renton J U f 30 2014 City Clerk REC_rvED 1055 S. Grady Way CITY CLERK'S QFFfCE Renton, WA 98057 City of Renton Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(9) Dear Mr. Examiner, Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18, 2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241). Standing Roger was a Party= of Record prior to the close of the hearing, he participated in the hearing, and we jointly submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date, and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in light of the following: Streets: We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified, and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately, we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17, and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affirmative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is made for services, including streets. Despite raising this issue in our earlier testimony, nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 acknowledged in your findings or decision. Further, RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as your record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following are facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156' Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --- LOS level "F" b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection. c) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection d) The City acknowledges that it may need to impose left turn restrictions on the access road from the proposed development e) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). f) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. g) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156`h Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level "C". h) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's adverse impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. i) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9`h on their Traffic Signal Priority List j) The City's 2014-2019 6 -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately, 18 years k) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, or your approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our State Legislature in RCW 58.17.110. Relief Re uested We respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development -related traffic will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. Slocerclir, au1scil 6617S1' 5"' Place Rcliton, WA 98059 ) 7-1 /Z \l Paulsen IIOA port.ludy NI Paulsen 31 Nlazarna fines Lane V,�-\ 98833 GITYOF- RE\�VO I July 30, 2014 JUL 3 0 2014 [ Citi- of Renton�v City Clerk RECFIVED 1055 S. Grady Way CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton, WA 98057 City of Renton Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Wav Renton, WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(4) Dear Mr. Examiner, Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18, 2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241). Staandi- ng Roger was a Party of Record prior to the close of the hearing, he participated in the hearing, and we jointly submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date, and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in light of the following: Streets: We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified, and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately, we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17, and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affirmative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is made for services, including streets. Despite raising this issue in our earlier testimony, nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 acknowledged in your findings or decision. Further, RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as your record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following are facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156"' Ave. SE / SE 142"' PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --- LOS level "F" b) The City acknowledges that the proposcd subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity= of the failed intersection. c) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection d) The City acknowledges that it may need to impose left turn restrictions on the access road from the proposed development e) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). f) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. g) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156"' Ave. SE / SE 142"' PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level "C". h) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's adverse impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. i) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9`" on their Traffic Signal Priority List j) The City's 2014-2019 6 -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every= 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years k) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation unposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, or your approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our State Legislature in RCW 58.17.110. Relief Requested We respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development -related traffic will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. ti3F7Ct'CCl1', 1 aLlh., 661751 5"' Placc Rcntoll, WA 951159 7 fr�r� iM P,Fulscl7 POA for-judy N1 Paulscr7 31 llizama Pincs, 1.3111 Mamma, WA 981833 Denis Law - _ Clt� Of - Mayor , mum City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton June 24, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26" St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: REVISED - Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000243. Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your revised copy of the. Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated July 18, 2014, in the above -referenced matter. There were scrivener`s errors on pages 20, 28, 29 & 30. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Jili Ding at 425-430-6598. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ason A. Seth Deputy City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Parties of Record (16) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)430-6510/ Fax (42 5) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Hearing Examiner's Decision ' Q� 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 r-ri Y OF REN TON JUL 2.4 2014 RECEIVED CITY CtERf('S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge } Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION } Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal LUA14-000241 ) SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156`'' Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143rd Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required_ Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. TESTIMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors_ He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TrafEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraflEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is a stop -controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak -hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. TrallEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraflEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. The southside access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Gannon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21). Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list_ The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay_ With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close -by. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be required. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review hearing. Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. Appellant Response Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to continent on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton. Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area_ There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14 -day notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31 st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only loft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the loft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are policy, not code. Applicant Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions warrant a signal. Public Testimony Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurreney approach. He is concerned with the roads that will intersect with 156th. if Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel -shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for 1405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6 -year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13 710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I -Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements_ 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4 -lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for 1-405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googli g. information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 1Oft. In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. Applicant Rebuttal Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide. basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SERA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a -h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments Exhibit 8 Paulson Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulson second request for reconsideration Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paul son's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Continent Packet Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map Exhibit 16 6126/14 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6127114 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit 18 6127114 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 711114 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulson FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. 2. Ham. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. Project Descriution. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156t` Avenue SE between SE 139` Place and SE 143`d Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156`4 Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient_ Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 156"' Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review_ The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's systern, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that "...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A,070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single -occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI -26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is stilt the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an -A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards' to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156th Ave. SEISE 142W Street intersection.. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156" Ave. SEISE 142°d Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position - 1 The applicant's en&eers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calculate LOS. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parkin. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 156th Avenue SE & SE 5`h Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156`h Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156`h Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 W 26 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 44-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2 -inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156t` Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Mr_ Paulson then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel 56`h Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulson argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Conclusions of Law I . Authori . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zonina/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan chap land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact_ See WAC 197-11- 330(l)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). B. Adequate Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App, 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v_ City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: Tire record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated, att. H to Ex_ 1. The first page of the Notice provides that " fc]omment periods for the project and proposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing....by 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If' comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments.__ " Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[t]here will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated (DNS -M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulson does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulson submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014_ See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulson asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it adequately reviewed traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues that were assessed by City engineering staff. All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156`h Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 7_ As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway_ 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City_ PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 81h Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated trail. RMC 4-7-130(0): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable_for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions_ a. Flooding/Inundation: If'any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention_ Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas_ PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation set -vice levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing QJJicial shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S_ is currently the only road connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23 2 4 In 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. . RMC 4-7-150(E): 1. Grid_ A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this .Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -Mand Policies CD -50 and CD -60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the followingfactors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Oficial shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(v) is not feasible.._ 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Oficial where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible_ 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-qf=way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 19. As proposed. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting .shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above_ RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. RMC 4-7-170(0): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of'lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R4 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the .side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (800/0) of the required lot width except in the cases of (I) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35). 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15). 25. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shownto all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8} into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of'the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide eapacity,for the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stonnwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-240(0): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development_ Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and cert to the City that it is properly installed. 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision_ Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY. - All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECISION The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156a' Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(G) if this is not already proposed. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 18th day of July, 2014. Nheri_ o1hrcrhtc City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7`h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 30 Cynthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:01 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Revised Enclave Attachments: Preliminary Plat - Enclave.pdf From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:53 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Sabrina Mirante; Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: Revised Enclave There were some minor corrections made to the Enclave decision. See the email from Phil below and the attached document. It looks like we have some pages to swap out. Thanks, Jill From: phil olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.comJ Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:34 AM To: Jill Ding Subject: Revised Enclave Hi Jill, The attached contains the revised pages you need for the enclave decision. Please remove Page 20 from the attached and use that to replace Page 20 of the decision I previously sent you. Also, please replace the decision section of the decision I previously sent you with the decision section of the attached. Let me know if that corrects the errors. Sorry about that! Unfortunately, I was unable to get the formatting of my word file of the decision the same as the pdf version. otherwise 1 would just have sent you a replacement decision instead of having you replace specific pages. 1 Denis Law Mayor City of 1 rJ Malmo :.. ..�. K City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton June 16, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26th St, Suite 105 Mercer island, WA 98040 Re: Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000241 Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated July 18, 2014, in the above -referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, G. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Parties of Record (16) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)430-6510/ Fax (425)430-6516- rentonwa.gov Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5" PI. Renton Wa 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle 18225 SE 147th St. Renton, Wa 98059 Gary & Janice Smith 14504 166th PI SE Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert 14004156 1h Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell 15451 SE 142nd PI. Renton, Wa 98059 A Rend along line to Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTm David Michalski 6525 SE 5t' PI. Renton, Wa 98059 Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Nipert 900 Queen Anne Av N. Seattle, WA 98109 Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd PI. Renton, WA 98059 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln. Mazama, WA 98333 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th PI. Renton, WA 98059 AVERY@ 51600 1 Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 51h PI. Renton, Wa 98059 Marsha Rollinger 6618 SE 4th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd. Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowlak 6614 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Etigerettes fables 6 peler A Revliez & la hachure afro de ; www.avery.com ; Utilisez leabark AVERYO 51600 Sens deargernent r6v6ier le rebord Po U m ' 1 -800 -GO -AVERY ' 9 1 chp j Hearing Examiner's Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal ) LUA14-000241 ) SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156`h Avenue SE between SE 1391h Place and SE 143`0 Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELiMMARY PLAT - 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. TESTIMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr, Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraflE,x. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in. Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraitEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 2 4 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is a stop -controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak -hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. TraffEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. The Southside access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 tt which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 M 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. .Till Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21). Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to tragic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips far the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold fbr impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in rune, 2014 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of'service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close -by. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be required. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the live percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review hearing. Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. Appellant Response Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit 1. attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA 14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential law -density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14 -day notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only 10ft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff' recommends the l Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to I 1 conditions of approval. In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are policy, not code. Applicant Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions warrant a signal. Public Testimony Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. fle is concerned with the roads that will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel -shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6 -year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. `]'here is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I -Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the 1-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4 -lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in Hooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route 1 I is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 2 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to loft. In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream storrnwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. Applicant Rebuttal Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. it showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response PRELIMINARY PLAT- 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies. Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation; she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a -h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Gegtia Exhibit 4 Traf(Ex Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June. 2014 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments Exhibit 8 Paulson Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulson second request for reconsideration Exhibit 12 City's denial ofPaulson's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwcndolyn High Comment Packet Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map Exhibit 16 6/26114 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6127/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulson FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearin . A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of'Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156`h Avenue SE between SE 139`'' Place and SE 143" Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156`' Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District 490. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 156`' Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of 5479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The pr(Ject is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. D. Parks/Oyen Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique [.OS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that "...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a welt -functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. if a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traflic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single -occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI -26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" I..,OS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff' have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency detennination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELIMINARY PLAT- 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. if the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards' to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. it's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156`h Ave. SEISE 142"d Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that mitigation [funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling, One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156`h Ave. SEISE 142 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. ' The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual_ to calculate LOS. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parkin . Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 156`' Avenue SE & SE 5`h Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156`h Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156`h Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156" Avenue SE at SE 51h Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 1561" Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 44-130" requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2 -inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's "Tree Retention requirements. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 16, 2014, Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156"' Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection. Mr. Paulson then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of the] 56`h Ave. SE/SE 1.42nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulson argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Conclusions of Law 1. Authori . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential I.ow Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has PRELIMINARY PLAT- 17 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-1 1- 330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). B. Adequate Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review envirorunental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept, of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, I l I Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. PRELIMINARY PIAT - 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WAC: 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non - Sign ifcance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "[e]omment periods for the project and proposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing....by 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments... " Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[tlhere will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated (DNS -M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulson does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulson submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 5. Intersection_ Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulson asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 H 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in. numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues that were assessed by City engineering staff. All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 qualified tragic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156" Ave. SEISE 142"a Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4; the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...1he Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards.._ 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I0 ) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replotting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 9. As shown in Stafl'Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 81" Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): If subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes_ 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated trail. RMC 4-7-130(0): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. rand Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmjW to the safety and general health of the future residents (.such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 56.16 RC_ W before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a_ Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. Method. if a .stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will he preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and .stream bed c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-7-140; Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City, of'Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of'subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of'all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary sgfety measures. 17, As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. . RMC 4-7-150(E): 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan "Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -Mand Policies CD -50 and CD -60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the followingfactors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern exceptfor properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation_ The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R -d zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is notfeasible... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no fixture connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fill width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 19. As proposed. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width Boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines_ 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access mays be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R4 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 10 ]1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirtyfive feet (35 ). 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteenfeet (15)- 25, As conditioned. RMC 4-7-140(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with ('ity standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eightfeet (8) into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offre hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. PRELIMINARY PIAT - 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(0): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees_ Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall he completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer andlor land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: I A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. I B. SURVEY. - A11 other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all .street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECISION `The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 5. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156`h Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7-150(G) if this is not already proposed. 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 10. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. It. A final detailed landscape plan shall he submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). 12. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 13. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 14. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 15. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 15. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 16. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. 1f the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 18. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement 1br the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 19. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 18th day of July, 2014. t'hi A. 0I1)�tvht- City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-1 10(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). Anew fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Mall — 7`h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 30 ITEMS BELOW THIS SHEET HAVE BEEN COPIED FOR SUPERIOR COURT ****DO NOT ADD ANYTHING BELOW THIS SHEET **** Jill Ding From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:11 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Can you please respond to Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Vanessa 1OoCbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Chip Vincent Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:52 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Vanessa, could you please handle the following. Thanks, Chip From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:20 PM To: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Chip, Can you or one of your staff please respond to Mr. Paulsen on this issue? Thank you. Bonnie Walton City Clerk From: Roger Paulsen fmailto:rogerapaulsen(acs.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:36 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Request for Reconsideration Explanation I Ms. Walton, At your suggestion, I requested from Mr. Vincent an explanation for the denial of my June 6th Request for Reconsideration. It has been over a week since I made that request (see below), and I haven't received a reply. That seems a reasonable amount of time. Please advise on the best way to proceed to get the requested information. I'd prefer not to escalate my request, but will if necessary. ThanksT Roger Paulsen -----Original Message ----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(a?.cs.com> To: cvincent <cvincent(cb_rentonwa.gav> Cc: bwalton <bwalton(arentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 7:01 am Subject: Re: Appeal Mr. Vincent, Please see my question below to Ms. Walton, and her reply, suggesting that I forward my question to you for clarification. The only reference to a Request for Reconsideration that I am aware of is in code section 4-8-110, which is titled "Appeals". Therefore, I assume a Request for Reconsideration is a form of appeal. Is that a correct interpretation?? If so, it appears my .tune 5th Request for Reconsideration met the requirements of the ERC letter dated Mayl9th, which leads to my original question: What is it that disqualified my Request for Reconsideration? Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Roger Paulsen -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton ccDRentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(cDcs.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 2:01 pm Subject: RE: Appeal Mr. Paulsen, I see that the response to the request for reconsideration issued by Gregg Zimmerman did not state the option for filing of a second request for reconsideration, but it did allow for an appeal process. So that is why the appeal is being processed next. I am not an expert on state law or land use, but it seems to me that doing this fairly preserved your right to be heard and your viewpoints to be considered, but it also preserved the rights of the applicant to receive timely processing of the land use application submittal. FA The better person to contact for this clarification really would be Chip Vincent, CED Administrator, however. His phone number is 425-430-6588, and his email is cvincent@rentonwa.gov. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 From: Roger Paulsen [ma llto:rogerapaulsenC)cs.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:31 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Re: Appeal Bonnie, Welcome back!1 I also was away much of the week, but did have a chance to review the copy of code section 4-8-10 that came in the mail. I'm curious what in that code section disqualified my Request for Reconsideration?? From my perspective, the ERC modified their determination, and it was that modification that created a nexus to the proposed installation of a problematic stop light. That appears to qualify as "any administrative decision made". Thanks for any clarification you can provide!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen (rogerapaulsen(a7cs.com) <rogerapaulsenCdcs.com> Cc: Jill Ding <JDing[a)Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Sun, Jun 8, 2014 5:96 pm Subject: Appeal Mr. Paulsen: I'm going to be out this week, but you can look for the attached to come in your mailbox. As you can see, no Request for Reconsideration process is available at this point. Instead, we will be proceeding with the appeal process_ The appeal hearing notice will be coming to you by separate letter this week from my office. The appeal hearing will be held on June 24th which is when the plat hearing also will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. I'll be out of the office this week, but if you have questions, feel free to contact Jill Ding or my main office number and someone will be able to help. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6510 Jill Din From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:36 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Traffic Study Comments Thanks!!! -----Original Message ----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(cDRentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(@.cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, The hearing examiner has indicated that any comments/questions you have should be emailed to me. I will forward your questions to the applicant and hearing examiner. Thanks, Jill From: Roger Paulsen jmailto:rogerapaulsen„Qcs.coml Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:01 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Traffic Study Comments Jill, I realize should have been more specific with my question. At yesterday's Appeal Hearing, the Hearing Examiner provided me an opportunity to submit comments about the two "eleventh hour” Traffic Studies by 5:00 PM Friday, June 27th, but he didn't say how those comments should be submitted. - Can my comments be submitted via e-mail, or should they be in the form of a hard copy letter? - To whom should the comments be addressed? - is it necessary to copy others parties when the comments are submitted?? If so, what addresses should I use?? assume I should continue to use you as my City of Renton contact person for all questions related to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. If that is not correct, please let me know_ Thanks for any guidance you can provide!! Roger -----Original Message ----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(c_Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:45 am Subject: RE: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Rohini would be your contact for traffic related questions Jill From: Roger Paulsen Cmailto:rogerapaulsen(a)cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:07 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Jill, To whom should 1 address my comments on the traffic studies??? ThanksM Roger -----Original Message ----- From: Jill Ding <JDingna,Rentonwa.gov> To: Phil Olbrechts <oIbrechtslaw(a)gmail. com>; 'Justin Lagers' <Iustin@americanclassichomes.comp; 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsena,cs.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsom (o-)Rentonwa.gov7 Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:04 pm Subject: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 1 am going to be sending all the exhibits in separate emails as the files are so large. Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton jding�a rentonwa.gov Cynthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:00 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection after signal Attachments: REV 2ND Addendum to the Enclave TIA.pdf I think she will put a copy in the yellow file. Maybe you have discussed this previously, bw From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:29 PM To: Phil Olbrechts; 'Roger Paulsen'; Garmon Newsom II; Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection after signal Please find attached a revision to the second addendum to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traffic Impact Analysis as required by our transportation dept. I will have hard copies available at the hearing on Tuesday. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:01 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee; Chris Barnes; Bob Mahn Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection after signal From: vince@nwtraffex.com [mailto:vince@nwtraffex.comI Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:37 AM To: Rohini Nair Cc: Justin Lagers (Justin@americanclassichomes.com); Larry Hobbs Subject: RE: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection after signal Rohini, Attached is the 2nd Addendum assuming a signal is installed and using the exact same lane configuration as existing conditions. The results are good. For future reference, I would suggest that when the signal is designed, the southbound approach be channelized with a right turn large and a through lane. By doing so, the southbound right turn movement can be overlapped with the eastbound phase of the signal which would improve overall operating conditions. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Vince Geglia Traffex 425-522-4118 ti -------- Original Message ------- Subject: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection after signal From: Rohini Nair <RNair(d)Rentonwa.gov> Date: Fri, June 20, 2014 7:46 am To: "'vince@)nwtraffex.com"' <vince(d)nwtraffex.com> Cc: "Justin Lagers {Austin(damericanclassichomes.com)° <JustinCaDamericanclassichomes.com>, Jill Ding <]DingCdRentonwa.gov> Hi Vince, As discussed yesterday, the after signal scenario should have the same lane configuration the different movements should be in the same order as the without signal scenario in the Synchro report. Sincerely Rohini z THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE 2nd ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SE 142 ND PL.1156T" AVE. SE INTERSECTION CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9615 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by MOP THWES T TRA FF -IG' EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 20, 2014 rraffzEy June 20, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36`h St., Suite 106 Mercer Island, WA 98040 NORTHWEST TRAFFIC �XF+E'RY'S 11410 NE=124th St, #590 KMand, to 98094 Phope:425.522_4115 Fax: 425.522.4311 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton 2nd Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis with a Traffic Signal at SE 142nd PI.11561h Ave. SE Intersection Dear Mr. Lagers. We are pleased to present this 2nd addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide an analysis of the SE 142nd PIP 56'h Ave SE intersection assuming a traffic signal is installed. The analysis is summarized as follows: With a signal installed the level of service improves from F to B in both the AM and PM peak hours at the SE 142nd PI1156th Ave SE intersection • With the improved operating conditions resulting from installation of a signal, the southbound queue on SE 156th St. is significantly reduced and does not block either of the Enclave's site access streets or SE 5th PI. AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AM and PM peak hour level of service calculations were performed using the projected 2015 traffic volumes (including pro'ect generated traffic) and assuming a traffic signal installed at the SE 142nd P11156t Ave SE intersection. The level of service improved from F without a signal to B with a signal in both AM and PM peak hours. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for future conditions with the project. Page i The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rraffmy TABLE 1 2015 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLED AT SE 142"D PLl156T" AVE SE INTERSECTION INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SE 142ndPI / g 14.3 B 14.8 156th Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (X XX) LOS and average control delay in seconds SOUTHBOUND VEHICLE QUEUES ON 156' AVE SE While performing the traffic counts for the TIA, it was observed that in the PM peak hour existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave SE sometimes extend beyond SE 51h PI. which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142"d PI./1561h Ave SE intersection. With a traffic signal installed, the maximum southbound queue is significantly reduced to 77 feet in the AM peak hour and 61 feet in the PM peak hour. The distance from the stop bar on SE 156th Street to the Enclave's southern access street is approximately 175 ft.. Therefore, the queue would not block either of the two Enclave's access streets nor SE 5th Place. The queue summary is attached in the technical appendix. Since these intersections would not be affected by the southbound queue, they would therefore operate at an acceptable level of service C or B as calculated and shown in the April 29, 2014 Addendum. Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rraffmy If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vincep_nwtraffex.com or larryCcDnwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 3 I -q AL,14 sa ❑�1 _ �tU #4 -O^14 Larry D. Hobbs, P. E. Principal TraffEx FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 166th Ave SE 6/20/2014 Lane Configurations Y 379 529 +T T+ Intersection Capacity Utilization Volume (vph) 659 42 103 117 73 229 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 4.0 0.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 16.6 12,6 1.00 1.00 B Frt 0.99 14.4 16.6 1.00 0.90 B Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1765 1820 1672 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.64 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1765 1198 1672 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 686 44 107 122 76 239 RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 163 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 726 0 0 .229 152 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Effective Green, g (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Actuated giC Ratio 0.52 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension is1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 912 379 529 vis Ratio Prot c0.41 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.09 vis Ratio Perm 15 c0.19 vic Ratio 0.80 0.60 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 13.9 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 2.7 0.3 Delay (s) 14.4 16.6 12,6 Level of Service B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Approach LOS B B B kierseft 6 Suis: HCM Average Control Deiay 14.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 60/2014 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline 5ynchro 7 - Report Page 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 730 229 315 A Ratio 0.81 0.61 0.46 Control Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 168 56 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 291 #164 77 Internal Link Dist (ft) 404 136 230 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1336 476 809 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.55 0.48 0.39 1ntor oiri Suf rrfian► # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline 5ynchro 7 - Report Page 1 FUTURE PNPEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT +SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6120/2014 Fd 0,96 Perm 2 2 6 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.8 UA3 0.43 4,8 4,0 10 10 1.00 0.88 Man 8.97 oO.24 0.98 1.00 Lane Configurations 1730 mtHatio 0.87 1020 1034 Uniform Delay, d1 Wdumm(vph) 300 118 81 92 73 726 Ideal Flow (vphp[) 1000 1800 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 MS 0.95 4.0 4.0 0.95 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 124 85 1.00 1.00 784 Fd 0,96 Perm 2 2 6 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.8 UA3 0.43 4,8 4,0 10 10 1.00 0.88 At Protected 8.97 oO.24 0.98 1.00 Said. Flow (pnof) 1730 mtHatio 0.87 1020 1034 Uniform Delay, d1 F|tPormitted 0.87 97 7.9 Progression Factor 025 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow (perm) 1730 35.8 11 470 1634 Pouk-hou/factor, PHF 0.$5 MS 0.95 0.05 0.05 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 318 124 85 97 77 784 RTORReduction (vph) 32 O 0 0 434 0 Lane GrnuoFlow (voh) 408 0 0 182 407 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(o) EffeoiveG reen.g(u) Actuated g/ORatio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) 4 12.9 12.0 035 4.8 3.0 Perm 2 2 6 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.8 UA3 0.43 4,8 4,0 10 10 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 606 203 708 m/sRatio Prot oO.24 0.25 w/sRatio Perm uO.39 mtHatio 0.87 0.90 0,58 Uniform Delay, d1 18�2 97 7.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 35.8 11 Delay (s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Level of Service B D A Approach Delay (s) 13] 45.5 91 Approach LOS 8 D A HCMAverage Control Delay 14.8 HSM Level ofService 0 HCMVolume toCapacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (o) 36.8 Sum oflost time (s) 8.0 |ntoouedionCapacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level ofService F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synuhm7 Report FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 155th Ave SE 612012014 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 t �T Lane Group Flow (vph) 440 182 841 vic Ratio 0.70 0.91 0.74 Control Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0,0 Total Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 35 9 Queue Length 95th (ft) #175 #133 61 Internal Link Dist (ft) 16B 201 240 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 817 281 1286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.54 0.65 0.65 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Cynthia Moya From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 8:37 AM To: Phil Olbrechts; Bonnie Walton; 'Justin Lagers'; Garmon Newsom II; 'Roger Paulsen' Subject: FW: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI level of service study with signal Attachments: 156th & 142nd Pl.pdf Please find attached additional traffic analysis with the installation of a signal at 156th Ave SE and SE 142nd PI. This study was conducted by the City. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 8:04 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI level of service study with signal Hi, Here are the results of the study done by the City traffic operations. Sincerely Rohini From: Asma Tuly Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:16 PM To: Rohini Nair Subject: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI Hi Rohini, Please see the attached copy for your reference. Thanks Asma Tuly Civil Engineer II City Of Renton 5th Floor - Transportation 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7222 atulva rentonwa.eov www.rentonwa.gov I In J i Cynthia Moya From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 8:37 AM To: Phil Olbrechts; Bonnie Walton; 'Justin Lagers'; Garmon Newsom II; 'Roger Paulsen' Subject: FW: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI level of service study with signal Attachments: 156th & 142nd Pl.pdf Please find attached additional traffic analysis with the installation of a signal at 156th Ave SE and SE 142nd PI. This study was conducted by the City. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 8:04 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI level of service study with signal Hi, Here are the results of the study done by the City traffic operations. Sincerely Rohini From: Asma Tuly Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:16 PM To: Rohini Nair Subject: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI Hi Rohini, Please see the attached copy for your reference. Thanks Asma Tuly Civil Engineer II City Of Renton 5th Floor - Transportation 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7222 atulva rentonwa.eov www.rentonwa.gov I www. idaxdat2. earn 9ki 297 642 719 77 156TH AVE NE SE 742ND PL Peak Hour U rn r* to TEV: 1,220 PHE: 0.96 Two -Hour Count Summaries evil-' wa). Date: Tue, Apr 15, 20114 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 40a z HV %: PHF j EB 1.9% 0.89 x NO 4.6% 0.72 H SB 3.0% 0.78 TOTAL 2.7% 0.96 i Interval SE 142ND PL M Co o � 156TH AVE NE Rolling Start C4 Eastbound C4 Westbound Two -Hour Count Summaries evil-' wa). Date: Tue, Apr 15, 20114 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 40a z HV %: PHF j EB 1.9% 0.89 x NO 4.6% 0.72 H SB 3.0% 0.78 TOTAL 2.7% 0.96 i Interval SE 142ND PL SE 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 15 -min One LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Tota! Hour 7:00 AM 165 0 36 0 0 0 24 16 0 0 11 52 304 7:15 AM 137 0 19 0 0 0 30 46 0 0 40 45 317 7:30 ANI 156 0 B 0 0 0 26 54 0 0 12 43 303 7:455 AM 182 0 14 0 0 0 16 21 0 0 4 57 296 1,220 8:00 AM 148 0 10 0 0 0 24 11 0 0 3 96 292 1,208 8'15 AM 168 0 9 0 0 0 32 16 0 0 4 59 288 1,179 8:30 AM 170 0 8 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 6 59 282 1,158 8:45 AM 175 0 11 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 9 61 282 1,144 Count Tatal 1,303 0 115 0 0 D 193 192 0 0 89 472 2,364 Peak Hr 642 0 77 0 0 0 100 137 0L_IL 0 67 1971-1,220 Nate: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg} Start ES WB N8 SB Total EB WI3 NB SH Total East West North South Total 7:00 AMI 2 0 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM! 5 0 2 0 T i0 0 0 0 p 7:30 AM 3 0 3 2 a p 0 1 0 1 0 0 7:45 AM 4 0 3 2 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 7 0 2 5 14 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q p 0 8:15 AM 5 D 2 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 4 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Q BA5 AM 4 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D D 34 0 16 16 69 0 0 1 1 2 00 p p 0 ETotal Hr 14 0 11 8 33 0 0 1 1 Z 0 0 0 0 0 Q Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.Com www.idaxdata.com 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL Peak Hour to coo Ln Z N N LU Q t�Op �1S N M N f? 313 221 ,4t 282 61 TEV: 671 E8 4.6% 0.84 PHF: 0.95 5B 6.1% 0.80 h'k `ter W M 1if SE [42ND PL 15aTH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE Start Eastbound Westbound r O T Northbound N � � a t M Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 Count Period: 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Peak Hour: 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM W. i HV %, PHF E8 4.6% 0.84 N13 8.0% 0.84 5B 6.1% 0.80 TOTAL 5.8% 0.95 , Two -Flour Count Summaries Interval SE 142ND PL SE [42ND PL 15aTH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 15 -min Rolling One LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Total Hour 1100 AM 1 57 0 11 0 0 0 16 10 0 0 10 49 153- 11:15 AM 49 0 20 0 0 0 11 8 0 0 11:30 AM 70 0 14 0 0 0 24 13 0 8 52 148 11:45 AM 47 0 11 0 0 0 22 0 a 43 172 12:00 PM 52 0 12 0 0 5 0 0 12 57 154 627 12:15 PM 52 0 24 0 0 0 22 9 0 0 10 72 177 651 12:30 PM 47 0 14 0 0 0 20 10 0 0 9 53 188 671 12;45 PM 37 0 19ILLiILLj# 0 13 10 0 0 7 48 139 638 Count Total 411 0 12 0 15 49 150 634 Peak Hr 227 0 fig 0 78 423 a671E 77., 0 39 225 Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB N8 58 Total EB WS NB s Total East West North South Total 11:00 AM 7 0 2 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 AM 3 D 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 11:30 AM 4 0 5 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 AM 2 0 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 12:00 PM 3 0 1 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 PM 4 0 2 3 9 0 0 0 0 Q 0 p 0 D 0 12:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 Q 12.45 PM 6 0 2 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o � a Count Tota! 31 0 16 24 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hr 1 13 0 10 16 39 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 D 0 Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com E" wwwJdaxdata,eom 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL Peak Hour u, w N z as W a as 839 ---- 375 494 119 -; TEV; 1,461 PHF: 0.97 wo-Hour Count Summaries W z LU Q en s uJ � Date: Tue Apr p 15, 2014 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM A o HV %: PHF EB 1.4% Q NB ca � r 1.2% rn TOTAL Ln 0.97 T r Eastbound wo-Hour Count Summaries W z LU Q en s uJ � Date: Tue Apr p 15, 2014 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM A o HV %: PHF EB 1.4% 0.91 NB 1.9% 0.70 SB 1.2% 0.96 TOTAL 1.4% 0.97 U, Interna! SE 142ND PL SE 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 15 -min Rolling One LT TH RT LT TFi RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Total Hour 4:00 PM 71 0 28 0 0 0 31 18 0 0 17 149 314 4:15 PM 74 0 36 0 0 0 27 13 0 0 12 176 338 4:30 PM 115 0 28 0 0 0 25 11 0 0 10 185 374 4:45 PM 101 0 27 0 0 0 14 7 0 0 5:00 PM 86 D 23 0 0 10 202 361 1,387 5:15 PM 87 0 35 0 0 25 14 0 0 22 185 355 1,428 5:34 PM 101 0 34 0 0 0 27 12 0 0 21 186 368 1,458 5:45 PM 64 0 24 0 0 0 34 21 0 0 21 156 377 1,481 Count Total 699 0 235 0 0 0 0 18 13 0 0 15 147 281 9,381 Peak Hr 375 0 119 0 0 201 109 0 0 128 1,396 2,768 0 0 100 54 g 0 74 739 1,461 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bic !esFPedeistrians (Crossing Leg) Ela Wg NB 5i3 Total irB WB NB S8 Totast North South Total 4:00 PM 4 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 00 4:15PM 2 0 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 2 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 3 0 1 2 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 n 0 o n Q 5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 5:15 PM 3 D 2 3 8 D 0 g g D g D 0 g Q 5:30 PM 1 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 Q 0 0 D 0 p 5:45 PM 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Count Total 16 0 7 25 48—[—D— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p Peak Hr 7 0 3 10 20 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 n Q D0 0 D 0 Q Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark-skaggs@idaxdata.com 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd P1 Intersection Delay, slveh 41.8 Intersection LOS E A M A k UJV4 Ex Ca NZ 0612012014 Ww ...,.,....a ^ <.. ...... 89% 0% P .d ?, 0% Vol, ve" 0 642 77 0 100 137 0 67 197 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.72 0.72 0.90 0.78 0.78 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 5 5 2 3 3 Mvmt Flow 0 721 87 0 139 190 0 86 253 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Cap 546 648 592 Service Time Opposing Approach 4.098 4.118 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.603 SB 0.571 NB 19.1 Opposing Lanes 16.9 0 C F 1 HCM 95th -tile Q 1 14.9 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB s Y') t Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 61.5 19.1 16,9 HCM LOS F C C Vol Left, % 421/G 89% 0% Vol Thru, % 58114 0% 25% Vol Right, % 0% 11% 75% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 237 719 264 LT Vol 137 0 67 Through Vol 0 77 197 RT Vol 100 642 0 Lane Flow Rate 329 808 338 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of U41 (X) 0.599 1 0.568 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.555 6.098 6.038 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Cap 546 648 592 Service Time 4.546 4.098 4.118 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.603 1.333 0.571 HCM Control Delay 19.1 61.5 16.9 HCM Lane LOS C F C HCM 95th -tile Q 3.9 14.9 3.51-1 s Y') t 1t�peak 5:00 am 0811812010 Tactics Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 La AJ � HGM.2010 .AWSO 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 0612012014 �m E.,..,...n..m.m^..q..e ,............ ....M....... ...k":[.. ...........'..,_ �pP[:F S:E ( �.F.�Y::::^.m.........�a....._:...."'"..'..........�i.�,�li�.€ty B[..:..¢::<.... .,E......'.:- ............... :..Y:..: `.;c:�'�.�....u...... �63C...�,.....�... ..... .............. -..,..-..,_.......,......,.......F..,...w........,e.. Intersection Delay, siveh 50.1 Intersection LOS F ^ Vol, vehlh 0 375 119 0 100 54 0 74 739 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.70 4.70 0.90 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehides, % 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 412 131 0 143 77 0 77 770 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Opposing Approach^ SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 49.5 15.2 59.6 HCM LOS E C F Vol Left, % 65% 76% 0% Vol Thru, % 35% 0% 9% Vol Right, % 0% 24% 91% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 154 494 813 LT Vol 54 0 74 Through Vol 0 119 739 RT Vol 100 375 0 Lane Flow Rate 220 543 847 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.43 0.941 1 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.038 6.243 5.731 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Cap 515 575 635 Service Time 5.038 4.334 3.746 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.427 0.944 1.334 HCM Control Delay 15.2 49,5 59.6 HCM Lane LCIS C E F HCM 95th -tile Q 2.1 12.2 15.3. PMpeakr3:00 pm 09/22!2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI (� PEA -v, W i -T q WLuME 0612012014 Lane Configurations ►fir 4' J Volume (vph) 375 119 100 54 74 739 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.967 0 877 Flt Protected 0.963 0.969 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 0 0 1805 1650 0 Flt Permitted 0.963 0.227 Satd, Flow (perm) 1752 0 0 423 1650 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 24 770 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 683 816 406 Travel Time (s) 18.6 22.3 11,1 Confl. Peds. (#ihr) Conti. Bikes (#!hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.96 0.96 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100°% 100% 100% 100°% Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 2% 2% 1 °% 1 °% Sus Blockages (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#!hr) Mid -Block Traffic {,) 0°% 0°% 0°% Adj. Flow (vph) 412 131 143 77 77 770 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 543 0 0 220 847 0 Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Spht (s) 27.0 43,0 43.0 43,0 Total Split (%) 38.6°% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4°% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4,5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 21,7 35.7 35.7 Actuated gfC Ratio 0.33 0.54 0.54 PM peak 3;00 pm 0912212010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06120/2014 vic Ratio 0.93 0.97 0.68 Control Delay 46.8 74,3 4.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.8 743 4,5 LOS D E A Approach Delay 46.8 74.3 4.5 Approach LOS D E A 90 %ile Green (s) 22.5 38.5 38,5 38.5 901h %Ile Tenn Code Max Max Max Hold 70th %Ile Green (s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 70th %Ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold . 50th %ile Green (s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 50th %lie Tenn Code Max Max Max Hold 301h °/aIle Green (s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 30th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold 10th %Ile Green (s) 18.2 25.4 25.4 25.4 10th %Ile Tenn Code Gap Gap Gap Hold Queue Length 50th (ft) 216 81 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) #406 #147 65 Internal Link Dist (1f) 603 736 326 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 616 247 1286 Starvadon Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.88 0.89 0.66 Area Type: Other Cyde Length: 70 Actuated Cycle Length: 66.5 Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio. 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.3 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 90th %fie Actuated Cycle: 70 70th %Ile Actuated Cycle: 70 50th %Ile Actuated Cycle: 70 30th %Ile Actuated Cyde: 70 10th %Ile Actuated Cycle: 52.6 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. City of Renton Page 2 r pt< 0 {� Pb �- . Lanes, Volumes, Timings-- ,ter L_ 341: 156th Ave SP & SE 142nd PI 06/2012014 --* --* 4\ > Lane Configurations Y 4 t F Volume (vph) 375 119 100 54 74 739 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 20 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.967 0.850 Flt Protected 0.963 0.969 Said. Flow (prot) 1752 0 0 1805 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.963 0.757 Said. Flow (perm) 1752 0 0 1410 1681 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Said, Flow (RTOR) 42 770 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 683 816 406 Travel Time (s) 18.6 22.3 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.96 0,96 Heavy Vehicles (°%) 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% Adj. Flaw (vph) 412 131 143 77 77 770 Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flow (vph) 543 0 0 220 77 770 Enter Blocked intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 2 2 1 Detector Template Left Left Thru Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 100 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(fl) 20 20 6 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex Ci+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 U 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 U Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 PM peak 3;00 pm 0912212010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06120/2014 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 45 Actuated Cycle Length: 35.6 Natural Cycle: 45 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v1c Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.2 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, t 4/ ._:................. .Tmm. [4 t.t{., ;, z°..^art a .E 4.___ �t�i :�.'z'. �:.�.......� ,.. [0::::::........_..v,.��,=E .��[ :::rv::°:i:::::�.::.^.<:....3 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 48.9% 51.1% 51.1410 51.1% 51.1% Maximum Green (s) 17.5 18.5 18,5 18,5 18.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 *Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5. 4.5 4.5 LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Act Et%t Green (s) 14,4 11.7 11.8 11,8 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.47 0.12 0.74 Control Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 LOS B B A A Approach Delay 17.9 13.5 6.3 Approach LOS B B A Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 34 10 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #247 56 29 51 Internal Link Dist (ft) 603 736 326 Tum Bay Length (ft) 20 Base Capacity (vph) 925 770 1027 1222 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillbark Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.59 0.29 0.07 0.63 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 45 Actuated Cycle Length: 35.6 Natural Cycle: 45 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v1c Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.2 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, AM Pr- WIN EX \/OLLA('E Timings C S -11.n N A Z) 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/2012014 Lane Configurations y Fi T* Volume (vph) 642 77 100 137 67 197 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Fit 0.985 0.899 Fit Protected 0,957 0,979 Said. Flow (prot) 1756 0 0 1772 1658 0 Flt Permitted 0.957 0.582 Satd. Flow (perm) 1756 0 0 1053 1658 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Said, Flow (RTOR) 12 228 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 973 828 981 Travel Time (s) 26,5 22.6 26.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (P/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.72 0.72 0.78 0.78 Growth Factor 1 o% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 5% 5% 3% 3% Bus Blockages (Ohr) 0 0 0 0. 0 0 Parking (#1hr) Mid -Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 721 67 139 190 86 253 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 808 0 0 329 339 0 Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split (s) 42.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 56.0% 44.0% 44.0%. 44.0° Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4,5 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 33.7 24.7 24.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.50 0.36 0,36 AM peak 5:00 am 0 811 81201 0 Tactics Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Timings 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06120!2014 _A � 4� Area Type: Other Cycle Length75 Actuated Cycl engih: 67.7 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vfc Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay; 30.4 Intersecfion LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% ICU -Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 90th %ile Actuated Cyde: 75 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 75 50th Ve Actuated Cycle: 75 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 66.9 10th %Ile Actuated Cycle: 4R8 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ano vnases: JJJ: 1�ttn Ave St & St 14zna vi City of Renton Page 2 SES v1c Ratio 0.92 0.86 0.45 Control Delay 34.1 44.3 8.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.1 44.3 8.1 LOS C D A Approach Delay 34.1 44.3 8.1 Approach LOS C D A 90th %ile Green (s) 37.5 28Z 28.5 28.5 90th %lle Term Code Max Max Max Hold 70th dile Green (s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 70th We Term Cade Max Max Max Hold 50th dile Green (s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 50th %ile Term Code Max Max Max bold 30th Ve Green (s) 33.9 24.0 24.0 24.0 30th %lie Term Cade Gap Gap Gap Hold 10th ° Ile Green (s) 22.6 15.2 15.2 15.2 10th %Ile Term Code Gap Gap Gap Hold Queue Length 50th (ft) 322 135 33 Queue Length 95th (t1) #558 172 64 Internal Lank Dist (ft) 893 748 901 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1010 458 850 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.80 0.72 0.40 Area Type: Other Cycle Length75 Actuated Cycl engih: 67.7 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vfc Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay; 30.4 Intersecfion LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% ICU -Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 90th %ile Actuated Cyde: 75 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 75 50th Ve Actuated Cycle: 75 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 66.9 10th %Ile Actuated Cycle: 4R8 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ano vnases: JJJ: 1�ttn Ave St & St 14zna vi City of Renton Page 2 A CD -� ] N W W W W N N N N N N W N" N CDtAN�ijCaCltW AW 4N,IV NivNWMNO C31 O } y P W W Cit W p W W W W t7 P -' N [Ft V V C/y co NQ N W M -! ^.i M A W N N N I`? N NJ - { M O V W .0- -4 N N O (.n0 M A0 s Co Ln N� 1 coQo ' N C cn N N O i W W W Cn O W W 0 W W -i N 0 M O N 41, co m 171 ..a.. N z co -� N N W4�% .A .A C�1t p CA W a N Cary m o m O W W-4 0) W� 0 s iii N -sNW A C31CD NCalcn0ul W 0U3 -4N QJ C0 0C�--tsb(]�� OCWDet3�3�sC7D �--` C>uN"'►1�� t O N C37 QO N CIl C70 �t 'ted W CO W 00 W N -1 c) -4 .A W N D CO N Cfl N -4 N � � W N CO -A � N O � � Cin UNi W � ti LTt �i r- WN 0M-4mUiAWN�O-4o014 axW o oaooaooaaooaoa dO � �+ W ry .... • a o W -v rn Ln -A,W N� n ....a rn �QO �OCW7OOOO OOOOOC aOC?C7QC]© (CYI C CWSI W -N.� y W C31 CJt fit DO a N W W d] N W V Z �y o�Ctt-4MODW�Nd3CriMCtt coN CA {Ji (0 w 10 N 03 co -4-4 M 0 "4 v W W N Co j � m Ln Cf) Cn N Cft rn Cn 0 M Ut N Oo C A CD -� ] N W W W W N N N N N N W N" N CDtAN�ijCaCltW AW 4N,IV NivNWMNO C31 O } y P W W Cit W p W W W W t7 P -' N [Ft V V C/y co NQ N W M -! ^.i M A W N N N I`? N NJ - { M O V W .0- -4 N N O (.n0 M A0 s Co Ln N� 1 coQo ' N C cn N N O i W W W Cn O W W 0 W W -i N 0 M O N 41, co m 171 ..a.. N z co -� N N W4�% .A .A C�1t p CA W a N Cary m o m O W W-4 0) W� 0 s iii N -sNW A C31CD NCalcn0ul W 0U3 -4N QJ C0 0C�--tsb(]�� OCWDet3�3�sC7D �--` C>uN"'►1�� t O N C37 QO N CIl C70 �t 'ted W CO W 00 W N -1 c) -4 .A W N D CO N Cfl N -4 N � � W N CO -A � N O � � Cin UNi W � ti LTt �i r- ITEMS BELOW THIS SHEET HAVE BEEN COPIED FOR SUPERIOR COURT ****DO NOT ADD ANYTHING BELOW THIS SHEET **** LLI z R CL LLJ LLI .j CL J T-4 W LLI (A z vi I z 00 (A a 4% lqr 0 tko z GCmob LLI 3: QJ LU (A D > Z m V Q� LU LLI z R CL LLJ LLI .j CL J vi ZZ Q� 0 7J Lr ca I -J it lu Qc In co ci rraff,my Vincent J. Geglia Principal, TraffEx NCRTHWeST TR ';t­fC EXPFR-rS 11410 NE 124th St, #590 Kirkland. WA 98034 Phone: 425.522.118 Fax: 425.522.4311 Degree BS Civil Engineering - State University of New York at Buffalo Association Membership 1986 to present - Institute of Transportation Engineers Occupational Experience 2004 to present -Principal of Traff Ex, a consulting engineering firm specializing in traffic engineering services, Kirkland, WA. 1986 to 2004 -Senior Transportation Engineer for Transportation, Planning and Engineering, Bellevue, WA. 1981 to 1986 - Project Engineer for AESL 1976 to 1981 - Facility Engineer/Master Planner Dept of Defense 1973 to 1976 - Transportation Engineer for NYSDOT Mr. Geglia has been the project engineer responsible for the preparation of over 400 traffic impact analyses for a variety of office, commercial and residential developments in the Puget Sound area. He has prepared the transportation section for several Environmental Impact Statements including Mill Creek Town Center and Sammamish Parkplace, a 1.2 million square foot office complex; Mr. Geglia has designed more than 60 traffic signals, street illumination plans, signal interconnect system, and channelization plans, including the illumination design for six miles of freeway and five interchanges on WSDOT's 1-405 Northup to Bothell HOV lanes project.. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE 2nd ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SE 142"D PLA 56T" AVE. SE INTERSECTION CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36t' St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by rj�qAtfEx TRAFFIC JEx.=E'R TS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 20, 2014 rrffZ9yNamrHwEBT MAr r/C EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St. #590 Kirldand, 0 98ti34 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 20, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton 2nd Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis with a Traffic Signal at SE 142nd PI./156" Ave. SE Intersection Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this 2nd addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide an analysis of the SE 142nd PI./156th Ave SE intersection assuming a traffic signal is installed. The analysis is summarized as follows: • With a signal installed the level of service improves from F to B in both the AM and PM peak hours at the SE 142"' PI/156th Ave SE intersection • With the improved operating conditions resulting from installation of a signal, the southbound queue on SE 156th St. is significantly reduced and does not block either of the Enclave's site access streets or SE 5th Pi. AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AM and PM peak hour level of service calculations were performed using the projected 2015 traffic volumes (including pro"ect generated traffic) and assuming a traffic signal installed at the SE 142nd PI/156't, I/156' Ave SE intersection. The level of service improved from F without a signal to B with a signal in both AM and PM peak hours. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for future conditions with the project. Page 9 The_ Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traa, TABLE 1 2015 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLED AT SE 142"° PL1156T" AVE SE INTERSECTION INTERSECTION SE 142"° PI 1 156th Ave SE AM PEAK HOUR B 14.3 PM PEAK HOUR : Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (X XX) LOS and average control delay in seconds SOUTHBOUND VEHICLE QUEUES ON 156TH AVE SE While performing the traffic counts for the TIA, it was observed that in the PM peak hour existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PI. which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142"d PI./156th Ave SE intersection. With a traffic signal installed, the maximum southbound queue is significantly reduced to 77 feet in the AM peak hour and 61 feet in the PM peak hour. The distance from the stop baron SE 156th Street to the Enclave's southern access street is approximately 175 ft.. Therefore, the queue would not block either of the two Enclave's access streets nor SE 5th Place. The queue summary is attached in the technical appendix. Since these intersections would not be affected by the southbound queue, they would therefore operate at an acceptable level of service C or B as calculated and shown in the April 29, 2014 Addendum. Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rhif15y If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(cDnwtraffex.com or larry6dMwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 3 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx TECHNICAL APPENDIX FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 _ 4N t Lane Configurations Y SEEM 4 Volume (vph) 659 42 103 117 73 229 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util• Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1765 1820 1672 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.64 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1765 1198 1672 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 666 44 107 122 76 239 RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 163 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 726 0 0 229 152 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Effective Green, g (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 912 379 529 vls Ratio Prot co.41 0.09 v!s Ratio Perm c0.19 vie Ratio 0.80 0.60 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 13.9 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 2.7 0.3 Delay (s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Level of Service B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Approach LOS B B B HCM Average Control Delay 14.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 Lane Group Flow (vph) 730 229 315 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.61 0.46 Control Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 168 56 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 291 #164 77 Internal Link Dist (ft) 404 136 230 Turn Bay Lenglh (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1336 475 809 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.55 0.48 0.39 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 -"' -N t l Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 203 706 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 Intersection Capacity Utilization Lane Configurations v/s Ratio Perm 15 c0.39 We Ratio 0.67 Volume (vph) 300 118 81 92 73 726 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 45.5 9.1 4.0 4.0 D Lane Lltll. Factor 1.00 13.1 45.5 1.00 1.00 B Frt 0.96 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.97 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1730 1820 1634 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.25 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1730 470 1634 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 316 124 85 97 77 764 RTOR Reduction (vph) 32 0 0 0 434 0 Lane Group Flow h 408 0 0 182 407 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3,0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 203 706 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 15 c0.39 We Ratio 0.67 0.90 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 10.2 9.7 7.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 35.8 1.1 Delay (s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Level of Service B D A Approach Delay (s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Approach LOS B D A HCM Average Control Delay 14.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.8 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.811% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE II 6/2012014 -A t t Lane Group Flow (vph) 440 182 841 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.91 0.74 Control Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 35 9 Queue Length 95th (ft) #175 #133 61 Internal Link Dist (ft) 168 201 240 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 817 281 1286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.54 0.65 0.65 ME; V3 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page i www.idaxdata.com G•1 N 297 —� 642 719 77 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL Peak Hour Z N r- W d gto m r. r - TEV: 1,220 PHF: 0.96 Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 Count Period: 7;00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 40 0 r CP o E� It V'0 0-- V r -x F] S5(6A SE 142 PL I MOM_ c .- +� Z HV %: PHF 0 j EB 1.9% 0.89 NB 4.6% 0.72 ti S8 3.0% 0,76 a n Y TOTAL 2.7% 0.96 Two -Hour Count Summaries Interval BE 142ND PL SE 142ND Pl_ 158TH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE Start E88moM Westbound Northbound Southbound 15,m1n Railing One LT TH RT .mmmmmm� LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Total. Hour 7:00 -AM 185 D 38 0 0 D 24 16 0 0 11 52 304' �._.g ' pt 40 4S 31� 7:30AM 158 0 0 0 0 28 54 0 . 0 12433D3 7:45 AM 182 0 14 0 0 0 18 21 0 0 4 8:00 AM 148 0 10 0 0 0 24 57 296 1,220 8:15 AM 168 0 9 0 Q 0 1 11 0 0 3 96 292 1,208 8:30 AM 170 0 8 0 0 32 16 0 0 4 59 288 1,179 8:45 AM 175 0 11 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 6 59 282 1,158 Count Total 1.303 0 115 0 0 0 0 9 61 282 1,144 Peak Hr 642 0 77 D 0 alEj 0 89 472 2,364 D 0 D 67 197 1,224 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes Include heavy vehicles but el count. Interval Hoavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Start EB WB NB SB Total Eta WS NB SB Total East Pedestrians Crgssln g Log) 7.00 AM 2 0 3 4 8 0 0 West North South Total >aM 0 0 D p q O O 0 7,3D AM 3 0 3' 2 8 p 0 1 O, i,w. ..r... 0: 7:45 AM 4 0 3 2 8 0 0 0 D 0 4 p p 8:00 AM 7 0 2 5 14 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 4 q 0 8:15 AM 5 D 2 2 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 D 0 D 0 8:30 AM 4 0 0 1 S 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 D 0 8:45 AM 4 4 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D p Count Total 34 0 16 18 68 0 0 1 Q 1 0 4 0 0 Q Peak Hr 14 a 11 8 33 0 0 1 2 1 D a D D Q 2 .0 0 D 0 0 Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.Com wWVv.idaxdata.com 024 N 313 �3 221 282 61 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL Peak Hour w m ,°Dn z N N LU Q tip Vf N 61 r N M TEV: 671 PHF: 0.95 wwt�, ' `m Date; Tue, Apr 15, 2014 Count Period: 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Peak Hour: 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM 40 DEl�m E 14 N PL U11OU as nw M z ---------------- HV %: AHF 0 EB 4.6% 0.84 c► FNB 8.0% 0.84 513 6.1% 0.80 �- TOTAL 5.8% 0.95 Two -Hour Count Summaries Interval BE 142ND PL 8E 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE 1b6TH AVE NE Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 15 -coin Rolling LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Total 0"s Hour 11:00 AM 57 0 11 0 0 0 i6 1p p p 10 11:15 AM 49 0 20 0 0 0 11 8 49 153 11:30 AM 70 0 14 0 0 0 24 13 0 0 8 52 148 11:45 AM 47 0 11 0 0 D 22 D D ti 43 772 12 t}fPt�ll 52' - 5 0 0 0 12 =.10t 57 154 77, 627 12:15 PM 52 0 24 0 D p 20,. 10 53 651 12:34 PM 47 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 9 188 671 12:45 PM 37 0 19 0 0 p 13 10 0 0 7 46 i39 fi38 Count Total 41i fl 125 0 0 18 11 0 0 15 48 150 634 Peak Hr 221. (l 61 0 0 0 147 78 0 0 79 423 1,201 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include 0 heavy 88 37 0 0 39 225 871 vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count, Interval tmVehIcIeTotals las Start EB WS NB SB Total EB WS NB Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) 11:00 AM 7 0 2 3 12 5B Tafel East West North South Total 11:15 AM 3 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 11:30 AM 4 0 5 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 p 0 0 11:45 AM 2 0 2 1 g D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0D °° o 12:15 PM 4 p 2 3 3 ... " :. U 0 12:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 11..., 0 s 0`^ 0 0 0� 0 12:45 PM 6 0 2 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 Count Total 31 0 16 24 71 0 00 0 -nn 0 0 0 0 p 0 Peak Hr 13 0 10 16 39 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 fl 0 0 0 0 0 p D o Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www. idaxdata. corn 9ki 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL Peak Hour W Q° z co v W 0 2 c in z m � � ti ti /j I 839 �---� 375 494 119 —, TEV: 1,461 PHF: 0.97 Walk" Date: Tue Apr 15, 2014 Count Period: -4:00 PM to 6.00 PM Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM 40 40 0 r I ► am lqz emN 0 c in z HV °%: PHF EB 1.4% 0.91 0 NB 1.9% 0.70 Ln 5B 1.2% 0.95 TOTAL 1.4% 0.97 Two -Hour Count SUMMarieS Interval 8t 142ND PL SE 142ND PL44Th 150TH AVE�� N� AVE NE sw Eastbound Westbound Northbound ti -min Rollin LT TH RT m'm28 IT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Total OneB Hour 4:00 PM 71 0 0 0 0 31 180 0 4:15 PM 74 0 36 0 0 0 27 17 149 314 4:30 PM 115 0 28 0 0 0 25 13 0 0 12 176 338 4:45 PM 101 D 27 0 D 0 11 0 0 10 185 374 5:00 PM 86 0 23 0 D 14 7 0 0 10 202 361 1,387 5.15 PM 87 0 35 0 0 25 14 0 D 22 185 355 1,426 '' S 3U PNf� LD1 D, 0 0 27 12 0 0 21 186 388 1,458 21T 1545 PM 64 0.. 0. 1$ �3 0 0 147 ,.377 281 ,487 Count Total 899 0 235 0 '00 5 1,481 Peak Hr 375 D 119 0 201 1090 0 128 1,396 2,768 D 0 Note: 7_Wo4our ovum summary volumes Include heavy vehicles 100 54 0 0 74 739 9,481 but exclude bicycles M overalf count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Star! EB Wo NB Sia Total EB N9 Pedesbians Crosai L 4:00 PM 4 0 0 F SB Total East West North South Total PM 2 6 0 3 1 t 0 0 0 0 0 004:15 D o 4:30 PM 2 0 0 6 s 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 a 4;45 PM 3 0 1D 2 6 0 0 D D 1 ? 0 0 4 Q 5:OOPM 0 D 0 2 2 0 0 p 0 A 0 0 0 O 0 515 PM 3 0 2 3 8 D 0 0 0 D Q 0 0 D D b 3q�p1Y�i 1t 0€ D, =3 4< D 0 0 Q D 0 D D D 0 5.45 PM 1 0 1 2 4 0 Dt 0 i Count Total 16 0 7 25 48 0 0 Peak Hr 1 7 A 3 10 20 0 00 0 1 i 0 0 0 0 p Q 00 i) D 0 0 Mark Skaggs: 425 - 250 - 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com P 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 Intersection Delay, &Wh 41.8 Intersection LOS Vol, vehlh 0 642 77 0 100 137 — . 0 67 197 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.72 0.72 0.90 0.78 0.78 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 5 5 2 3 3 Mvmt Flow 0 721 87 0 139 190 0 86 253 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conkting Approach Left SB iB Conflidng Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 61.5 19.1 16.9 HCM LOS F C C Vol LefL % 42% 89°% 0% Vol Thru, % 58% 0% 25% Vol Right, % 0% 11°% 75% Sign Control Stop SMP Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 237 719 264 LT Vol 137 0 67 Through Vol 0 77 197 RT Vol 100 642 0 Lane Flow Rate 329 808 338 GwTK ft Grp 1 1 1 Degree of U10 (X) 0.599 1 0.568 Deparbn Headway (Hd) 6.555 6.098 6.038 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 546 606 592 Service Time 4.646 4.098 4.118 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.603 1.333 0.571 HCM Control Delay 119.1 61.5 16.9 HCM Lane LOS C F C LLCM 95111-1110 Q 3.9 14.9 3.5 c 5:00 am 0811812010 Tactics Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 77 155th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI PM P£P1K W.:2 � EK Lefox 06/2012014 OppoWng Approach SB NB Oppashg Lanes 0 lnt nac k n Delay. slveh 50.1 Conflicting Approach Left St3 EB Conflicting Lanes Lift 1 ln*"cMm LOS st=' a 1 0 Conflicting Approach flight NB EB Vol,vehhi 0 375 119 0 100 54 0 74 739 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles. % 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 Mvmt Flaw 0 412 131 0 143 77 0 77 770 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 t 0 OppoWng Approach SB NB Oppashg Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left St3 EB Conflicting Lanes Lift 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach flight NB EB Conflung Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Belay 49.5 15.2 59.6 HCM LOS E C F Vd Left, % 65% 76% 0% Vol Thru, % 35% 0% 9% Vol Right, % 0% 24% 91% Sign Control Slop Siop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 154 494 813 LT Vd 54 0 74 Through Vol 0 119 739 RT Vd 100 375 0 Lane Flaw Rata 220 543 847 Capmetry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of UtIl ()j 0.43 0.941 1 bsperkxe Headway (Hd) 7.036 6.243 5.731 Convergence, YM Yea Yes Yes Cap 515 575 635 Service Time 5.038 4.334 3.746 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.427 0.944 1.334 HCM Control Delay 15.2 49.5 59.6 HCM Lane LOS C E F HCM 95th-tHe Q 2.1 12.2 15.3 _ *PMVe*3:00 pm 09/2212010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 p, I P -k, Ir k T N l5A VOL4ME ' Timings (S-nnNaL-ILFA) 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 0612012014 � � 4\ T l -#1 Lane Configurations Volume NO) 375 119 100 54 7744 739 kiss! Flow (v") 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (11) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Wage Length M 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 Taper Uro (f) 25 25 Lane LAA Facia 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Me Factor Fr1 0.967 0.877 Fk Proflacted 0.963 0.969 Said. Flow (prol) 1752 0 0 low 1650 0 Fit Perrnklod 0.963 0.227 Said. Flow (perm) 1752 0 0 423 1650 0 Right Tum on Red Yea Yes Said. How (RTOR) 24 T70 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 683 816 406 Troost Time (a) 18.6 22.3 11.1 ConA. Peds. (ar411u) Cant. Bo ( Peak Hour Factor 0.91 1191 0.70 0,70 0.96 0.96 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehides (%) 1% 1 % 2% 2% 1% 1% Bus Sin*Agm (#M 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (or) WBtock Traffk; (%) 0% 0% 0% Adf. Flow (vph) 412 131 143 77 77 770 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 543 0 0 220 647 0 .Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Mariman Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minirru rn Spot (a) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split (a) 27.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 38.6% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4% Yellow Tirne (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time A4ust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (a) 4.5 4.5 4.5 LeuvLag Lead4.ag Optimize! Recall Mode None None None None Act Oct Green (s) 21.7 35.7 35.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,33 0.54 0.54 PM peak 3:00 pm 09!22!2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 0612012014 4 Vk Rego 0.93 0.97 0.68 Control Delay 46.9 74.3 4.5 Queue Dway 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.9 74.3 4.5 LOS D E A Approach Delay 46.8 74.3 4.5 Approach LOS D E A 90th %ie Green (a) 22.5 39.5 36.5 39.5 90th %ib Term Code Max Max Max Fold AM %ile Green (s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 39.5 7091 %k Tenn Code Max Max Max Hold 50th %flee Great (s) 22.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 50th %Ne Term Code Max Max Max Mold 30th %ile Green (s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 39.5 30th %b Term Code Max Max Max Hold 10th %k Green (s) 18.2 25.4 25.4 25.4 10th %tie Tera Code Gap Gap Gap Hold Queue Length 50th (ft) 216 81 14 Queue Leo 95th yo #406 #147 65 ' Internal Link Dist (ft) 603 736 326 Than Bay Lano (M Base Cepa* (0) 616 247 1286 Starvation Cap Reducfn 0 0 0 SfUm do Cap Reducln 0 0 0 Sic W cep Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vfc Ratio 0.66 0.89 0.66 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 70, Actuated Cycle Lahpth: 66.5 Natural Cyde: 70 Control Type: Actuate"n000rdlnated Maximum vlc Ratio 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.3 Inlersechon LOS: C Intersection Cape* Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of service l= Analysis Period (min)15 901h %Ib Actuated Cycle. 70 706h %lie Actuated Cycle: 70 50th %lie Actuated Cyde: 70 30th %Ile Actuated Cycle: 70 1Mti %ib Actuated Cycle: M VA percentile volume exceeds capaclty, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. City of Renbn Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI --I' -v 4N t I 1 Lane Conte we 4 + f Volume (vph) 375 119 100 54 74 739 kkW Fbw (*0) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage L no (IQ 0 0 0 20 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length (1t) 25 25 Lam UM. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frt 0.967 0.850 FN Protected 0.963 0.969 Sa ld. low (prot) 1752 0 0 1805 1881 1599 FH Permitted 0.963 0.757 Seid. Flow (perm) 1752 0 0 1410 1851 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Sedd..Flow (RTOR) 42 770 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance (It) 683 816 406 Travel Time (s) 18.6 22.3 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehlckm (%) 1 % 1% 2% 2% 1 % 1% Ad). Flow (0) 412 131 143 77 77 770 5twed Lone Traffic (%) Lam Croup Flow (#) 543 0 0 220 77 770 Enter Blodred htwsecffon No No No No No No lane AlIgnment Left RfgM Left Left Left Right Madan Widl A) 12 0 0 Link Met(it3 0 0 0 Crosswalk Wdth(it) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.(10 Twkq Speed (mph) 13 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 2 2 1 Detector Template Left Left Thru Thru Right Leading Detector (R) 20 20 100 100 20 Trailing Deb ftr (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Slae(f) 20 20 6 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex Cl+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [selector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Perm PmkKtedPhases 4 2 6 Permiltad Phases 2 6 Wwip-L. 6LT' Pa uce-# ('A' VOL) 06!2012014 PM peak 3:00 pm 09/2212010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Pop 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI --* --v *N t O6120V2014 tielectar Phase 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum IrrU (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum S* (s) 9.5 915 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total 5pi t (s) 22.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Taial Spit (%) 48.9% 51.1% 51,1% 51,1% 51.1% Maxirrrurn Green (s) 17.5 18,5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 A14;Wd Tima (s) 1.0 to 1.0 1.0 1.0 Last Time Aust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total host Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Leadlleg Lea kag Qpt(rnize7 Vehicle Eden" (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Crone None None None Mone Ad Effd Green (s) 14,4 11.7 11.8 11.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 vk Ratio 0.74 0.47 0.12 0.74 Control Delay 17.9 13.5 9.6 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 LOS 8 8 A A Approach Delay 17.9 131 6.3 Approach LOS B S A LWO 60th (ft) til 34 10 0 Queue Length 95t (R) 0247 56 29 51 Inlamel Link €fit (ft) 503 736 326 Tum Say Lenglh (1!) 2Q use Cap9* (vph) 925 770 1027 1222 Starvation Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 spiibm* Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redudn 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.59 0.29 0.07 0.63 Area Type: Other Cycle length: 45 Actuated Cyde Umplh: 35.6 Natural Cycle: 45 Conbd Type: Actuated- Waordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:11.2 Intersec*m LOS: B Intersection Capacity LMkzabon 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th P=M* volurrre exeeds capacty, queue may be longer. Queue shown Is maxh um a* two cycles- Timings 333:156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI -.4 -V 1 t 1 41 AM PCAV, V_, rti Fk voLLA(I E [ S1�n N A L-X*.c7) 06124!2014 Law t.'aRkw6res v 4 1� Vokm ( ) 642 17 .100 131 87 197 tdael Fbw (v") 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Wm (fl) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Gude N 0% 0% 0% Sftw Leah (R} 0 0 0 0 Lww 1 o 0 0 Tapor Lonoov`(M 25 25 Lane LVA, Faclor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped'BM Factor Fct 11985 0.899 Fk Probc led 0.857 0.979 SNd. Flow (prop 1756 0 0 1712 1656 0 Flt Pwmftd 0.957 0.562 Salo Flow (perm) 1736 0 0 1053 1658 0 Wt Tuan on Red Yea Yes Saki. Flow (RTM 12 226 We Speed (mph) 25 25 .25 Link disfanoe (R) 973 626 981 Tran 1F w (a) 26.5 226 26:6 Cons, Peds. (B M Coni. ma. oft) Peak Hour Fa Dbr 0.89 0.89 0.72 0.72 0.78 0.78 Gror M Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Haar Vahides (%) 2% 2% 5% 5% 3% 3% taw 191oCi�et RM 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palkkp wM Mid4lodc Trelk (%) 0% 0% 0% A4. Flow (Vh) 721 87 139 190 86 253 Mom Lane Tfdk (%) Lane CrocqFlow (vph) 808 0 0 329 338 0 I'um T7Pe _ Prot Perin NA NA Pmbcbd Phases 4 2 6 Pwff tMd. Phases 2 thMckv Phase 4 2 2 6 &dkh Phase W rntcm WW (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 141rq w 1" (6) 9.5 9.5 9.5 4.5 Tobi Split (a) 42.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 TOW Spilt (%) 56.0% 44.0% 44.0% 44.0% Yalow Tama (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 MAW Tkne (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Tune AdJ W (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tow" Lom Tkne (s) Le"tn 4.5 4.5 4.5 Load -[:p gMntiie? RKd Dods None None None Nona Act EW Green (s) 33.7 24.7 24.7 Ac uabd 9fC Rabo 0.50 0.36 0.36 AM peg 5:00 am 0$t18010 Tooft Syncym 8 ReW City of Renlon Pap 1 Timings 333:156th Ave SE & SE 142nd P( 08120/2014 -�o 1V IN t 4 1 Cordrd Ddq 34.1 44.3 8A 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tow Deily 34.1 44.3 8.1 LOS C D A AWosah Daisy 34.1 44.3 8.1 Approach LOS C D A 190 Xie Green (6) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 901h %k Tenn Code Max Mbx Max Hdd 701h %k Groan (s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 701h %ft Terra Coda Max Max Max Hold 501r %ia Green (s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 501h %ie Term Cafe Max Max Max Hold 301h Ms Green (s) 33.9 24.0 24.0 24.0 301h %fie Term Code aw Gap Gap Ndd 1Dh %k Groan (s) 228 15.2 15.2 15.2 I(M .%fie Term Code Gap Gap Gap Hold OMM Lenglh 501h (ft) 322 135 33 hWmal Link Dlst (f) 893 748 901 :-T"rl iyi'LeatQlhA , BW CapB* NO) 1010 458 IN Illik ioii Cap'Redu* 0 0 0 4fted Cap Re** 0 0 0 0 a 0 PAduoed We Rain 0.80 0.72 0.40 Neo Type: Offer 0aw d engh: $7.7 Cyft 75 Conbd Type: Adua6ed-IJ mordinded Maxie9 M * Rain; 0.92 WMMKbM Sipnal Delay.. 30.4 Intersection LOS: C IMetMNM Ctipd* Uiaion 79.9% --,-V wol of Service D Melysis Period (ftfM)15 90r'i %M Acbd d Cyde: 75 7M %k AcWabd Cyde: 75 50 %he Actuated CycW 75 301h %ie A*s Wd Cyde: 88.9 401h %ie Aclud W Cyde: 46:8 # 9% parmSe volume woos& capadty, queue may be longer. OWA ta*n Is ffm.hKxn dW No oydoo. City of Rasion psia 2 4� --k N N W w w w N N N N N N W N" --Lz V LD O4�6 OVO Qo C031 W O WW W W N COT7 V CV] O o + CA w �-*N W0-4 VCS pWNNNNNNs N Oa V W.A-1NNCal pO.pO-W(T1NWpoNa N O N�t,]dWC17CT7 WOCli00d VN(C}C>uON��� �M CA (p. 5r 1 a) VI �NNW.AAAWNNNw p6]Od1-� 'Q N W 0) co (n �� Q) cohO W O N CT7 N 0 000 d W W V 6N) r (4 N L N W O 0 s p V Cil Ul Cn (P 4) C0 0 V N_ cu -4 jO O s W� O N 607 C7ra V (-1 00 W N -L� QJ --t to N (31 N~ N j 60T W N (D V N Q (WT7 (n W V (HT1 D N NNN-L -a" �""��"-%.m N � WN) w U1W"-a000OO O O O O O oOO_ O d O O a O O d O O O O O p O a O O a a O Q O p O d a O O d O O CZ7 .A.WN oca �0Ut.PWN d(0wV0Cn4�,WNsM O o a a 0 0 d O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0OOoaoo0od0o0oo00 0 Q Ul W UI N -4 CD co as s s N W V d LD O -4 _ -P5, Cr) V Ul Im co w 4h. N C]) cn co (A CD co N CA u! 0) ro d co R V a -• CA tD V v .A W (D CD W LA oo -� 67CT711oocDcnNi31�VU7OrnNUtV�Noo W WNW iA Gi W mm 4� --k N N W w w w N N N N N N W N" --Lz V LD O4�6 OVO Qo C031 W O WW W W N COT7 V CV] O o + CA w �-*N W0-4 VCS pWNNNNNNs N Oa V W.A-1NNCal pO.pO-W(T1NWpoNa N O N�t,]dWC17CT7 WOCli00d VN(C}C>uON��� �M CA (p. 5r 1 a) VI �NNW.AAAWNNNw p6]Od1-� 'Q N W 0) co (n �� Q) cohO W O N CT7 N 0 000 d W W V 6N) r (4 N L N W O 0 s p V Cil Ul Cn (P 4) C0 0 V N_ cu -4 jO O s W� O N 607 C7ra V (-1 00 W N -L� QJ --t to N (31 N~ N j 60T W N (D V N Q (WT7 (n W V (HT1 D r-,� ' 7 24 June 2014 Renton Hearing Examiner re: The proposed Enclave development along 156th Ave SE For the last 34 years, I've lived within a half mile of the 154th PI SEl156th Ave SE arterial corridor which runs adjacent to the Enclave development site. This 1.77 mile route connects Maple Valley Hwy (SR -169) with the arterial network on the plateau east of Renton. I'm here because I've driven all or portions of the corridor perhaps thousands of times. I'm also here because I don't live in city, residing the unincorporated area in one of Renton's Potential Annexation Areas. As a resident of a neighboring jurisdiction (i.e. King County), I'm here to assure you are aware of the impacts we're witnessing outside Renton's jurisdiction. It doesn't appear that a holistic plan or vision for the corridor exists. This, not surprisingly, results in a mosaic of changes that all but ignore impacts outside their immediate epicenter. It means were designing things based on formulas, without the availability an integrated vision to orchestrate the changes. Renton has a subarea approach to community planning. At last check, only the boundaries of the subarea that includes the corridor have been created. Renton needs a comprehensive subarea plan for this plateau before it makes one more decision that, once made, is essentially impossible to correct. If wrong, the "cost of quality" also increases dramatically. It's not clear if Renton is operating the way intended as evidenced by comments on King County Transportation Concurrency Management Program, and the City Council Resolution for an ILA with King County that includes transportation. Renton's Transportation Concurrency Program Management Plan mentions that much of the load on the city's transportation system is out of their control, coming from decisions made in other jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the city appears to be ignoring the reverse where decisions made in the city impact transportation systems in other jurisdictions. The City's intent to be sensitive to impacts their decisions make on other jurisdictions should be clear. Renton Resolution 4165' that calls for staff work on creating an Inter -Local Agreement with King County that was intended, among other things, to include a commitment by the city to comprehensively evaluate transportation issues that are analyzed and prioritized by the county. Renton comments' on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program update to King County Code 14.703 where the city "requests that King county ' Renton Resolution 4165, 10 December 2012, Inter -Local Agreement (ILA) between Renton and King County. 2 Letter from Jennifer Henning to Josh Peters, 18 December 2013, "Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139`t' Place, Renton, WA 98059 establish Level of Service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary'. But what is not clear is how the decisions Renton has made align with that intent_ This certainly includes development and the transportation system. If Renton were to follow its recommendation to King County Transportation Concurrency Management Program, Travel Shed 12 would be expanded to its "natural" boundaries (as opposed to stopping at jurisdictional boundaries). At a minimum, this would cause all road segments along the 154th11561h arterial corridor to fail transportation concurrency. Following the Transportation Concurrency RCW, this would require development denial until allowed response plans were committed. No such response plans exist in Renton. The decisions regarding the Enclave development application are highly questionable in context of 1) goals for the entire 1541h11561h arterial corridor, and 2) impacts to other jurisdictions, including King County and Washington State. From a Transportation Concurrency perspective, Renton is permitting additional daily trips in a road network that will increase load on road segments currently failing King County transportation concurrency that are within a mile and a half of the arterial corridor. All the unincorporated area road segments along the arterial corridor are in King County Travel Shed 12. Under King County's method, if more than 15% of the road segments in a travel shed fail concurrency, the entire travel shed fails. This approach recognizes the interconnected nature of the road system and, analogous to water sheds, recognize the most road users travel routes, not just intersections or road segments. The travel sheds recognize that development doesn't just impact roads and intersections near the project, but drives trips onto routes that will likely impact roads and intersections some considerable distance away. Renton, on the other hand, approaches transportation concurrency completely differently. The Level of Service is an index last updated in 2002 that essentially is the sum of distances traveled using three different types of routes over a fixed period of time. The Renton transportation model is updated annually with, among other things, new net trip data. As long as the predicted miles are below the 2002 index, the entire system passes transportation concurrency. ' King County Roads has proposed changes to their transportation concurrency that could impact this situation, but staff has advised that the changes are significant and might involve Code and Comprehensive Plan. Regardless, we expect quite a bit of discussion before decisions are made. Interestingly, Renton has expressed its opposition to the proposed county changes. Some residents from the area have also provided comments opposed to portions of the proposed changes. ' "King County's Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 should consider areas within and outside of its jurisdictional boundaries in applying the concurrency test_ The City of Renton requests that King county establish Level of service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary. This will provide the ability to understand and evaluate the true impact and movement of vehicles on our road infrastructure. This will in turn give clear information on which impact fees and mitigation can be based." Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139tH Place, Renton, WA 98059 2 Although there are some interesting elements to this approach, Renton's transportation concurrency will not fail for a very long time so developments, like Enclave, that may have local transportation service level issues, we always be issued a concurrency certificate. It's clear that the Transportation Concurrency laws strongly intend for jurisdictions to work together because of the possibility of impacts outside the permitting jurisdiction. This situation exists throughout the east plateau. This cross -jurisdictional issue also includes the Interstate 405. The 154th11561h arterial corridor is formally identified as a bypass route for that interstate, and is identified for improvement in the WS DOT Interstate 405 Corridor PIan5. Radical improvements have been made at the Cedar River crossing, and on Coal Creek Pkwy between Renton and Newcastle, a major destination for traffic on the 154'h/1561h corridor. The county continues to prioritize flow improvement projects along 128th Ave SE, the major intersection route at the north end of the 154'h/156th corridor. In the context of the 1-405 program, plans like putting in an electric stoplight to replace the 3 -way stop makes no sense. Assuming one of the objectives is to allow relatively unencumbered traffic flows along the 1-405 alternate route, stop lights should be reserved only for major intersections, something the 3 -way stop is a long ways from being. One can do all sorts of speculation about things like political will and funding availability, but the raw facts are 1) the corridor is part of an accountable plan, 2) that plan is bigger than Renton, and 3) major investments have been made. Unfortunately, Renton Transportation and Community and Economic Development modified the mitigations required of the Enclave developer to add mitigation of the cost of putting a stoplight at the intersections. That decision is extremely presumptive about the validity and lack of importance of the WS DOT Interstate Program. There is no indication in the Enclave permitting or, for that matter, any of the other development permits issued by Renton along the corridor that the designs are aware of and aligned to the vision pass-through vision for the arterial network and the role the 1541h1156th arterial segments contribute. There are questions about Renton's Transportation Concurrency Management Program. Although these will need to be addressed during the next update, it is purely coincidental that any analysis of the impact to intersections or road segment travel times are even included in the permitting analysis for Enclave. It was the developer that included the delay analysis for the a- way stop, something not required by Renton SEPA or concurrency_ Unlike what's called for in the RCW, Renton concurrency does not drive development at all. In fact, it appears to have no relevance to development decisions- ' The WS DOT "Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects" (28 May 2008) identifies over 150 individual projects including improvements to "key arterials". Projects are included that extend from SR -169 through Newcastle. 6 Letter from Chip Vincent to Roger Paulsen, 22 May 2014. "Enclave at Bridal Ridge Preliminary Plat" Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, WA 98059 3 Development on this plateau, with disturbing trends and impacts, is far from over. The plateau continues to be a desirable development area. My last comment is to make sure we stay aware of where we are in development on the plateau. Some years ago, most of the large vacant parcel development was completed but development on the plateau is far from over. There are a number of annexations in different states of progress all driven by developers and all intended to get vested under Renton's rules, certainly including concurrency and without benefit of a holistic plan for the corridor, let alone the entire plateau. Based on what we're aware of we expect to see development applications for at least 150 new dwelling units generating over 1,200 daily trips, much of which will use at least a portion of the 1541h115611 corridor. The decisions that are impacting the corridor transportation and the look and feel of the community need to be stopped before it becomes impossible and/or of significant cost to change the decisions. I recommend the HE rule that all development permitting that will impact the 154th/1561h arterial corridor be judged as not allowed until such time as 1) Renton can demonstrate its intended interregional coordination and mitigation plans, and 2) be in possession of a holistic plan for the area. Attachments: • WS DOT Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects, 28 May 2008, one-page summary. • Letter from Chip Vincent to Roger Paulsen. Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA14-00241, PP, ECF, 22 May 2014, additional mitigation for a stoplight. • Renton Resolution 4165, 10 December 2012, requesting work be done with the objective of an Inter -Local Agreement (ILA) between King County and the city. • Renton comment on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program update to King County Code 14.70 • Various maps including King County Travel Shed 12 and transportation needs, the corridor including the 1-405 bypass route, etc. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, WA 98059 4 Denis Law �' Mayor City i CC Department of Community.and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator December 18, 2013 Josh D. Peters, AICD, Transportation Planning supervisor Road Services Division, Strategic Business Operations Section King County Department of Transportation KCS -TR -0317, 201 South Jackson Street. 5eattle, WA 981.04-3856 Via .email: Jo.sh.Peters(@kinacounty.gov SUBJECT: Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 Dear Mr, Peters: Thank.you for accepting comments from the City of Renton regarding King County's 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update. We understand.that the comment period for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) ended on November 22°d, and we regret not providing comments at that time. We appreciate consideration of our concerns at this time. King County's Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King -County Code 14.70 should consider areas within and outside of its jurisdictional boundaries in applying the concurrency test.. The City of Renton requests that King County establish Level of Service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal.limits or the Urban Growth Boundary. This will provide the ability to understand and evaluate the true impact and movement of vehicles on our road infrastructure. This will in turn give clear information on which impact fees and mitigation can be based. In addition, we encourage King County to expend mitigation funds collected within Renton's Potential. Annexation Area (PAA) on. projects that directly benefit the Level of Service within the PAA. Renton City Hall 1 055 South Grady Way . Renton,Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov Josh Peters 2 of 2 December 18, 2013 i Please feel free to contact Me at fhenning@rentonwa.goor 425-430.7286 if you would like to meet or discuss this further. Sincerely, • v y,, l � i Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Director i cc: C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CGI) Administrator GreggZimrnerrnan, PW Administrator Doug la ccbson, Deputy Public works Administrator Jim Seitz, Transportation Systems Bob Mahn, Transportation Systems I CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 4165 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REQUESTING KING COUNTY BEGIN DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING A POTENTIAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF RENTON'S POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) facilitates the transformation of unincorporated urban areas to incorporation through either annexation or incorporation; and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan has designated the Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) for the City of Renton wherein annexation is the most likely and preferred choice of incorporation; and WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the City and King County to plan for the City of Renton's PAAs in a coordinated and consistent manner; and WHEREAS, King County should recognize the Comprehensive Planning and Development Regulations of the City within the PAAs, given that the PAAs will most likely at some time be within the City; and WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Regional Council developed VISION 2040, which recognizes the value, benefit, and role for cities planning beyond their incorporated limits for unincorporated urban areas; and WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) establish that King County should jointly plan with cities in a collaborative and coordinated manner; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations are in compliance with the GMA; and 1 RESOLUTION N0. 4165 WHEREAS, the City of Renton has adopted Comprehensive Plan land use designations and Development Regulations that could be applied to its PAAs; and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement establishing a joint effort in planning for Renton's PAAs would be in the best interest of the City and King County; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I_ The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION ll. The City requests King County begin discussions with City staff regarding a potential interlocal agreement concerning its Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations for land use development in the City Of Renton's PAAs. SECTION III. The City would like the potential interlocal agreement with King County to address the following: A. Testimony and Comments to the King County Hearing Examiner: In land use matters located in Renton's PAAs that are before the King County Hearing Examiner, testimony from the City of Renton, written or verbal, will be allowed to be considered as evidence in the decision making of the Hearing Examiner. B. Comprehensive Planning and Pre -Zoning: King County will endeavor to evaluate their Comprehensive Plan land use designations for consistency with City of Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations in Renton's PAAs. Additionally, King County will consider making amendments to their land use designations so that they are reasonably consistent with Renton's land use designations and pre -zoning when it has been adopted. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 4165 C. Transportation: Transportation concurrency, levels of service, and high incident accident areas that are analyzed and prioritized by King County will be evaluated comprehensively, considering information and documentation within Renton City limits. D. Transfer of Development Rights: Transfer of Development Rights receiving areas in the PAAs be limited to areas planned for higher densities (zoning that allows for densities of 10 dwelling units per acre and greater). SECTION IV. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to enter into the interlocal agreement with icing County that jointly plans for Renton's PAAs. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this loth day of APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this loth day of Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES: 1577:11/26/12:scr r December , 2012, wm son A. S h, Deputy City Clerk December 2012 Denis Law 1tV O 4 mayory t 1 t, r J r I Community & Economic Development Department May 22, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5`h Place Renton, WA 98059 RE, Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat / LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration, the City conducted an independent study of the 156`" Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142,4 Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430-6598 or via email at jding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, 1 f V C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin Lagers, Applicant Sally Lou Niper, Owner G. Richard Ouimet, Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov MSU L'r,i i/ 99 _ sz� i95 _ `•• E`1 j f The I-405 Corridor Program What is the 1-405 Program? The Interstate 405 Corridor Program is a broad term for a program of more than 150 individual, coordinated projects to relieve congestion and improve mobility for motorists, transit and freight users along the freeway's 30 -mile length. The full name is "Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects" The master plan for fixing 1-405 traffic includes all transportation modes, adding up to two new lanes each direction to 1-405, a corridor -wide bus rapid transit (BRT) line and increased iocal transit service, It will fix bottlenecks such as the SR 16711-405 interchange, improve key arterials, expand transit centers, and add about 1,700 new vanpools and over 5,000 park and ride spaces. The 1-405 Master Plan will ultimately.. • Add up to 2lanes in each direction in 1-405 • develop a Bus Rapid Transit line with stations along I- 405 and expanded transit centers • Improve key arterials • Accommodate an additional 110,000 trips per day in the corridor • Reduce time stuck in traffic by over 13 million hours per year -- an average of over 40 hours per year per regular user • Produce travel time savings valued at $569 million each year • Save $42 million each year in decreased traffic accidents • Create 1700 new vanpools — a 100% increase • Increase local transit service by up to 50% within the study area • Build 5, 000 new park-and-ride spaces • Create eight new pedestrianlbicycle crossings over 1-405 • Enhance freight mobility through better interchanges, travel time reduction, and updated and technologies • Provide much-needed economic benefits for Washington State — for each $1 million spent on new construction, an additional 30 jabs are created Aftk ROWaahingtan State W Department of Tranaportation z 5cr, trLE .. ELLir'L E SPMMf MSy p ,uea•'cra suwr. Fdded Freerrm Lanin L Canwtm. � � FwoxwyrtesaShdra[aGrret!gnen Y = as>snern�,ehan�e p�azd.Y A"'G'w cha�pornls /rreN a! SR 16T, 1917 .. 518 - 1695 au: Aan,d TraN .l lean Sema New pr,s,epM+�ansR ,:l ,,;uNL-pr system depio}zC jar&xwn .. Rans�t Sarno 50% Tranar(acvae­ ,. � '1g 6 wM ROV laic aaarleect - 515 aacss rmp.wen,enls . _ ---- Arsenal hp - 1. 516 Bal SUtlms ® Ten new [tar sra!ra•s Fnnsil Cedmrs rn �e Jas,r�nrrrE, 04 Palo d$l,de Lil1, aIVA7 uew parNanf ,it;e 1iWfPS The 1-405 Master Plan will ultimately.. • Add up to 2lanes in each direction in 1-405 • develop a Bus Rapid Transit line with stations along I- 405 and expanded transit centers • Improve key arterials • Accommodate an additional 110,000 trips per day in the corridor • Reduce time stuck in traffic by over 13 million hours per year -- an average of over 40 hours per year per regular user • Produce travel time savings valued at $569 million each year • Save $42 million each year in decreased traffic accidents • Create 1700 new vanpools — a 100% increase • Increase local transit service by up to 50% within the study area • Build 5, 000 new park-and-ride spaces • Create eight new pedestrianlbicycle crossings over 1-405 • Enhance freight mobility through better interchanges, travel time reduction, and updated and technologies • Provide much-needed economic benefits for Washington State — for each $1 million spent on new construction, an additional 30 jabs are created Aftk ROWaahingtan State W Department of Tranaportation - ■ 7vn SE — `\ ■ 100 m T n x o°o" East A'e m CL � t, . , ;E , � cn M 3 n �, v d W 3 m m a @ 9' co m m e s� N.3 3 CD o o a° `L ro N@ a es m 3 = 3 O d @ 7 (D 6@ 2 •�• O N S 3 w Cl '�". �{ Q. Q O j �S - s Uj In E' $ o 3 O C [0 f7 ,� o@ 3 c @ fD � N oo o a > > �� o C a'.v m F @ 7 (A (o cc cn�� to N@ 3 w -- U) m m tS N C � --3 ci: C mm' — a ° m -, °1 c= o .. Co. ' < m 3m ms`smc+' �. CD CL CD `-� Nps j o'O� QLD @'D 3@ �f.."O m K m@ �.n-. W o_ Co a 3� '�� f3D r-W m �,o'v' (D CR 3r <�m(DCL NZ6o m ro� oa(0�mcD0 ' O CD m a m (D@ 0 n rp v, m r vaSE tan IE �s Q m�3�0�� u,3 N O S S O tt21h o tisth Ave SE Edmonds Av SE N N ro 3 C 0 0 @ ¢� CL @ 3 fl. A. SE r. co @ 7 Q@ y 23rd Are SE eW 9th Ava SS r w �ymn F N Nm Ave SE Union m �• Iso a z m u A Ave N E cu Jedcha Are NE A— (D GE CD - Nile Ave NE 4 v 'g - ammo (nm 3 �I ro 7Sda ive&'s �S y D30 0 N a \♦` ._, z @ (Dm CA a CLC m0oa x m m (D CD 0 ID m u D0 ro C N N @ m xCL CD o D A ,O. 0 y o m O a3 f} 3 R 7 �0 rA�; w fib N y X02 - FIS != 7 sill =r o N OD t L` S 0 C 3 M t y to @ a s O - S L'1 S N mOL • M 4: �<�CD (D < m ¢/w a — `V O 0)7 N O p7 0 _,CL ID 3 Z) C a< 3 N aus„�e�Wr s�',� CD o�c CD Oco Q Xn @ @ (D O Q. 7 eNE N Rq ;pRp:j' I T^--wi II N 4th St :Rqe > AM envisionedConnects to Cedar-Sammamish Trail Renton is permitting development in i annexed areas that touch property inside ' jKing County's jurisdiction that is are failing King County Transportation Concurrency. _ The entire length, along with much of SE 128th St and 164th Ave SE, are listed auL¢�po Rs 9_ The permitting is allowing increases in n King County's Transportation Needs vehicle trips immediately adjacent to an Report �'" N area failing Transportation Concurrency. `°"RT It is also changing the configuration of the 15411/156th corridor by adding sidewalks intersections F�GRe_ and with local roads without the benefit of an agreed-upon vision for 154th/156th is the 1.77 mile, mostly 2-lane °�� the corridor. arterial, connecting Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) rv,. with the residential area on the plateau east of Renton, along with an arterial network interchange T_. connecting May Valley, Issaquah, Newcastle, N ILI Bellevue, and Renton. 4--'—''— - Renton has create a mitigation to install a stoplight at the 3-waystop. This would be the least significant intersection along the 1-4OS bypass The arterial intersects access route that has electronic traffic control. All others points for both the oR.R°Ns.00 are at intersections of primary and/or collector developed Cedar River Trail .� �Rsea arterials. At present, the 154th/156th corridor is and the envisioned Cedar- �aaadNN identified as a minor arterial. FRI Sammamish Trail Restrict ed"°`E9 line-of-site •°° - -- -... k -—i' intersection New e t o. n.... residential In J­ development 7-- _ --_ — kill _ 'Y 117 / I aen:woon _fr S�FNA� r CID The arterial passes through an area " zoned residential coming to within a ile from three schools. There are sporatic safety measures for bikeand :cwi 1 Significant �w pedistrian traffic. There are segments �2. es �t —grade without protection from open " r I without the benefit l. culverts. The are line of-site safety s of a slow traffic I 1 — issues at one arterial intersection. Eane �RMRWOc0 S - Lam—\ i ' , Some Questions \ What is the appropriate shared vision for the design of this arterial? Should it have more intersections created or designed to limit additional access? Should there be bike lanes and safe walking surfaces? Should their be :._ •r` slow-vehicle lanes on portions of the north route? What about the shared experience (e.g. street trees, Connects t6 \ j attention to what is visible from the developments, Cedar River etc.}? 15 Renton development that is changing the road Trail configuration based on an explicit vision for the entire Rema -�. ! 11 corridor? Legend ? New ° I! Renton PAA commercial .Transportation Need development oke" 76' iTransportationNeed Fil J -Trail Four Creef s 154th Pill 56th Ave Arterial Corridor ,/` `L nincOrporatedArea (Ouncit 7th ANIS-1 FCUAC The ertenal corridor cnnnec ,U Maple Valley Hwy and the SE 128th St artemJ --.- Theme Transporta[iu�_Roads_Gor dor 154th - - _ 3 June 2014 Eour Creeks wa Transportation Road Corridors Four Creeks mea load transportation corridors 'Unincorparaterf;9rea Council p�pt FCUAC_Theme_Transpodapon on Rde Corridor 23J.-2014 June 24, 2014 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. We intend for this letter to supplement Roger's earlier comment letter dated March 23, 2014. Included by reference is Roger's Request for Appeal, dated June 5, 2014. Traffic Study and /impacts In order to make a recommendation that the Renton City Council approve this subdivision request, it is our understanding that the Hearing Examiner must make affirmative findings based in the public record which satisfy the requirements of RCW 58.17.110, and the City of Renton Municipal Code. Specifically, RCW 58.1.7.1.10(2) provides: (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a)Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners. Our concern is that the record fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project given the acknowledged inadequacies of the 156" Ave SE / SE 142" PL intersection, and the nexus between this project and the intersection, as established by the City in their revised SEPA Determination. Morespecifically, no adequate study has been performed nor required to inform how the two new access streets proposed as part of this plat, nor other existing adiacent intersections including SE S1h Place and 1541" Ave. SE, will function with the installation of a traffic signal at SE 156" Ave. AE / SE 142"d PL intersection. See attached "Neighborhood Detail Map" for intersection locations. Absent this information, the Hearing Examiner cannot make findings based in the record to recommend approval of this subdivision. To do so would be contrary not only to City of Renton Municipal Code, but to State law established to ensure that new subdivisions are only approved when it can be found that they make appropriate provision for infrastructure including streets, and that the public use and interest will be served. While we appreciate the fact that the City of Renton, after reviewing Roger's April 16th Request for Reconsideration, has decided to utilize the SEPA Determination to require mitigation associated with the 1561" Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL intersection, it has functionally changed the environment with which this plat will interact, without an understanding of the likely impacts associated with a proposed new traffic signal. Our concern is that, in attempting to address a failing level of service at this intersection, the City may actually be creating a situation where ingress and egress from the proposed plat is nearly impossible (or certainly unsafe) due to increased traffic queues on 156t' Ave. SE associated with a signalized intersection. A subdivision can only be approved when the Hearing Examiner can make findings that the interface with the public street system serves the public interest. It is simply not possible to make this finding when the record lacks the necessary information to evaluate whether an appropriate provision has been made in this regard. We urge you to recommend denial of the proposed plat until the necessary traffic studies have been completed and reviewed, to inform whether affirmative findings can be made that allowing two new access points to 156th Ave. SE as part of this plat are in the public interest, and until the impacts upon adjacent existing intersections including SE 51h Place and 154`' Ave. SE are adequately understood. The public should be given an adequate period of time to review this information prior to any further proceedings. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide a primary point of access, and conventional intersection alignment, at the 156t1i Ave. SE / SE 142" d PL intersection, including what the City now recognizes as appropriate signalization. This approach is supported by the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Ref: Objective T -A and Policies T-2, T-3, T-4, T-14, T-15), and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection that are now a part of the public record. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity As raised in Roger's initial comment letter, and his April 16th Request for Reconsideration, we remain concerned that the City's "Notice of Application ...." (attached), with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns we have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for -public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. 2 In short, the notice states that a citizen having concern, and who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"". Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22nd, the opportunity to provide input that would inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the original Threshold Determination being issued. We believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on June 24"', and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. We fully understand the efficiency the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but we urge a careful review of these notices to understand the concern we once again raise here. Rear Yard Designation With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (Ref. Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), we ask, as part of the recommended conditions of approval, that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard setback on proposed lot #4. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage file thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 40 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes particularly for those furthest to the east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any 3 up -siccing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunities provided by this project. If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact us as shown below. Sincerely, R\ 6617 SE 5`h PL Renton, WA 98059 (425)228-1589 RogcrAPaul sen(cLcs.com Attachments: Neighborhood Detail Map Notice of Application rI� Ak Jas M. Paulsen, POA r Judy M. Paulsen 17 SE 5"' PL Renton, WA 98059 (509)996-8160 JasonNlPaulsen(a)gmail.coni 4 ON3 3W r� v�I City of, FITi CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW; Zon€ng/tand Use; The subject site Is designated Residential Low Density (COMP�RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map, . Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mltigatfon: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. 0 Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report ■ Project construction shah be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments an the above application must he submitted In writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, CED — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5,00 PM on March 24, Z014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1455 South Grady Way, Renton. Ifyou are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. if you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598, Eml: Whig@rentonwa.sov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: Cityof Renton, CEO— Nanning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98053, Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14.000241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-OW241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation, The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street- The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14.000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site - PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156" Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS•M). As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS -M process to give notice that a DNS - M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period fallowing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nan -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -MI. A 14 -day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS -M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC / 9675 SE 36"" Street Suite 305, Mercer island, WA 98040 / EML: justln@amerfeanclassichomes.com Permits/Revlew Requested: Environmental ($EPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building, Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO)— Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING. Public_bearinR Is tentatively scheduled for April„2,, 20 ,4 before the Renton Hearinit ExamiLigr, in.hEqom Council Chambers at 10.00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO — Planning Division, 1055 So, Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14.000241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO-: C€tylstate/Zip: Pet -___n to the Hearing Examiner State law (RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Signature Address I)� r U 6� ILIglla ro�7Y AvC �p 7 (I/t1 LL I 993 A!,�? 11 1�0 nry LI fFe I (.e coo a f fJ A L) D Aix — r r I j AV/L— i l A -.0a _ 2`�II A L'r�yr� V (& i I VI ,�'� 1 nc- e--APt, y��c n \ c6lr1 is n lG�tO'l r 3 S t I�•u s e c� r -flop 1i tII/I 12,11, SQ,nda- rn�` q o f A) v� �d � 4' Pe on to the Hearing Examine State law (RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our contention that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Signature Address 74 Yff o6 .,uG �IU�js'J 164/6 SE 1400 -St, G i eA rA,k- .' 7 15 Sm 1 4 . D TSP .SEAl�hb _ �e kLiii 5 e r - // I !0 11e See L i rrda Rqe. a h SeYI vtmo a~2. RQMAOVI��f o3 t 5g4n p, L , rRe rutor>f ch-, . a h. Ct.. / ' I e- ko 4. GU 5TINr JV94.S6,tJ ff6 '19,& r V `- I V ' 01 Pe sn to the Hearing Examiner State law (RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) _ Signature Address �s J S�= 3 L &"ravtj Vs '-JJ5 A1C S6�� 1GC,�Y 2 11 Ej l` - 9 X31 rV '� S1 121A-�", Y1 i`? C l� ? r r?� } r NO P1 flilfflk 71t l QS V\ : Ip0"'1 `1, &* n G- ia� .5-0 0 ,,1 ,3 ;ID� ,0 90 ��-v)<- f,i7� fes) Joyce l Pe in to the Hearing Examiner State law (RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Signature Address r� J� C�k Page 1 of 1 10 c:;ty of ---� You are here : Living : Roads and Transportation : Transportation Projects Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Annually, the City of Renton updates a Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). It is a planning document adopted by the Renton City Council, The TIP: • Reflects involvement by citizens and elected officials. • Implements the City of Renton Mission Statement. • Is used to coordinate transportation projects and programs with other jurisdictions and agencies. • Is a multi-year planning tool for the development of the transportation facilities within the City. • Is required for State and Federal funding programs. • Is a vital part of planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). • Is mandated by State law. Projects and programs can be found listed with the appropriate Transportation Division section on each of their web pages: Transoortation Planning. Transportation Desian, and Transportation Operations and Maintenance. Copies of the TIP can be purchased from the City Clerk's Office, 425-430-6510. Questions about the TIP process can be directed to the Transportation Systems Division, 425-430-7321. The 2014-2019 Six -Year TIP was adopted on June 24, 2013. City of Renton Washington 2014-2019 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Mayor Denis Law Gregg Zimmerman Public Works Administrator NE 4" St at WhFtman Ave NE (replace once completed) Hearing: June 24, 2013 (tentative) Adopted: ... , 2013 Resolution: ..., SECTION ONE PURPOSE OF SIX-YEAR TIP PROGRAM • Purpose of Six -Year TIP 1-1 Vision Statement 1-2 • Mission Statement 1-2 • City Business Plan 1-2 CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2019 PURPOSE • Reflects involvement by citizens and elected officials. • Implements the City of Renton Mission Statement. • Used to coordinate transportation projects and programs with other jurisdictions and agencies. • Multi-year planning tool for the development of the transportation facilities within the City. • Required for State and Federal funding programs. • Vital part of planning under the Growth Management Act. • Mandated by State Law. 1-1 Renton Business Plan ViSl.oll Renton: Thecenter of opportunity in the Puget Sound Region where families and businesses thrive M0 0 The City of Renton, in partnership and communication with residents, businesses, and schools, is dedicated to. ■ Providing a safe, healthy, welcoming atmosphere where people choose to live ■ Promoting economic vitality and strategically positioning Renton for the future ■ Supporting planned growth and influencing decisions that impact the city ■ Building an inclusive city with opportunities for all ■ Meeting service demands through high quality customer service, innovation, a`positive work environment, and a commitment to excellence 2013-2018 Goals Provide a safe, healthy, vibrant community ■ Promote safety, health, and security through effective communication and service delivery ■ Facilitate successful neighborhoods through community involvement ■ Encourage and partner in the development of quality housing choices for people of all ages and income levels ■ Promote a walkable, pedestrian and bicycle -friendly city with complete streets, trails, and connections between neighborhoods and community focal points ■ Provide opportunities for communities to fie better prepared for-, Promote economic vitality and strategically position Renton for the future ■ Promote Renton as the progressive, opportunity rich city in the Puget Sound region ■ Capitalize on opportunities through bold and creative economic development strategies ■ Recruit and retain businesses to ensure a dynamic, diversified employment base ■ Nurture entrepreneurship and foster successful partnerships with businesses and community leaders Support planned growth and influence decisions that impact the city ■ Foster development of vibrant, sustainable, attractive, mixed-use neighborhoods in urban centers ■ Uphold a high standard of design and property maintenance Building an inclusive city with opportunities for all ■ Improve access to city services and programs and make residents and businesses aware of opportunities to be involved with their community in Build connections with ALL communities that reflect the breadth and richness of the diversity in our city ■Promote understanding Meet service demands and provide high quality customer service ■ Plan, develop, and maintain quality services, infrastructure, and amenities ■ Prioritize services at levels that can be sustained by revenue ■ Retain a skilled workforce by making Renton the ■ Advocate Renton's municipal employer of choice interests through state and and appreciation of our federal lobbying efforts, diversity through celebrations ■ Develop and maintain regional partnerships and and festivals collaborative partnerships other organizations and investment strategies ■ Provide critical and that improve services ■ Pursue transportation relevant information on a and other regional timely basis and facilitate ■ Respond to growing improvements and two-way dialogue between service demands through services that improve city government and the partnerships, innovation, quality_ of life community and.outcome management ■ Leveragepublic/private 'Ecoure volunteerism, resources, to focus ■ BaItinee development vtitfr �dy, y'iaocp.,y 'i.er AinpY�v - env y[ r�tat protect€pft -.. IFOy "t�clpyagt@rnn �[...cr5nc IR.'IIM:VYI i� I�YE 3 - f' tr� 1�1YF RYF(Tt '. g SECTION TWO SIX-YEAR TIP MAP • TIP Map, Exhibit A 2-1 o Map Index, Exhibit B 2-2 City of Renton - 2014-2019 TIP EXHIBIT `B' City of Renton 2414 — 2019 Transportation Improvement Program Map Index TIP No. Project Title 1 Street Overlay Program 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 3 Logan Ave N Improvements 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 5 NE 3rd/NE 0 Corridor 6 Duvall Ave NE — NE 7th to Sunset Blvd NE 7 Rainier Ave S Phase II - S 2nd Street to Airport Way 8 Park Ave North Extension 9 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE Improvements 10 Carr Road Improvements 11 NE Sunset Blvd (SR 900) Corridor Improvements 12 Sunset Area Green Connections 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Road SW/681h Ave S 14 South 7th Street — Rainier Ave S to Talbot Road S 15 S Grady Way - Main Ave to West City Limits 16 Houser Way N — N 8th St to S Lake Washington Blvd 17 Lake Washington Loop Trail 18 Lake to Sound (1.25) Trail 19 Walkway Program 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacement 21 NE 3150 St Culvert Repair 22 Maple Valley Highway — Half Bridge Attenuator 23 Bridge Inspection and Repair 24 Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program 25 Intersection Safety and Mobility 26 Traffic Safety Program 27 Preservation of Traffic Operation Devices Program 28 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program 29 Barrier Free Transition Plan Implementation 34 City Center Community Plan 31 Project Development/Predesign 32 Arterial Circulation Program 33 Environmental Monitoring 34 1 % for the Arts Program 35 Lake Washington Boulevard — Park Avenue N to Coulon Park 36 Lind Avenue —SW 16th to SW 43rd 2-2 SECTION THREE DEVELOPMENT & PRIORITIZATION OF THE SIX- YEAR TIP • General Programming Criteria 3-1 • Specific TIP Development Activities 3-3 • Summary Table of Projects and Programs: 3-5 DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF THE SIX-YEAR TIP I. General Programming Criteria The yearly update of the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is part of an ongoing process intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program, The Six -Year TIP is also linked with various state and federal funding programs, regional/inter-jurisdictional planning and coordination processes and the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Projects are developed and prioritized based on community needs, specific goals to be achieved and on general programming considerations. Those general programming considerations are: Priority. As shown on page 3-5 the projects and programs are prioritized by type by City staff with final approval by the City Council during the annual update of the TIP. The prioritization assists staff in assigning the limited resources to projects and programs and reducing resources during funding shortfalls. In general staff expends more resources on higher priority projects in the first three years of the TIP, and when applying for grants staff will consider these projects first unless other lower priority projects better meet the particular criteria of a grant program. Planning. How, at a local and regional level, a project fits with, or addresses identified future transportation goals, demands and planning processes must be evaluated. This is strongly influenced by ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans. Financing. Many projects are dependent on outside grants, formation of LID'S or the receipt of impact fees. Prioritization has to take into account the peculiarities of each of the various fund sources and the probabilities of when, and how much, money will be available. Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with, or interdependent on, other projects taking place, this is reflected in their relative priorities. Past Commitment. The level of previous commitment made by the City in terms of resources, legislative actions or inter -local agreements also must be taken into consideration in prioritizing TIP projects. In addition to the general considerations discussed above, there are five specific project categories through which the TIP is evaluated and analyzed. They are: • Maintenance and Preservation of Existing Infrastructure • Corridor Projects • Operations and Safety • Non -Motorized Projects 3-1 a Others These categories provide a useful analysis tool and represent goals developed through an evaluation of the City's transportation program in response to input from citizens and local officials and to State and Federal legislation. Taken as a whole, the five categories provide a framework for evaluating projects both individually and as part of a strategy that seeks to meet and balance the transportation needs of Renton during a time of increasing transportation demand, decreasing revenues, and growing environmental concerns. Although each project can be identified with an important concern that allows it to be classified into one of the five categories, most projects are intended to address, and are developed to be compatible with, multiple goals. Maintenance and Preservation of the Existing Infrastructure is a basic need that must be met by the program. The Mayor and City Council have addressed the importance of sustaining strong programs in this project category. The State Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to assess and address the funding required to maintain their existing transportation systems. The City of Renton owns and maintains 250 centerline miles of streets. Corridor Projects are oriented toward "moving people" through a balanced transportation system that involves multiple modes of transportation. Included are facilities that facilitate the movement of transit and carpools. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act (MAP -21), the State and Federal Clean Air legislation, and the State Commute Trip Reduction Act (CTR) have added momentum to regional efforts and placed requirements on local jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these transportation elements. Operations and Safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts, accident records and geometric data, but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. Non -Motorized Projects have been developed with major emphasis on addressing community quality of life issues by improving and/or protecting residential livability while providing necessary transportation system improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in this category. Other Programs involve planning of transportation improvements necessitated by new development and new transportation capital improvements. Below is a more specific discussion of the activities involved in TIP development. 3-2 II. Specific TIP Development Activities TIP project and financial development activities are intricately intertwined and involve interactions with many groups and agencies at the local, regional, state and federal levels. Within the Transportation Systems Division of the City of Renton, project development involves year -around coordination among the Maintenance and Operations, the Planning and Programming and the Design Sections. The Transportation Maintenance and Operations Section compiles accident and traffic count data, performs level -of -service calculations needed to identify operational/congestion problems and tracks all transportation -related complaints, suggestions and requests that come into the City. The Transportation Design Section, through the TIP's Overlay Program and Bridge Inspection and Repair Program, works closely with the Maintenance Services Division to establish structural ratings for the City's roads and bridges. These and other data are being used by the Planning and Programming Section to develop transportation improvement projects, prepare grant applications, interface with ongoing state and federal transportation programs, and develop a TIP that supports the goals of the City's long- range Comprehensive Plan and short-range business plan. The Transportation Planning Section works with King County Metro Transit, the Puget Sound Regional Council, Sound Transit, and other groups and agencies to assure consistency between Renton's transportation policies and programs and those of the region. Such consistency is required by the Growth Management Act and related legislation and by federal and state grant programs. Ongoing transportation planning activities, such as updating the Transportation Element in the Comprehensive Plan and the development of sub -area plans, play an important part in identifying and prioritizing transportation improvement projects. Within the City of Renton, there are actions and interactions involving other departments and divisions, the private sector, the City Council and Administration, which strongly influence the direction of the transportation program. For example, the transportation system is significantly impacted by land use decisions, private development proposals and by public water and sewer extensions which increase transportation demand by making possible higher density and/or intensity of land uses. Such proposals need to be monitored and analyzed in regard to how they individually and collectively create the need for transportation improvements. All departments and divisions in the City, the City Council, and the Administration are solicited each year to provide input, discuss, and comment on the Six -Year TIP. 3-3 Additional input is also gathered through interactions with other public and private organizations and through public meetings held in the community concerning specific transportation projects and programs. At the City, State and Federal level there are new laws and regulations that create the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs. Examples include the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act (MAP -21), the Growth Management Act, the Clean Air Act, the Commute Trip Reduction law, the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Water Management Ordinance. All of these laws have tremendous impacts on the development and costs of transportation projects. Interconnection and/or interdependence among TIP projects and with projects by other City departments and by other jurisdictions is another element that affects the development, the prioritization and the timing of transportation projects. Equally important is the likelihood, the time frame and the amount of outside funding that will be obtainable to finance transportation projects. In summary, with its heavy dependence on many different and unpredictable sources of outside funding and with the significant impacts created by ongoing local and regional land use decisions, transportation project development is a continuous activity comprised of a multitude of diverse elements. 3-4 a p z 0 W N z 0 F,. 0 a W z N a ?0 U J m a z 0 lIllz w w U_ `0 r H A 'a o: o 'o• o; 0.0 010 01010,0 O 010 0 0-0 0{ 0 O 0 o 0 o O' a;a 0 d' 0 O O o IP o o O O O n Iol O10 c D;aln C31a O OIO O! 'a 0 0 0 10 o i� -O Loi 1M. OiO O 4 m.o O!6) O olo10, 61 C5 O ICs 00 I' 3 Lr): MI :tf11 C. ED!r O O 0!h O OIh'0 LL710 0'r O O M O o Oicf) o lei �(Ci II.M L0 CAI V __ 147 t; - h 1 CO Ind m (II N CO CO MI . Ln 1 07 r t - iii-- 0j0 0 0 (D OHO O c:) c:) 0 O 0 O 0I0 O loi �o! O O O 0 P O oi0 0 0 0 0 din n 0.0lO O -O H (D O o, co. N'O C:5 d O d. 10, ld i01 4, O O O O 0 O 0 0 O10 a O a 0 O 0 0 OHO Y� W n : 1 - I �n I �D Pm LO oo: � 0i a co i Co N (f) (f) O a0 6s h h ch l co 46 O (D co O ill M 1 m � N O 0 (D'' d! Dd N i O I i O N co M n') O Lo (D o PIC)) r I` r O I OD ! LA o !_ c M M r f_ N' q D) N co 1 ! ' o' V N N I CO CO (D 1 r LL , IN i ! I N i 0 0 P CD O O O n C. a 0 0 d O.O 0 O.O n 0 0 0 (D O O O O o 0 4 PJo 0 0 P 0010 O V a M O a n ojn o!o O o d n n 0 0 (D O N O 0 0 Oj0 old d d d 41010!0 O O O O O'o O 0 0 0 0 0 CIO 0 0 0 0 O P d O O o:CD a a O!d Iti Qo d F M O N (n to l 0 CO m M1 !14'07 m Lo � M O (D 0 co O O Lo j a a Ih 0 O 0 o l O l O l o m Ln M Q) O O hI o �In c3 o 0 0lol0 Lo CV (D M M Ln P EDIC o cn 0 albs LD r Ln 0 0 1 0 r h co; 0') N u7 n DD N co lf) Iti lt7 r N Lf) M Iti O 07 ! d co (D [•] O 1� 0 (D M v N N O N 1 co co (D ti �! _2 C M ! 0o N h Co : M I (D c, Cc r 0o M Co N i c,> l L) r 47 U} L I ! j N r I I T as I ;li I I C O co O 0 0 0.0 0 O 0 O 1 0 0 0 0 O- O O 0 j d d d d o d O O O o O 00 o O P 0 0 0 0 O o 0 O 0 O.O O o P 'O o OOO o O 14O o0 - O O P O P O O 0) (D 00 N d O (L] d I O O O (D O O d I d d O o o O 10 N T O (D (D 0 0 N d I o (D 0 o O a O I Lo V V� (n N M r N N d V DD lD r (D lD O O) M I N N r r V I 0o (D " 'r LD I M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O O P O P 000100 0 O 0 0 l o f 0 a o O O O O O 000 O O 0- 0l ooO 000 00 0 0 P P 00 0 0 d 0 o0 0 0 o 0 0 0 d O O a al 0 O 0 00 r 0 o Hilo o P IN f 0 0 0 Ln ui (n o a J+ o 0 0 1 P P 'ILD L61 (n o to o N h (D (D 0 M 00 V r O O M 47 47 1+ 1,- O ujLn N v j v to La 00 N N M u) C N ! I N Vir r MIr r N (LI 1 r MI �M r 00 r M {v M _ 0'P O O CD _. o +0 _ _ - O O O]O o O O O O LOj... O'd id did O C:) O O OO O d 0! O O O Ol C: O O O O O j0� O.0 'O OIO O of O�OI O ►r Ft t.D N C O cn O O O O o 0 d cn O I d l O O O C7 0 L6 (n 0 1.0i O T N M V (D O M I 00 V r r. O O 00 M1 T �r N f- O (f)' V V CO- CO' CO V M N (A i N l (!] V N � U) V 47 v_ N V r r l to CO r CO T V+ N r r I i ri c) 1 OO ! m I j 0 0 od d O _.O I--- O _O --.L- n 0 aa 0 0 a O �o o0 O O O O 0 0m 0 n 0 o a d O'OI o 0 0 d 0 C a d O d 0� n: C:) o 0 o 0 o.o O , O C O C)- 9, I O O O O O O d O O O c 0 0 o O O O O 0 tG n t0N O O u7 Lo IO O O C O o 0 0 O O O O 0 0 (n 0 Lo V O (fl I 4 r h N ID O O o r I j I 1.0 O O 00 M O N lD O (D CO O N l6 r M r (D N h V r . V r N (D I h N h IN I V O N (D N i N r CTS co *^ N N IT I rl 00 T C 0 d OIOYO d d 0 o10,0 0 0 I d 0 010 0 0 O P O 0 a;0 O 0 0 o O O d d P P10 O n'n:a 0 O 0 O d O 0 O n O 0 0 0 OiO,O OI o o.o 0 o d d o O P. C, 0 0 0 0 O O a Lo O �0 N1O�O (O I coO O C7:0 4o O N d 0 0 0 C7 0�'a 0 r O Lo 4s T ILD O to: M O O r 4?' N O N (D O (D O Irl IIS V -1,7IN O Ln V h 40 M l6 N r r M r Mt Lo M M! j I (D CIIo,0 O- - -- -- I-- - cf OIM0 O- ! 00 P O li 0 0 O P 0a 0 i OIO.o 0 OIC O T w 11 n d n nnln d o n 0 Odd d 0 P. 0 0 0 0. O (D;0 N:O O 0 n O O 6 O d,Olq 00 Rt M1 (D N (i) (f) O tfi (D O ;MIP P (14 (4 O I O O P O' : O Lo T r C M fh C) (D o N hIco r cocf) W r1_ 0 N'r (3)'(D'h 0o M M!� ! r r n rMI- r M (D I�,�, pLL! : > z i "� C o ! o IL a� a E a e j 1 N -a po_ : : ( cn I d y cl `SII w ml a ,°_°c E m (L ,°mom °I,3ow' ( a,a aa m 0 a 4D y a o Li o M v, l o ` CL (Ea IA `a) a Q �.ClCL _ ` o C Jlo rn o dl �n'� —SII o! ° E Q rta+ r 0 o : - r , SIN' e a p = i SCI F Q (` p) C d CD cmco yaa+ �,,, D74' E 0 0 I i:3� Ra O p8 L� E y� �'Ir~Ia oUa.a, �� �F od L oat a -8 e alc ,te a =9j � r w = a o z ill `a c, 0 CL �I� yon c 4� E �(L � ,� U E Vi o � � 0 m M r ' = a Z a W X m us > ua w a {n a (01 0 — �v c w m U w to m E z Tm Z �'ual 3 a � [Y .a a i R d z ul a G a o w E ° m 0 c ID ;' E a v as m d u ��:m= W 3 11w 0 � vs �totlolc an a) c'a w a, ��I�I� y�; �aZ }� I='Q d u« a o° v vs m (y gI am 9 a a N N .c (a '� a co m M Y a m « y t �m 'M g.� w as ,� a } I3 +�+ 41 Lu m o 7 O (6 a W 3 W m 3 m m m (`6 ea i C H o p W, Q_men2 --. -... ce r 0rnU A XxZ00.U)'o JO .. .....I • I • r , NM a 4] to 1- m W m � 4 r HJ r N Jm3 N s`7 rl aICL ri LU TU 8 N M V H •p CL d N Ev C'i O T N Q Q O M I i- O I r b W W N 4'1 41 {O C) 4! cD W h tlf a1 N T t•7 W i V O N N N I N N N Q r I r j M M 1 r N N r r N r M M M N M M uol�e+uasaad aafoad �OPP�OD 64 pamo;ow J0440 F -- 0oueuejulew a;eg uoN A d 7E M IW? M SECTION FOUR EXPENDITURES & REVENUES • Total Project Expenditure Summary 4-1 • City of Renton Funds 4-2 • Summary of Funding Sources 4-3 • Itemized Funding Sources: ■ Vehicle Fuel Tax 4-4 ■ Business License Fee 4-5 ■ Proposed Fund Balance 4-6 ■ Grants In -hand 4-7 ■ Mitigation In -Hand 4-8 ■ Other In -Hand 4-9 ■ Undetermined 4-10 k W Q w G. U) O O ~ U 0 O r� a V W ZzQ N w1l.f1.-.fi CL C W � T x civ N Z O H z LU Ix LL O H V Q I m m I I I -- i I 7•. I 1 i I I I I I ca is 1 C: Mm G I a- 1 LLE 1 - •C N: a) m N �. N C C a2j � �- 1 CD m� m WU CI} NII 7 N CU w N a) ° QI C T M M C CI 0 (D N C,� C CI C C -I� @ I"O U �1-O "O C: CJ a)Q'Et w' m �, min m m m as �j - - - m QIQIQ Q m m d U BIZ U U C o%j Cn' v, U U U U �1 y> s!` i 53 % i 3 U Z` zZ Z Ul m Q as ._ _ U U'>1 h m m o ❑,j — a7!UIU vE m U U,U.0 U U CJ E c� �I E II M o 2 2 ill I UI O O'O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 O O 0 0 OIb O O;O O O d O 0 0 O O 0 0 tO bdibvddddda00aoMo0ODoloOo0000aooa o00l0l0o n 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N C) !O O O.O 4 0 0 0 O;d C OIO C O C OjO O O co G c'i 0 a 0 O h o 0 0 0 O I O O M I O I LD 6 2 1 0 (rs O u) to LO: N (D N O (D Lo (D O I O O O N w O O co LO Cl) 4) 0 0 0 Y) a b LO Cn.a h a n1m M M n N a M M hIw 0 h r 0) a s W) aD N h N V r 0 0 to h M O M M �0 0 co O N c+'1 h ([) sn r¢ N Mir N O OO O (t) ti 4 H V C'), h O N 05 .-• 6 N w (9 t6 c0 � C6 M Lo r r N r I 1 N O C) I a 0 a,o 0 010 00 000000!0 10:0 0 O O O'O, 'O O 0'O, O O a a s Ja a s a a aia a!a a' O 0 O', O: '.O O 0!01 O O1O C 6 jO 0 0 0 0 0;0 1010 0 0 0 r co co 1 00 01 0; 000 0 0 O 1 0 +f) O O N 0' r O. O L O N (D CO 4} O' O' C7 O O lt7 a a N to 0 co N (0 O N N C5f V r L (D O LC) M OD N i r l N I m a CMJ r V 0 LO V i t a s O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 01 010 O O 0 0 0 CD 0 0 O d 0 0 0 O 4 Q a 0 0 O o1 O O 010 O O O O O O :O O O O O Q O O Ib O'O O O O C) O O O:0 O c O O O O, Ib O a .CMD � LC7 O O O' i 0 LO O O LO O. O' 6 0 0 1 0 N O d � (Cl u) � I. O O r h (D In O O M I• (D a h Cf? M O N LO V 0 CO V r V r l to N N co V 47 (D Nr Nj -�I00 N_ N. N r r N rlr- co LO r MI (rs' MIa0 rl 4 a O 00 0 O O O.0 0 O O O C:)C)O o o1C71fO OJ.OI O O O 00 0 0 0 O 00 O O.O O 010 10 0 OO O 010 O OI O 00 0 O C C 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 d 01 01 O O O' O O a 0 O O I I C C C n h a a a 0 0 O O 0 Lo O O 01 0! 0 u) 0 O i N 0 1 0 (n 1 (Cl O O r M Nr C-0 0 O A N O OD to ([) c+') O ([) V CD C'7 V r E r CII n N CMJ V V OD V M j (O d I�' N 070 V N r 1 r N I I r r' I N CD fir Cb ,Sco + CC67 0 C) C) Cl s .0 OSI 000 0 0 0 Cl 0 Cl 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 O O Cl ComO 000, :0 0 'O a O.(D'O 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 00000 O O 00 O O O O 10 O O O O'O C d O a a a a a a s C a O Ca D C O m M lf] C? l a O O O 0:0 d d (n O O In O lIJ O O N O CC) Lr) lC7 1 C7 r h N 1 0 :� N 00 C D 0 LO M O o0 LS O O O r LO V a M N r" r 0 N h �1(fl r N h h N C14 IN (D N r r N �O T iCgl N. N N r r �r V CD 0 O O O' 0' O O O C) C:) O O 0 C) a b QEaiol0 00 •0 a o 0 O'O O O !O 0 O 00100 000000;0 0 00 :O O O a o 0 0 0 iO 0 0 Q a C7 0 O D O D O O'O O o 0 '0 0 O 'A 0 v o O (V 0 0 (C) C7 0 C7 0 0 If7 0' 0 N a 0 r C u 0 Lri r LC) 6 0 ! to (0 N - N O - CQ to Ln b cM 0- 0 � 7 O M M r N r b Rt O h V. V r h V h C) [� M Liz N N 0 Irl N _ :C7 C'il rl rJ I a 0 0 0(D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C7 0 0, tp O O O v OI d M 0 0 0� 0000000 0 0 0 OI n 0 C7 0 (O O C N C 0 Ci C C a C: 0 a CD g 0 0 0 e6 l!) O Cd O O (+') O (n O LoN (D N 6. C=F O C7 O lfi r r n c0 O co u) h C7� V Jr- 00 N r CO M l(O c0 CO r -M O Mia h N _. cm z I ' ° W w c j Z Q m , ° I `° o E_ c m 0I�� Ei EI o c o, ria E ao0 Iw E'O E M 0 al IM A }� CL 4 V. CIS �O1 Yi d W, C ald CD d E (n w w olc `— o.2 R3�— °a `4, o ep ° a as, U' w o Q cn n w �- ° sa c m — as sa m E l a a a0i y Vaiw °' NI d '� .�j a� o Oa a a CL c N E Li E c va > ba c. c aa! w: c1 -.6 o EI c w c a) a% y O1 c w N �I O. O w.Q t O:H O C T �:U EI 21 0 '- L O: ` .. O O 7 ae n '� O G U 2 y = p '.z (C 9 p� i _ c d ..cn (O O w. W M CA `. w fa c I Q �C 00 j J Va r °� c lC : w C C O N CL rI Lca1U Z acs v m y1 `m,� z o (Eo a d c ro "°' o E' a r t a lu3i w %�— aoc3 y;c z a4 osw'x mIms1 Loo I (v m w w c r 3 .� . ua r U ° (+3 V 2r/a Z W' Eta (sQ Tc C wU >,w M �'c w wl �a m ° dal c w o1 E a L y c Ql t w w rq N W� 7 w 9 qy y EY Cat p d !Y r w N p w t` d w w Ua d Q y t Z Q Q y >: o (n Q (c'. w a Y m t r y o mLL = U E s• wCL nII a— a`_s Q Q 3 d Nlva vT w u w 0) cc 0)_� ? mI a c a w CD N N M c Y +�+ r. co W N ty E AI of Y ay M Q N a. U •p W 3 .� R M W 3 Ca n ii C Y �[' Cq 9 ca t6 w m d - R ro W c o,*• � N m vaQwusuaz0Irar0zus,0_c 0X-1wValzF„IL 0.;4LL, �w � d r N M Q ua I to n I (o o i V us to n ou as o r N M ua n m 07 O r N M � L" eo ice, it r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N',N M M M L T co qT W W LL_ F- a. a g 2 + W O W LL U a Z W w U W J cn O cn w LLI Z ? m O + X Ix F ILL J N W Z LL W U N LU r N Z LL 9 a olo o l coa 00 O N co o N a Ooi alo'0 0000000 r 0 s o o'o o 00 00001 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0.0'0 01010 i o O O 0 0 001 0 !00 LOol oo 'v �rn rnU LO ! -N a1 Ln ri p co: r r (O 0 ui ui a o1 (D O) lL7 r- 0. 0 r O V N 0 N 00 f CD W: 0 0�0 0 Ii � o. 0 co r r Q o M- I o O I O 8 Uo)i s V M 0 .co O10 a� r O O O a(V N o 0LI) r,. N (M.r i i O 6 a 0 I a OO r 0O 0 t O N olo o l coa 00 O N co o N N r%- It 0 Ooi alo'0 0000000 r 0 o a o— 00 00001 0 o Q 00 00 00 0.0'0 01010 0 (PM O O 0 0 0 0 !00 LOol o 00 0 ! O a1 Ln 10 ui uo N N r (O 0 ui ui a o1 (D O) lL7 r- 0. 0 r O V N 0 N 00 f CD W: 0 0�0 0 o � o. 0 co r r C'? M- I kc) Iq O I O 8 Uo)i s V Oo co N r%- It 0 Ooi alo'0 0000000 0000000 00 00001 0 0 Q 00 00 00 0.0'0 01010 a000000 0000000 O O 0 0 0 0 !00 cin oo oio00l O 00 0 0 O a1 Ln 10 ui uo N a N o (O 0 ui ui a o1 (D O) lL7 r- 0. 0 r O V N 0 N 00 f CD W: ui 00o0000 o 0:0 0 co r r C'? M- I kc) Iq O I O I r V Oo O10 r O O O a(V N o 0LI) r,. LL] ('9 O i O 6 a 0 0:0 a OO r 0O 0 t O N N o j 1OOOOO 00 U) O O C)o0 00Oala o O O (D O OO O oaO , O 0000000 01010'0000 O aaL"asO a 0a' O O CD oo a a! Q!�)'O'ONOLO iiNl-T 1i 0 v0 CY) N L.0 q Q Cl) 00 N Ln . Mlr W r r r r N i , I 00' 0 00aa00000 it M 0 0 0 0:0 0 0 a 01 0 00 0 0000,000 00; o OO O O O O'N 00 LO LO LO, 0 M M N Lo Q O M V' r� r � N CD Qo 0000000 00 0 0 Q 00 O O O 0 0 0 0 !00 O 0 o Q 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 00 oa'aaC) o O uii 0. 0 0tOnaN00 0 00 Crim ui 00o0000 o 0 co a0 C'? r kc) Iq O M IT r V Oo In :OQOa0aai r r N o 'r r,. LL] ('9 I O i O 6 a 0 0:0 a 00 r 00 t O N N o O' M U) O O co- o O O (D O OO O r N 0000000 01010'0000 a 0a' 0 O O 0 O CD N'T oo Q!�)'O'ONOLO iiNl-T v0 LO O 'r 00 Mlr W M N r r it M i i N 0oOO oa'aaC) 0. 00 o'i 0 00 00 00o0000 a0 0 0 0o Oo :OQOa0aai 00 o 0 LL] a o O i O 6 a O N O a r Q t N M U) to a co- (D M M r N Na N'T N 0180 ai O 00 0 O O O O O O O O'0 0 0 O 0100 o a 0oCD 0000000 0'000 0 0 0 0 0 a o l o o Q O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C- Ln Lo a ao a LO a LO LO N 0 N i a a a 0.6 tri L6 r m co O LO O i %r r r N r co cn 0. CO M a r r r h O h:fo - - r r r r.r M N N Z > 0 Q O E a o L .a J c d E jo o o m tb C L li a GC? �L V m 3 3 Q U 16i b m e p,: 0 E a I c E M C a t, 3- L °' •0 m G� c �i o. 'V c �o m Y m ° c a a' aa) D a, a� 3 v) �•i o o ! °' ns a �, v a) , o o cn ° ao o d = L 3 J - .a c, � C cl g'a o U r+:Q CR �', F O O C ati •`, O N la N y ° aci > T tCD Alu 01 � � c. m $ �' � r - m BIZ' �: m p = ala a L c u a l a (a L .' E c, �!% c c ua a U) a L c mi a m 3� c' -a , r a' c y m ° « N c d o;a ° °, w Q a H aIa, y,cr E U ° F a a S L a7 d o o_ > E L V = a R atj c d t0 (L �"' Q ,WO �iW M w 45 C Q .0 m J N •+ It'i C c O O c 0I Ir CL c olz c a >, d L cc z c Y E a, o c E E a 3 c� NaaEo QW"2 a �I�m'°'° �L nfEa*',�a T m E r J W X- Q' L> •r ... .o I 4y :' _ + 10 D. O L O O pC9 >. z c�c eL 3 �w� �� c on tvZN +�ZN W W m M. R }'S, L m�! > m M C d aD Gm U)1 al m U) U) W as y Z N 'C d 4! �' (0 p a w a+ _d W p ,� .O+ !L4 L w C7 `- O al 7 �>y�_QrzZQQ a > R Q'R y3 U) �,Yf!] to C S,j cn CpC3 Et N V y.a ♦+ L Q a c: ++ ! (j) L p (� O L ai -a � p L ' Cq 3l mI u► d a+ m C a df ld N�.N M 7 .� Y ++ ` (!i CIY� L N dY al C7 fl. Sa L mId` y w Q _ L0 tiC7 YY sam {aI l(n a S o r 0 3,3 W 7 la Itl r W 3i m O lE aSl W m 'L Q= �I� ro t' G e C p Q) -i V)(nZ©C�driiZV1,OVSV)2iJJ3fl1Z�L�Q' H'd mV a Q.W r JH CL Q {? r N M v� tD r- W W O r N M Y7 CD t� aD m O r N- M qt K1 w r N (! er � u] (O tiia0 a) r'r r r r,r r r N N N N N NjN N N N M M MIM M M M s� N 0 U) a W t-- W W N 0 a Ix Z O Z Zz LL LL a o >' a Z FL D ~ U O N T Q N 7 0 co m E M 6 0 a a� c m U 0 z Nt O O O r- co C:) 4 1 00 0 4, co 0' Q I W o, o M L0 ro o r-! oO' M 41 r.- o; o t- 0 0 L0 It Lo CY) 01 oo l I 1 0, 01 N O I '(0' 0 C. 0! ok 0oP cy) r r- J.0 oo r� o, N I I O' N 0') O (0 0), W) 10010) Li] (g' v ! O Lo 00: 0 00 co ! N � lt 0 'a M'c0_00 V O I ti! �iO -t (N N! r (c! co f~ G N00[0� N. �I C7.0 (V'r O 01 r y r O• � Ln N M I r) Lo Q1 rl � i rr Ti r 1 i 000000 0 �oo io QQ01 o 000!0100 O Ln CSI Lo 0 0 0 0' 00 0 0 0 Q o, i Q OM Oi of t o C;) In (D O, cn (D Lf) N O 117 O i 1A r- i r+ i i N !Co Co C LD Co 'CO�r II I 0 �N 0) rjr (3)Ni C0 !� 0{' Q N c'') c') ILD N 117 N cf)1 M AA N M Mf M M i. 0 O C? 0:00000 O 00 O O 000000 0 0'00 Q'0 10 Q Q O LD 0 U0 00 Q '0 0 0 0 O O oo U')(D O n (D Ln O O u7 O 010 1(i 0 r Q O I(D M i V M Lo (0 U ') (0 O M '-TLo N 00 (0 0) 0 r co MM r j N w N I r N 0) M IS: r N U7 1!7 11 I 1 ,N M co M M 010 0 0 0 0 O 0 O ! 0 O O O O 0100000 0 00 0 00 0 0 01Lr)OLI) 00 O 00 0 00 0 0 LDI (o d r= (O L0 O ;66 O 66 Q Q T (DIN 00 O W C7 t- r- r I 117 N N ti 0 NCC) NO N w (D (1) M M M 11: N (y)11 r N N M tor! i x W D LL W J Z W d O , c L O t7 IL m C 00 o� O r O cc 0 O I I t7 O O [moo III t7 N CO I tD o o I I d N ti op I I O m o I I C N CO cP CD o us o I I o N W en } 1 oII' !I I I, II III o v o � N I i 1 M I,I I z y w of o m 'aL L 67 .r >a, o ��z E EE ° 'ml a COI m 19 a m 13 N 67 " L CL Olt: IL j. udi o CCU , e_u6 L Rid V 0—EiI C.i r - N +. L r z 0) m E' ih o o �' �I a R oa CL E i W W LL w z LU U J N to W Z ro M m rn 0 N 0 N O o 0 O 0' 0 00 p p0 0 N 4) N 0 0 j O F ��� o r O r N ' O CD 0 O r O 10f1 N r r O: O 'O.O :0 0 0 -O 010 o 0 c m (fl (a co cCD0, o a o Lo L 000, 10000000 00010 -(D v O rib IL O Lo LO N N-0 (D Lo Ul),O:O Cl) CD 0 r !-- 0 0 CC) � h r 0 0 0 M cco M I I J I i I I O o 0 O 0' 0 00 p p0 0 N 4) N 0 0 j O F ��� o r O r N ' O CD 0 O r O 10f1 N r r O: O 'O.O :0 0 0 -O O O10'O'O d 0 0 0 OI 0 0 00 oao to 000.0,00 0000: o a o aoo 000, 10000000 00010 -(D v O rib - (D O: O L O Lo LO N N-0 (D Lo Ul),O:O Cl) CD m 0 I co Cf) - r !-- O co C+') r -_co O I r- 0) N CC) � h r r � N CO r N (D: I I I J I i I I O o000000'001 O o O,O 0 01, 010.0; 00 00 0', 0 o o O:o o oI O o o 0 0 of O 0 (D V 0 O Lo o O M N 0 o VCO (V I (D O o o 'T. Lo u) I O LO ... I 00 0 0 0 0 0 I 11C '0,0� 811 O I r O'o di]d 0 Q 0 d d d 0 d 0 O (7 00 C7 0 '.0 0 O O ! O O14 C7 O o O N O Q tS'i I �i 0 4 M (+'} N Ln Ir W . rlr N r i m i o 00000 0 0 —o 0 0 i i r o' o o, ool 0 00; 00001000 90.0.0 00 00 00 O 0 o o j Ln o0 o�rSo0Noo uiui ui rlr cn •- I Ln N v (D co v r ct , r r l r � II i l r- T I I I I I O 0 o o:'a o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 OIO O O 00 O o d O, 0Qi O q C 010 C 0 0C O 0 c4 1 I o 0 o ui o o' N' o Lp v Lr) 0' O r' V'O C7 r 0 �:(D.M N r r. a" r -Ir r IN, I I to I I r CD o 0 o 4 0'01 O',O' o 0 0 CD 00 'O o, 00 O O O d O l Ca 0 (D C0!0 0 d d d c:t cz C7 0:0 0 I O. 4 C7 0 0 'O ui O 0 O o Lo o cN o O' lr O L" O CO �M LO V O M r U,)I,T 0 J) C,) N rlrl I I r ti O l O O i -- C7 0 0 0 O O 0 0000 •0 0 (n C) 0 0: 0 1 ! C7 C7 O ! 0000000 Coco C I o I O O o o O o o III? O O O O O I 0 mr ti 47 O+ co O LD o LO ti) N 0 o 0 0 0 0 4t? O co CO N r N r CC) M I (') M O Cq i I 1_ I I ir •= to z t G m A o worn -'z' E E °I o p .r w.a �, a Wim. Via: aha a R w ro o c nc' EI .. of a►orn Iro `air Ula ° '¢ ir31 0 5 3 � -_ p c c E!a o p c E «. O c a :: o° L f c `' a m.0 a ro ro rn .+ C7 a ro iNw E =N G nIa 1-.� i 'RQ 7 C 0 !daQ ED r to 01 c' d m a o w y c d a o ole y o r p c ?„I� E ci« M o ro w o p. > L a a ti p y E a �;�' a Q;t a p' a a a[ L w M .� o a ro cls y rIm N X. 3* c as 1 w =Ia c a4�G0Z c Q 99 m'Q•roZ G��-VLcm�G� CE�OO° ELcv ,1 w o aml� o L ao)o aw LEaAcn ..�zw, x a00 ro R t!3 w r Z .7 .. v Z a W N m m Q �a (q a,i 2 a 0 T a ro c� G E a V a a y Z .. m m cos o a .. a s cn p w ° m a L a p Q co co ?ia a y i m'it 0 y a ea w �'� cn s,.� y ro= T:+ ro R rnLL c D U E t d Q.�o p¢ CO L ro N N M; ro'' t V} N ro }i a)'a a U G p a y c L .. ` I Vi G s[ .. L' a s (D V) a ro aA .L a' a w _ a i p }s W 3 m r ts.W m ti O R m•� '0IW'ro o :: Cn O C- G p rqa-1cnu)zaQ CL zlrnOrncnx.-i -i nzl�m[� ;�-,CL mc�a¢w ♦Z r N M� Q NO (D h 00 Q1 O I r N (+! U] CO ' 1� 00 01 c7 N M I S Ip - cA n O O r N' M M SLS 'I CO � � r r r r r r r^e-•r,r N N IN N CM: C14 N N N N NIM M M:MM M�P7 n - LO w g Z o X a � m a z 0 L L 0 o LU a D N �a O N N •L IL I I co iI m � o I N i r co i I I r N N ;mI c LU Im c E Z :3 ° p R p lu y ; E cni a E o as c m RI �NJ ZI E Ei a m� O rI?r C �'a'R V D1 Oi E o EVA 0O! 0 CL jO �eiacyY OL wpaa m a��Im qi R U1 o O R R 7 L O �� R o f UJ O .jai E .'' Q o" a�� a s t Oil= a— ai -R ed 0 R -p •• o R c n a •• : - R !- � Q. cn C a d a CL c E m c y°'ym`C EcNccvs ma! caaR0 �' t 'at!o'c s m ala co c as ui o a o E- o R n. W o E a .. L o •• 0 p a �':a r` 'E p o£ Uj y L Y o' w, 7 a c m CL :r a O► C w ra w L O R c a J! V1 3 c ay ` aci c o a e olZ m aci O. c w aRi � m z o'J El c d � o; d ° = E ° �_ rA E R a C} E L R ._ ., �° 7 :, : �a a '� ` E a 00 an it apC7 c Zai Oi:s m= veto a � o O '� w R R ., : rn w w }, c c a >, (D $' c V m R L s z cn - R E m R a�; m y ._ S L R ca R a `° c R o E L a L c Q a }• — ai R s w R R U) L 7 IV 7 N W Z y Q d a I m' ORI} Q eR0 '��� l rr°° y, �; is c 7+'• ° (a CMV E Z Oi 0 ass a s p •. ,, ., ci (n � c �. , o .r L c ai r Q !4 c n 10- ar Q a 3 w m N R$ R R R ar v L m R N N M 'C sc �: U) w d z E i Co as R rs a I L w d R w- p 0 3 r w 3'"R r w ti cel o' m wl L L N c`s ' �; C e c o <na.jmrnzd,Ixart)zWnornv)z��3mz2mX �Ha�mc)aial'LU r N M N Op t~ CO OI O r N M 1t] w Iw w 01 O r. N O'9 Q w; 0 t� w 6! O r N. M'T Lo m r r,r,r r r r w r N N N N N Ni N N 1 N" M M -O`'1 M M M V a c� 0 It a z w 2 W ❑ 0 Z Q a Z VJ 0 Z � N z e - Q N 0 N n qt o.o 'O.OI o O is c�, o O00 OI 00 M J QYI IN IL I i t II v N I I I I I I i I I I I �I II i I I I N + I � o N l ji oo . _I Mlh H'i - I I c I I N O ' I I � o N i i I i I I C4 u' 0 o o. o' c O O b N O CCD 0 rn i �' I O N I m I LU d c a a E 00C I d E! c O' m a5coJZ °D A E E d I aI c ofcn u°ii I `o c.ulR E cm ro ,I 2 o' 0 � aEi a' c a (] C a °Y' B o a l m o m E R C c l y o m �;� p E (o y o U) a V w I° a — `' ~ O m y 'a — as clp to to E d c _ 5 m .. a m'cc + C ° o a d� w y c c m aI L� *'' E o y m c d c a� L c to 71v7 a L o l o o ff c m a o a. ,, C7 E O 0 c Z' *a o o EI ro o a Las �� n C .y E I0 as a r o C .= m a atf to I ca w ° E" a3 = L cn m r a+ O Q C �I i`- WIC O O Z'vy C a d p y 0 CO J N I C �'QI W.y� Zi C JI _ im — y= t d O i H Ih E O C E �I p O — L oc� 7+ !, °' W k L Cl m r- � z O"O kala 01 � aa— Imto-7 d O Iro E a'� O O y � wJ ea l to z�_ ' .. th w zl W Lu to Em o0 y�c �^ c=o a to y.._ 3 s 3 � cn C) am'c ca c E o Um u 'V c Q m a� C7 d cA cA W Z d y m �= O r m a d a m .+ N C►i O o L, d d- m U L > O' a y c n 1 z. a a(D> — d a acr o w :3 a � cA as H w as $ }. Y In c g U clI `a m °7 °' R a+ ° u- C 0 a`► °' u U E °' Q o m .0 i ` {Jy G Y L Cc 7 Y Y O M a'a mLI) N d ` O •� ,R 01 '' •+ O I 7 W 3 ad (a r to W to n O to W m L O +-'ca L m . c. c C O cnaJcnrnz'aaIL 0z(n0wmix iJ��lS,z�m�` a�a�mc�aalw;� -j I d Q, i C7 ! r N M It tt7 to n COI C* O I r N M v KJ w n w M O r N M 7 to t0 r N M V 1n tajn oa Gf 1"',T T r r r r r r!r N N N�N N N N N N N 07 M t' lm M MIM n qt 2 Q1 r O N r 0 CD o a o LO 0 a ~ N o 0 o as - 0 0 r r i O � I o r p I O W O O N I T I I I _. .- .._.. _ L. ........ - ._ d i O 0 a r ' r N j o T - O 1 I O O 0 co 0 0 0 o `n r c N I o I CD- o I T lt7 ! ! Q �o C) O C o LO o o r p7 r o N O I j r I I c z > o rn E c E A o pyJ= E E E o c O H1 o m ee w-0 Z. (D rn `L° a y r q. v Ham' o X''6� @ ° c a� eEa v d cc c�y�o ;as C- oamaa` a any 3 E 0 a rn a o O _' IoC f0 E ml o m d .0 Q � W � .`y+ F- 010 i — c d � � I � Gi � i � � lC � O w o a, w aci n 0. = y �;•' *, r'. m o RIO C• ald IL c m d E R :_ E c N c c N> v! o.l c' Q. Q o c Zl ob o 'L E t f0 C• o'er, a' m o o H o t7 E cs o m c"o o c y a► -0 n a o �I El U �_ y Q 45 oo' " a' ° 0. - O 0 '` W p`� 'y 0 y c Q C' op J I m �, �, � C a1 i y� I Gi c t a I a c c a z c a y y al Z c v E_ r c �; y o H c E E' o g d = E �'�U m d E o d� a m� as alo ,� L ., z W x a a m y c z l [» 'a as r x ,v m a W o o y I iz :.�z �W� Em 0a � � �.� � ° �►U d a� 0 E'cv� ; � a 3 u dmlw m z I..aam� toroam� u�o,� �� m (L y rA w Lu a d dl `I- y _ Vsl— y �a q' °' _ d Q Z a.Q i a m wIQ �a @�Im �� G O �I c a o «. .. Q o C, a p epi d I m *' ' t� i 0 m y d ° r m �, L m U 0 o Q 0 � � ' t0 N N �y m '� Y w ` � to as y � y i m Ot � dl � � aT 'p � � y d •� Rv m .`. co �r W 7 !� M ro W 7: I+ U' a Y co W R G H 1`0 ' Q c c c p fnIQJfJiU�Z000drUZV}'(!1c/1=J��yK/12�,md'—Ha—fflU0.Qi11lr JH a Q O r N C7 0 w 1� LO M O {D I� O 01 r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N 04 N N N CO) I+1 m" V) m 1" J M. 00 qr z W W W F - z 9 F- a 0 z U) W J_ H D H V w J z Z 2 Z W H O a ILD O w CL z w LLI O d z O p w O CL U) z as 0 N r G N EM Im v ao d.� •L 0 O O d F ! I I I I I a fV O C7 q i i I I I I 1 00 I I I i r I I i N CD r CN - O o o r co I I a coN �! co co � G i j oR L L, +.s �I R { > 03I 'm a CD is E o E cn III- as IOr_ R a tom ulOD +�yyR y i R � L CI�� ! d C j = O L1 W co p N O. « 0d � Y1 Q 3 •� �' Q) E C'*'II °' O O .0I yO (Y RI} R O_ a QI 7� �N y a f/7 w 0C1 O Vl OCD L J_ L ' ,+_�'. LI C. y , L OJ C 0 d R' O ° a a N d L R ,,., E _ C Asn F- y R= a �c a- C Q 3 Q. ala c '` E Cl) L E C y m' a s ., ° m O 0 .a V] fI} g• o o a, ¢ L o� ms' Q O> r2'• � o �, A� C71 E: 0 C 06 o �I L a g of ( � W a o ai `° z c a ro o s aco ��� '�ilz c J � � CI°t3 TIE- E'-_, m s cl �' w o 1«. c E E o' 0 �r W EI J k L api.�'a L 4) r2 O R l=CL II w V1� LLJa R R Mzawvz C �• ? C z 0),13 cm = C�71 � fn,�. 01 F O. o U) m'wm O) 41 > z Em 'p Ra R @ a � � d � ! R O ° d� alR c d'aiE tK �,l .-• ' O ', d''�' > �Ir 0) (D 3 °; ? fi U w j I d > �_ Z_ Q 1 6) ¢ w w Q y d R W O 14. � y Q l4 �q tJ] 'C " T L w @ l y A Y U R C A r- R R j+ R 510 M as C71 I G ❑ U E G �' OS 9 3 O L Q w ,R C N''.Q O •CIY C *+' p G>: N ++i N p� �? d C]� �I O` O , LL7'ia p L LD Ui Q_ Vl R N N M R w O 01 7 L a. U) i h Q?. I N Q) W-_. G Y 7 N1�� d!'C3 L y O -''C R 0. y L L° L� Iaii'c` ao —11i Rta�Rw��ghlt%pro.R°wR'Co«'•L��w 0MZ❑a(L vs¢I� I 0zU) rt !u m --j -j - �►- r'N�M'�' Y] <O h O Q? O r NiMIv LO iD h OD: �u�z��m _ _.MIXI.sIIt:,mUaawr O rIN �� i11 t0 h __-- OOIGD O r N M V W to r r r r r =17717 N NjN NIN N N N N N M M 0 M M M:M EM Im v 4 N m y r ° �� o E IE o c in ° mtn t E E L c L ° m ro a fp:•0, , N l0 d w d a w o �'�U9 @ b u m c.= E 'eh c U c�'� 0+Y d1 ° oaa m alp u�r �, 3 c +� m L a O R °' �a OC rn a. - O E U) O W of °c' ° Q �,� 3 J r p t Lam — of c, r- 0 ' E d o H ci— c d R._ .. + d> VS « m m 1 a " w F e� to a = a 4 c V} AD Em F3 o r c d aci .a o o Q t p _o a Q0' O'er E o •�lo�'Q o L o p > n17E p c E. - V �_, > c1r,� N �1 ai 06, R = � c c � � o a...' O ,O W M N L y = Q N ,"� C �i i m C O O y CL c M O z v� _° o adi v� L ca Z c J E ° a) a ram a f- c E E l a c E w p U m E ti p' ar w > + m' a w E a. - N rn >, w J w. a p 0 y c Z Of of = U fQ ° H ° ° �ai�azr zmww Em �aa1'- T c c o43 t m'z �: m rn— ��._�LmUma'�cmoE �y�sca°.3 dml� �+iyz ��,`�° �Itpa��.:_yNpw td�,�, m(n (D >� y cn v] w y a 0� m a to }' Tr °� j N y, x Y ; C >, :@ L *' p Ci E z m° 0 a N .�.+ a 1- y a O Ciyr iia+ >a `� �I O �' > �' O i d +' C" > c n '� - m a w w N a l a .� ° w �; m cf Liv 0 m O� Q� a1 ►' . l6 N N Ce) R •C .X r in m w 7 cJi N d M R 'O cep d •� y cc y: d• y g y tp C Y s[ s[ Dl : y r .�.. �' O 9 3 W 3 C4 C6 r Cp W 3 C6 n :7 p Cif e6 W to ~ O +� j 1 i CO .�_'' c e C O L]aJU}V7ZQd'i�rUZ(!)I,Of/)fo2JJ tAz It C'1-la�m(]a.<W r Jf- �_ Q O r N M v b w n, w W O 0%1Ilm 1n r•0 n co CD O a-- N M v )f1 w r NMa 1(S t0 n 0Of N N�N N N'N N N M M Mlv) M M M r - M. 0 al .0000000000010000 10000 00 O a O 1 :000000000 ' 00 a O Q a O0 j0 0 'aD o 0 o 6 O o O'o;OIai o ui O ui Q jo a Q :oUno00:r-000,o.Ojr-MLO0 -oro MuD I a� p d r- w CA r o ; CO N o 00 m n CO Y CO 00 r� co L � N alr� : Cf) *M rn v NLn r Lo m LO i 1, N � rai oio 00 0 o;o O 0 1 :0 Q:o 00 000 Q o ioo o;o O C Q o:o o Q jo o 0 CV10 00 0 O1O Q a � a O �10C) Oa Q Qin a M1 �rn O r: COO. r N 00 r CO C[J V r 1 M QI ff 000100 O'o a O Q o 'a oio Q Q Q o O,OIO 0 1 a o Q o 0 0 0 0 O C.n:a I Q Q Q CD CTI C5 o O O 0 0 r O C7 Cf) Ln CO 0 IT Q N Co IT r_ 00 L0 i 0 N rI_ Nr O 1 rI_ Cf) Ch M N r C'M C6 M C6T r Y? 00O a a O o a Q Q Q o I .o. M . o 0 0 o a0 In o O as aaa Q q 00100 0 O aQ n 000 0 00 o�Ina o 0 00 T 0 r o o r- (N Qr- nin Co' O r~ Lf)Q N Ca v Ln ao a) v_ N v N M 00 CdN r r Ch Cn Q OI O 'O 0 o:ojo ao Q O 0 0 0. 0 O 0 o 0 000Ci8 oQ;QOQO Q C) ao Q c m a 0 0 n 00v'0irio Loa r O V) Cn N N 00 I� o n 0Loro000 CV V N N to - ori n N C*7 N CV I C, -O 00 Q 'O OO 1 a'a'o Q QIO O O O as !a a a a', Q Q 0 0,00 0 0 0 00 0O O o CV Oj a s Q Q'Q Q O'o r to C0 1 N r- a Co O r_ 0 M r_ N Cv) 1 r 0 t• Cf) y7 r 1 000 Cf) m r c 4 N m y r ° �� o E IE o c in ° mtn t E E L c L ° m ro a fp:•0, , N l0 d w d a w o �'�U9 @ b u m c.= E 'eh c U c�'� 0+Y d1 ° oaa m alp u�r �, 3 c +� m L a O R °' �a OC rn a. - O E U) O W of °c' ° Q �,� 3 J r p t Lam — of c, r- 0 ' E d o H ci— c d R._ .. + d> VS « m m 1 a " w F e� to a = a 4 c V} AD Em F3 o r c d aci .a o o Q t p _o a Q0' O'er E o •�lo�'Q o L o p > n17E p c E. - V �_, > c1r,� N �1 ai 06, R = � c c � � o a...' O ,O W M N L y = Q N ,"� C �i i m C O O y CL c M O z v� _° o adi v� L ca Z c J E ° a) a ram a f- c E E l a c E w p U m E ti p' ar w > + m' a w E a. - N rn >, w J w. a p 0 y c Z Of of = U fQ ° H ° ° �ai�azr zmww Em �aa1'- T c c o43 t m'z �: m rn— ��._�LmUma'�cmoE �y�sca°.3 dml� �+iyz ��,`�° �Itpa��.:_yNpw td�,�, m(n (D >� y cn v] w y a 0� m a to }' Tr °� j N y, x Y ; C >, :@ L *' p Ci E z m° 0 a N .�.+ a 1- y a O Ciyr iia+ >a `� �I O �' > �' O i d +' C" > c n '� - m a w w N a l a .� ° w �; m cf Liv 0 m O� Q� a1 ►' . l6 N N Ce) R •C .X r in m w 7 cJi N d M R 'O cep d •� y cc y: d• y g y tp C Y s[ s[ Dl : y r .�.. �' O 9 3 W 3 C4 C6 r Cp W 3 C6 n :7 p Cif e6 W to ~ O +� j 1 i CO .�_'' c e C O L]aJU}V7ZQd'i�rUZ(!)I,Of/)fo2JJ tAz It C'1-la�m(]a.<W r Jf- �_ Q O r N M v b w n, w W O 0%1Ilm 1n r•0 n co CD O a-- N M v )f1 w r NMa 1(S t0 n 0Of N N�N N N'N N N M M Mlv) M M M r - M. 0 SECTION FIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS • Summary of TIP Projects & Costs 5--1a • Detailed Project Descriptions 5-1 to 5-36 z O_ w z 0 Q H a N z 9 F. Y O U D a z O H z W w LL O a H N 0 N o ;o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o w; o m 0 CD 0 0 Ic op00000000loo.o 0 o o o o o 1 o o o a o o I io I I< 01 0, 00 a O C 0 0 0 C) O 0 0 0 0 of l Q It3 r- to 1 o I C1f 1 co I 1 d 0 O N -O 01 67 O 0 r 61000 I O 0 v 0 r- 0 0 0 N- r 0 M M 0 0 0 O!- 1 (7? CV 0 I1L� 0 Q r _= O 1 ! 00 N 1 to r• cd 6 ao Ln I_� m COIV f j 66 C o --- o 0 0 1 0 0 o oio 0 CO o� o n,0 0 o co o co'ojo o O:0 0 V1010 I o M O O 0 0 0 'o o!O O O a O. O OHO 0 CD ti p1p O C9i0 0 O N Q 0 0 o O O 0i0 0 0 0 0 O O.000 co M: (0 O( O 00 r - 1 CD O O 1j7 O Li If7 ; CV (O N O (D Il7 ICJ O l 0 p 4 ad ' O O CO 1f7 N I N O O 1 0) co 00 ' h 0' M M N- 100 � O P- r r Of 0 O 011 00 N'V N O 00 M r�V N MI— N, CD MI O r N jri N r N l-_ LL 0 0 O m (D O O O pip O O o 0 0 0 0 O!0 0 0 0 0 0100 O O O O O O O O O O CD 0 0 0 v O O o a o p O p p O M O 0 of o 0 0 CIO 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 O a 0 0 0 0 ti O O CD 0 O O a 000;0 0.O N O c10'0 0 O�dlo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M 0 0 (D O N: O O 4� O 1 r 0 0 0 C'rf O I cl7 O I O 111.7 O� IC7 1j) I N 0 N O (0: u6 In O 0 I 0 I 0 Cl L I-- CD p 0 CC? In C" 7 0 1 0 0 11 O O ILD M a I h o In 0 M M M! N 0 M M N,- 00 C. I r r MIO 0 11(7 0 W 00 N N,- N r O 0 (D O M M In O 00 a N M I+ tai ! I r Nr N c'J r N W CO i O N� i O V M P_ 06 N 00 r QO N CD 00 In CO M' M 0 r r N I cl) r N r A! 'v1 j 00 00 00 000 pv Oa0000o�01 0lI X00 p 0 0 0 O O O'O a O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O to 4 O a o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Of CD 0 : O O o 0 Its 00 - O O O I(1 O O N O O O O N O (D O Of 0 0 0 0 0 CC] OO N Ill p In V O M V N 1 r In CO O L M 00 IN r N r 0IV N N CO 1— � (D In mT r LI 0 0 10 O O 0 o 0 0 o 0 I Cl O— - I 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 O Om l 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 p 0 00 o O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O n: .O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0O O' Q O O O O O O O O Oi O O O 00 0 M In 0 0 10 O ICn I 1 O O I 1 a o 0000 N 0 0 1 1 �' If] ! . O O ti W I1 0' ;0 C � r- � In 0 t- i In M O N Ill � I c'7 r w- V. '. r: I N Co co V I CO 't '. N v CO N N N r N r r M CC) N M M M 00, I I 00 0001 o ooI o000 0;01 opo00o;0 00 of o0 00 000 0 001 0.0!00 O,O! OoOOoO,O 00 0 oO 00 0010, 0 00 00,00 010, 000000 00 0 ;oo O i 0 t� 00 In 117 f~ O 0 0 01: O O 61 0 1 0 O p O IrO 0 l 0 IN D M In o r N M V V r O: O M N o I— OO In LO III 0 r IO V cD V r V r 00 V 't 001: In 00 1 i, v' N 100 V N r 1 r N r r N ►� CD V ri001 00 04 M O 0 0 0 00 0 aO O O O a p p 000000!00 0 0 O O 0 0 On 00 1 0 O '.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 no 0 O O O 00 O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIO 0 0 014 0 0 0 w 10 M 1j7 a do 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 O Ilf O If1 O O N o Ir) mT tc7 1 0 mf r' N__ NIN o Ill I GO O On M Ia 00 47 O O O r 1 V Q M N r� r 0 CD O N VI (D r N Nl: N V N N (D N r V r N r r 0 QS N Ic' NI N Nr I r CI r I O In 0 (D 0 O O -- O O C) C) O 0 0 C:0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 010 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a olo p o q ci 0 O OIO p O a olp 0.a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O In S iS O O N O 0' IC) CIO O O O 0, 1f1 O O (V O O r O 1 O CD li N__ 0 O M 0— 0 V W M M r N r O 0 v r N IC0 In (D N N p 'T r: N V 11-0 N- M In N r r r N 0 to 0 o O cc In OI ! O 0 0 0 Ojp 0 0 0 0 0 •0 0 00 r m 0 a O V(D o.. M O a 0 'o O;0 0 0 0 0 10 0 00 r- 000 CDiCD N O a 0 O 0!o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 000 W V I r- to O CD ' O O IM I O IC1 O g If] 1 Cp CV O O O O O Ill r M O 0 OO I1 , O] I V r- COI N r 0 CO (D M M O r M o n O r N N r• ', I r ' i cD I W O G ] o �' E = E z .+ ca o > L IL E,G Idj E 0 C ' r C mI lel 'Z7 '� SIJ W y i E dl d T d old cEo o a C E (°ii: _ L >r L O c" O CIO V y 0f Q ofd d N 1 C1 ' .y aO.I p1 E c V] 1 c O (o EGA of O v1 d +. Q C as 0�,% p � o of S'C� 0v`1�oo cid $Q c mLc= 0 wE'a _ " ca � 0 O w (j -. 7 a+ 0 m co � ._ a E OC L L E_ = p v1 ]� tl = a a d C' ca o L E .0 Gm�o°.c.-�Gdw o o�,To!� E" O w 0 arQto� .,I�y o}Lm'0P--Ecyr= .�o :r (a m� � t a a � ca 1 I� o r a o w r>: w M •y as M r y c ao � 3 C of a=f C = a� mij?� ° °1 �'i� a`f � a11�c� m rna 110 0 - —4— � E''c- My':C.}�'(ala0 Lo0N 1 ]; �rw x-¢� °fc *-,._CM O�VI } Ate" 7 ��C ~U.w M MZU) cn W w CfC Os TOi Z v1 1 z E m! Q '(� T ._ L d V W u C a L L „ v 07 N co 3 m Q = 0► O E L 7 L to 0, �► v1!rn,w y z .o di �' �, 3 m o a v,,� O IV 4, L L« a► °� m Q 'O `� T L C0 +' � _ ++ _ "' } O a r t Q } ] O . O G 3 0) Ui Of i ° r 1 (D Cf1 u m `m � i O a rn N N] 0V1 N C ` 7 Y Y X O M CI ' i 0) 'y O L` +� 41 d 01 l Q: C6 0Nj n W 7 MIM t6 W 7 CO ti O e4 IO W C6 i 4 O +-' L Cd L �' C n C p a� O r. N a JIfJ1 M Z 0 M Md 1 1 z to 0 0) (l1 m _j _j 1 z� m� � ♦- IL M16 (L a W r J N M V eC7 I N W G1 C] N C�'i N Cb Iti O O> O r N C7 V M CO N, I- 777!9, N ', N N N N N N N N M C1 M Cq Pi P7 C7 LL Z LL �g ❑ j Q L Q z 0 U) LLI Q w � U) z U-()zC O.DO� m -a U�r O C �z Z¢ a m nay o � Q C N p o m vi v m O N 01 00 4 Q 0i o O' o Ln m �' I I o' 0 o CD CI7 c- 1 CQ N I. I I I o0i I 0 o 07 o v m T-0 CDi 01 0 o a0. o w Cs T C y O �5w 6 d 00 -I r-�VI OP, y 00047i 1 ti ' m> 7 EL C o 1 co CO (0— j I m o o o o 'F N 1 I 1 D Z 0 I d m O . o v, CD I 4._ U CD ro N 0 vo o 0 00 0 0401 I I o .� U E M ti M b + M z 1 � c o, N n co C~4I co r 1 ao 0 m U N N E L0 O ro.0 E�7°m'� t° I -:.O - O d Q U O U -6 U O O O O O 0 O O O O OI C �-a �CCa7o L o 00 0 0 00 0 r N L U d �Ir 1 j N Q Q Cy , o m d d z Z C a pLj LL >.O O Z I� U y, m } C x_ O O I O O OO d O O' O- t- 00 O O t C t° o •� c 4 4!4 0 00 o CL La ui Mi" C 0 0 0 (a 0 H J a .� m ro o ,� M y r coI LO n LO o CO u7 n {� 7a ¢ C¢` 41 N r yp i �9 cnm c.T,'Lm� u x w — ° m a U e° C a 0 w d r rZ Epp pmC m 0 o0oi o 0o o c m 6 aU m c E o 00 C 0o C w vi a' w c m a m v M T M M .`= CL Z OO '= N a4o CO F� CO P. C N m m LL H L Q7 S m u7 0 E a m CL 00 O O U E c Q4 QO G m E O' r CV rn IT N V) m O Co. CO rn; I M m Q) uQi aCi o Ili j CO i U o c m C S H)O O O O 00 O O O M:C) OO,O Q O Q N O m M NC 0 O4.Cf Q ¢ L 0.O .L-• V V m A 0 M Cc Fr L sm d .3 ; c o as cA r r al) O � N c c E -2 >O T IL O CO M 0 0 CD ICI) 0 m O O O) 07 C fi m r r Ln n lf7 r r 00 Q7 O O 0) in i C N E N rm. N i iLOJ IT CO O m O N til CO 0 m �p 0 r r Ol � mm Q: rn o 1 ro. m m O �p oTa wyo ¢ O U T T C: N I I N} U 0 > O O -IM M I O V) Q O m M OD V:',, LO U -)in D1 4 O mi ID LO Il an) Lo OD to I LID 07 N M r (0 t0 tc CO 4C} 0 to in mcm r cn ro m % 0 Q N c O O co z ro a N W@ �' m o m Q v W W y 7 L U a F� °' Ua m E Q7 .2W C- m C m N N ala ILJ d O C O a] 0 C am s Coq W L m j LL m (V VC Ir +d >, Q Z N 0 A E Z Ecn O® w m y vf. W 'n .p o Q�mco X [O N amI Q CD a O c� o y U O y_ C -al CO'5F- W LL o 0 o m C U L C H p Q7 .� Q C CAN O O N 7: G C i U O Q O 0 - U� C m C �' O N J LL m z •^ m m' C - c 3 CL E c V$ Ea 0- m��7�c~WLiwro=cC ""., =_ CD WLL "" T U L W C C 7 O �fi ci N '00) ff- .O Q CE G m L C6 m C C iq a C O d C N O C C fl3 = L •N Q YG O N a V) w C m m �,� C Co 7 x 2 oop 0n7:10; @:: mow' c v 0 �¢ m 2 0 wa.I(L a rn>ALAMc7� Z Lt 0_- F) W �_ �C OYwa Z U) W��z LLU Z C o::ioa C?a~C or� 11� U, UZ za Or G n 0 0l a ti W o o N N rn of oa Cal O m C O O V � V' Q O U c,iyr c C7] m C m L 3p�5 p p ED a. ama - o m o m a `� a a rn C a o aj o w ar co a � m v coo v (00 v rnco c • pN N c )° Li w C �= ci• m v1 w`n�oy C O L) 3: � � O f!) Qp E(CD: @ N i 0 � : 0.93 C, O G0Q 0l a o p C�❑6f'N � ~ o N tQop z NN W -EFS N C O O Q SII Q 0 V p._ 0) O ai U W 4 m (6 QI O (D ro~ E m o 0 rnv,.�° rn� NCLwu) m� c E �° o 0 0 0 o, o o o N p a� •Cdr [! N N. N N @��Q.s-• ON7f Q�7 �. a Q) d N V V. cU o m E LU cn U y+ L LL U N X O' O O O C L u) CL `m (a a BJH s m N (n a �(f�aSQ o a iQv ua O o v: a "d v S •4 NvN,m m �.�(L) oN yroj lb a v G Z a N C c U 12N p a N of o 0 00 o o a mNas�,$� Q°0ro� o 0 0 0 0 c0 N .�- mi coo m C) ago era CN C149� 0 y mam H C N p 01 .Sz• S C O o N of r O r 0 r O r LL Q 'y r O Q. y= N N c~i)w(Nw¢ m 23)N Ei €>, 0 0 0 0 0 N n a o 0 0 v $ QC1 61 _ SIN t N (D C �L C6 O uj O O C7 P7 N ('7 C N y C o y w.o CO —00( y o o O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 c (O (O to 10 N N N =' C' m en to O N N aro+ -0 U C a m a O W ECD N N N m r' N `o c E E cm r'CT) (O (C w U? ai O os C) O m o 0 N E E¢ N 7 to v m o O a p NCL ro us m ` N OL (D Am c CD m w o m o ro O �c O TO) (D E toll to T cD o O m r c°3m Limn, pro E o' Q 0! co o RoCL c towa�Er �1 p z r.e 13LN N U m— U °-2N C L) o _GO) aEa= �'z j o m o ro lu v, ix C •C cn O 9 m ¢D Q a' E U G y S, u} i> E Ni(� Qs a d N d m Q Vi > E °c' l0 co m H c� C Q C W z li @ N ty J G=t cL o2� Z0.-�N Z a� °� 0— �.� E ALU y. v•o�nx�m� cv ��LL� �I �,�c=I v -a v~ a O 0 E 3 U m C m U m Q m E E 0 •Q U C C L (� O O .- M `—tilt~LULL D LL— O G m C C p N J LL, Z G., m R c =_ H �� o N O_ a N '3 c NIG — O- C t 3 O E LL , m — m H 0 Z c L Z W C ` EI O c . _ e E �'�U (� N — -, a`r a� a} U O NEo nvL wa''a�UU:a lmOoo',o 0�1°m0 ! lo o� L) a -3� 07 E 2 tr��m5c �O � a LL c C a CL Z U5 z 5;2 0LL 00 0w� �YF- = coZ LLUzC O::p� a Q� Ua- F- O Oa IL �Z za � ~ F- (m rn ti Ce) �_ •� aai 7 O E LL a H �cn dQ _• D �" U' O ,F O N C O -0 U o m o N li it ! I II I j r L(7 i LO r ,0 O O P O V C C N C) r 0 m Qa 0 0 0 o 0 (0 a7 C:�° 0 0 C O o 0 Q 0 (a 00 NIa0 0 0 0 0 U') U')O 0 C 7 d r N r -v (a ,Lq (p c m G y d p 60 LL} ,� 872 (j QIQ Q C O O O co 9 to BJH v:°= 0 100 v a V Q N r N M l7 M a rr cu U m m O O 0 O, O C (V6 f0 N O O !0 �0. O w a 0 0 I Q i0l 0 0:3 o h f+ h (D H U t c Q N LL U~3 H CD U 00o0 0 0 0 00 Z C m 0 C C C O_ O O O O U 0-2 > m'Q :30 00(D0 O'N co O O LO LD 0 0 0) j 0 0 O Q �L olcu F_ rin w Co h U)�rndr'� i L 0 Q Q D(C9 E Z m N Q7 j 0 O 0 0 O O y C U E CL O 4 (D O vNi N E V at c+7 .er L N O2.L. O y Q o CD U U Y N N N Z (n N O C C U E (p m O d i C U D - N - _ 73 I l N L C U .-- E Q lf7 (D ~ r O r r I r O r I I O i r 'O 0 U O C ` eV M J j le QN 04 a C cu E m m m L m (a a a] @ a 0 Q7 m C 0_ G Vi C -0� c C (u in o ID cm c 'y 4D N 0 LO 'p 0 0 (O r OIr 0�, O O r -p a) N E d (a f�i.0 O r- h NOOO r r O r O' O Q 0 O j O r r an d �7 O ( OHO I ii0r O N ,QT -7 joQ) L r_ r r IQ7 N O: as ill a1 Y N C E r Ln C6 (0 co NJ Uzr:= m N N O i C - E m 0 } a q} QU a 4) v '° a`r c } Q Q - } m m S + O- U T CL m a) m Vi GA uj m m '. m � U 0 0 -mo -° 0 3 cu a (D Z l c. al (6 v . o o f _ V favi LU �I O S C -0 �, o cmu N e Z ZYy m m o w m -w m 0 - Zw �: c �� a' vU]WZ �Q Lia 0mrn to Q a p.m O0°'om �, ..W d~ 'W m C) cn� ;5 LLP!ED M .vim - C (I1 Q H O "C. UJ Ic_' L1J C Cid Q �H U m. O Q H w a- E m O Lu U O 0. �� LL, m C. (6'. aS C J ��- C 7 0. m (1 U m a m w LL w C C = C 0 N m LL N m U O o w Fw 3 Z� C � � 0 E� :.: � y CII C C 0-4 m E- cCc)� E Q_0 LO N 0 0 Lu'E 4 N N�? 0 CIC N = V m L' m Q O w aU1 (m as nH 0 wa��Ciliaa0 IC6 a7 O 12 MD J U �L1C o co>ma0 OO a M LO a c c za aLLZ ❑ j ONewa z [f) LU 3:U)2 LL0zc OmOQ Ua�c OL O UCL 2. Q F a. a I N M d Q7 V CA I o O N E N J Q CN G N N° ° d ro�Y� N 7 Lo ---'--- .� i�- M1M1 m Z. O M1 64 Lp E q7 Z i ID 2 Go a w N O C m C 'o cm m •0 « r O N a Lo .2 v m a`Y ti�v� a. I i- C G C Q ° � `� mcu N d ti I 2N O O C0; N j S.} r N ui N N m y, m t mLL ro r-- '8 H00 N Q -C Z 0Y C � m "0f0 Q o w m 4 I a) = U. 0 c E c(Ov3 cr d c m atl G m M1 C m L C N x v3 C 0 Z Q C C7 1--:3� O_ c m (O O c .2 :E W)("+O � J _�Q :: --� C m N o h Va0 0 - o E .c v Z a 0 o g a t 3 c .. ..H •- t0 o _.. - M1 O] eo (D f0 o r O C co LA CO N L`7 It cc V (D le 40 C m 10 W LU H S y E i� dam" �_ m° G N� N N N v H L (0 ° O p N 7 FQ^• .r � a N i LL .N Na -o LL mOf C3 U[AU i L cm M1 co to04 (A co eo co a) N > m E E o ,- (u Q:3 ro .- O n Co O r Co m O M1 -0~ C NN w O � 0440 N 00om] M M1r N Q CC � N al co m N N Co 0 O y 7 ° O 6 M d m] ro c > N C (� G 4 U E N00C7)N [�'l 1�Na 0 fb OM1N-m000') Q � OONr000 V 0 Lo co m C .0 C m° s. —_ E r O? ao,N N V !� OM1 V_ m L(y Ln M1 V .i4 O m N ro C w c 3 O N QQ'Cp M1 4D Cl) V O IT 1- O V mOM1mN VO 0w CD I qLlYO M1 U) 4D ti r Ci N •— a) 41 'j 'O 'C O 0 L CD C3 lD M!6] M CD r hO V V LnM1r,-fO CV'lV v (V hl L(��r r _ CS O E d a N N y .O m 3 m c Q a a E m y O N ro a c �i ,� ro m a m o M N00MNr OM1NQOOLn00(D r U 0 m ai r M r N V 0) 00 LO r-- V M 0 O N O 0;0 0 0 0 V OM1!-TOLO: LO(D00(D (q V ` R m.,. -m U C C m � G m ECC di r-: vr-rno ovmC:rP-mmC)n(D dQ��LLn �LLnn co o CA � N ° o -6 2m L N a G Or�L000L!'S LolmLO04 01 MON I NNM1 N V r -r H] M U U- O 0 O (4 E U �.a ll p N N O QL m m 7 _ vj rn 'p LA_ 5 is '° c �+ ro as 0 .y d ` > > as m m- n ro N 6 m U) (n ,Qm m> .� 3 m i E ` W c m W ro o m'o m+ U ep F Q c m LL c ° a m U Lll UJ ,Ul 4m LL G c Z z UJ trf Co LL m !LL U} m ro m= Lsm x'�a m `a7`ma w E E w cap KZ c�sV5 O U) �.N LU as Na E i (s .g m m e Z N m �.-aLL Oiv N d coy G .�- O O c o D 'c Im uLLI m- ca 1n wMIGC �LLH O m I-v��l ca o:c2 c m N m o om—CNIaf0 001 Fa - c CL H Q io w o aro UJ -m Cm 4D m°�J m c c ti _ �} c a o cn .o o a 0 '3 d LU W 0..0 ° }-N LLI cJ.a�- LL G C C c:,° � a E N E r c � rY ro m LL N E c) a 3 m. �, E ,� .� '� r m ti y c C- ° 'S1:3 U C LL I.4 f6 N L. Y O C y E to At as - N air o�: -0,03 m° c ate' cc m v �Lmc'm a'�L�mt c 7 o Ui C) uJ t o � o G oma= Qz� �¢ E S x waacrL)0a- ° °t O vs>5[7c�(D as•• m' °:E m0CD G0� Q Q Z CL 0 �5z 5;_LLJ 2 ❑� 0 W a zO Cl) � �� tYz LLUz� 0=o Ua�-O 000 CO Z Z HU) 0 N 4a o a � N I I a I I I I m 13 j l CL i u r z �O I ------ - - -Qb--� O: C C o O Q Q r a O LL a ry a a � z` z w o K U) a C a' 0 t Ch z 0 0 0' 0 d o Lo LO W) N Na II0 V Q O O O O O a fC O ('} In Ln 0 r z N I LL to 0O O a M 0 0 a y 349 ` � d o C o c N L E �'Lq > `~ a Q Q (O O IT C C .0 d j o Q a` C Ln Lc Lq• , 'D CnQfa 0.. T I I r ii Q7 7 O m a - > J m N c Q ! I -F o D U C 41 �r r r r E 00 00 o0I E E V n d A 3 O N O m ro m a L 0 Qd Qf O ii w N C (/] W N W a -0 �;-� mw mom- iLL d p UU) v G 4D -o U y W z LL LL v N a u] `6 p r W u, 'OO J LL x N C u] '--' r- ca x a _m f!) a D3U m m- �'C-0 V) W H tia�a�c2 c!ao n 5 o o n'O� tE-i> d N o W [p C C '�,' (n I- U) 7 -� 2 ++ C ti = 41 2 O 11 Qi z t5 N .� r V C O 7 N 3 C— O fA — N E U t1 p .c W Nco � i3 li 4� -t6 of .. fg � N 3} o wt K U) o of O v ro: m �.� U) n� o �'I6 m o u ❑H ml W- arrUc a. ca>100 0-0Oi7U-Z) 4a C.i O za 0 >2i d j (l3 Y W a- O d z co w > ar3:U)a U-(.)z- o::ioF- M Q UELF- O Xa d(n f/) a �4M O O' O O 0 _ N@ i 0 0� O ! i0 O :3 M O r � ONI 100 �� I IN i00 c@ j N r jr r N ui N OC Q1 @'a v .� .__ jv�._ 6 v 0 01 0 0� j l j' �0 0 N O a •• a) O O O O 6 C E 0 O ao o ui LO o L I L o -O L r N 0 In to LO 1A N � j rii u'3 Lo Ln Oa N f9 7 CL c Q U Z 67 al 00 O COR o 0 O o O 0 o 0 o 04 U iAQN C ti 00 0 0 M G 04 U O @ p 0 N M c r M C R L o O O O O 0 O O C3 O O N M 0 0 a c m +v o0 0 a o Ln C @ >W, `7 a a o d N N N N n L) C:(U N N (V N N N ca�iL 0 � 7 ;f E d a c @ c LL} E Cr C cw 0 �NZ @ dl K 00 0- 00 O �Z a, a o, a a 0 �cd n No aci a "� moi (D totNo � F -c CL It - U03 a ca) m- , a (D CL CL W G m ri @ w O u� ca ?LmN (DQ 43 o C H NZ 6~ N Z N y 'c E _ 3 N LLLa u~3 H co M LL 0 c 000'0 0 0 aoCm: o 0 0 00 _ N C7 6', LC) A CO m I` V:M (DDlh r N O III � L CT N p cD O OD CO �-0ILD � c c @ �R u @ O C � y N 01 O 0'01 OOOI O O 'O 00 N Q. O nQl6 06 10 6 O io a� E v @ 00.0, 0 oorn 0 O a@ rn C '"� h 1D C7 N'1�. 10 N _ COCJ r O ;6 00 1t , O V 1a b O O Q3 N cp c�i' Q W 1-1 M U — E N .'t @ 'O y, CCL '7 N @ 6 ` @ -0 > IT 0 06 a C 'U L d d.� C H N E 1., M 00 1+ (D r Nwv(Do c- N N IT LO O Wcom O r Na) Q U Ql U r fA Ql M W 1'^J r V• a� h M ' (.l O U N d N 1+ OD Q QI LC] 47 (D i� C 1] O L N G N ` N 1+ (0. LO CO r N C7 10O O tp a ..: a r r >, LA @ c d :3 0—aY @ m @ W 0 N c c v N Vi C @ rb CL N n a c rn m 1° = c - @ a .-• O ODf- cD l r r N N 1-- 6'. 00 O r m Q: lC .- y C N N C .@ 7 '0 N 'a 6y N O v CD,Qi r 1Dm co 00 N M (D (D O1 CS O no O r j � OJ t` C7 O ; I O N r Lll .;; C .0 ` •- @ E 00 1l 6 Oi - 00 (D N (D cr) 0 O m co oZi rn N ui 0- R R E (r1'6i r N N N -M 01''r 00 00 00 C3 1�, 6 Co O L[] M' m r (U co 9 a 00 r r r r c0 r r Q D o o v c r E EE°' inL) (L @ E ' o a 0-0 LLJ LU ,a @ 1A ,c r p U (D o 0 top "'{ CC V d c ai Z(Dcz N 3 ai x ❑- ai m C? c L •� c Cf v j @ p a'Ai 1J fn C a W a Z LL_ — ro m 'O U E! J R 'p Z C) C L *+ W C W R N ~ LL •[7 0. LLJ O c n LZ c R~ '0 W Q LL @ C �. •a @ R c c 0 EEll WO W N 0 o U! t `~LL 0•-LL�m @@ O c H Z c F- �=t a13 - � a a ar al c H @ � o W N G � � v,H� ro- c w =- _�- =2 QCL li ua �' c c o .E 'd- E �o LL0 O N a• W C � ,�.��•a Uyroa OCvco_ Ui d c— 0 C C Adm �I3 M E UQ-@ vi N vs 1n CL rh N c v d �(� aINU o vO:c;c va C) 4 0 Q ar L' Io m @.:-_ m '0 i11 C Z U L @ a� 3 �f- $l= U) waa1YU!UIL i cc C13 ao'2 00 00� Z LL Oz LL C L ❑� O O La z 02 O �0) �z LLUz� 00� Q U�'-"O a' -a- 00 a Uz QOf 0 00 0 00 "' O IC) 0I O �O O N N N r Iq co Lo - a0 La CO � � •• o 0 To'o o �� '4 IQiQ I o I I Io 0 M o,o 0 0 0 c n C co rj l o 0 1 O 0 tel 0 0 M S 04 I N I to I4[i I I - 1 Cfl tQ p ,• Z ° C 4? W N N r r r E LL d — 3 --i - U �L oa,o o o 0 Q O 6�: ti 41QQ I —1610 O T a r 0 Z T o oa O oa I ao ao z U r i r r � U �r G m 9 j I rn m `C i O so p `a Q O LL c n CD S2 N R I I ami m m x — C� cp n>a) -0 v'7 I — m C U e W) I N Z a N E N y O N- O a O n 7 .Y u m O W m� C N� Z U N I LL m UN0 Ua o I Ii ao0 ooao E I.0O O LO O-QQ) rNNI-. � LO I Lo Z a� G CO 0 0 O "O O ~ r r r O m z LLI = m z yo I 07 'p C p0. o Ycr — d --- -- - .;_.y.._._. .... ... - I -- -I- --� m T 3 E E O . N L N QI q} i7 ZEn CL d w tp M d N L +, w �0 d 000ao 00000 0 0 00 00 N w 3Z Q, c E CO E 00000 0 oa A• N cn w E r N N 0' T O I O O !R x C N 47 r ty M1 N N N rcl r r r N O d V1 = C�' a�0 L ) L M D W l W a C LU Mi z Z y O C _g C._ (L V= i C E O U1,� G m � E m -01 �wWZ X D7 m W Z '" CD Z Nj al Q; N. Z �JLL x NmrN� r CV Q t9 G? d C Z a o U) w ll.{C c v '. U] Qty LL c o o h m 2 H o �a E L75 d— W� i F- C� C, v t3 v c al O a' F U Q dcnN Umj U O O N J LL _ C tU f6 C T2 _ a N c.V c WI1(nOI�cco ea E EL._ Qi LI. N c ca cn QLu Z E �..0 EY—;W us: -- E o ui�.� va E ItJ- tea.. a X'� c�plc OOp �� Om9 a m m:: st ❑ V 45 -3Url� Wdd�0U0- 'a>md'c7C7� 00 Q V O w Z IL 0 z _ �W 2 ❑> �0 0 Fa L LI } ct c z L.LUZ� 0zio UaF'O ir- CL CLZ U) Z Q LY Hcr 0 C\ 0o CD ui O (a C) s 3 7O r CL v o E � C O 00 j' D Q O O 0 1 O O N 06 C7 M O cn IL Ir -.o _a m a s Y Q;_ o of a o; o O O o 0 o O c a 4 C Q 00 Z -0 001 V I fCO Q N h DD co OD C U I t4 E o 0 0 r o w 0 m oo C o 0 N 2 c0 C) C7 O w O O r� nd 1a ODo rl co ti a_ O LL a N N N N N V C 7 _� >1 f/1 @ l0 -- - -- }- cso x o00 0 00 VIZ 0 d N p0O C O O .0 � Gd a c OC70 ODA O O N 0 N 0 N iS H c6 O CO Ln ! V .O N a E E E o 41 a O 64 Ca O M OT LU F C m Z n LL v I u~iaa aNi C d16 O 0 0 0 0 0 O p G j C5 COONO. LO Lo O O - O U 4 S4 c0 LO C14 un O O O a U cl C6:: r co c0 as j T fl L 3 D O C E Q 40 a V) a � M O r CD N a O N N 3 > co O a O c @ OL -0 CL - - E F @ a N E � a c N n..2E o a_ r @ O D A U N m c w a SNE v�O� o IL C O }C C a L - U t! a v,�vs 3r O C -0 .! C a 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 CLE a= lD C O C O d O 010 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 4 a y C� E o 0 0 q a@ra O a= cq cooNolLDLn c0L NI O 0 0 YS '� 4 C E i N Cl) O r Op W 00 +0+ U �+ N p 0. L - 4.0 1= O ED O �F- _ {n W ifj W �° W a� a �E Axa a> O cn •m "C O _ C a IWD U) W Z !� Q Z U G w W 'Q W O�L=L X �m rN �^N Q d Q Z a O o O N a vi O� cm- r a y� �70 W.ti W 7 _7 C C -LLH O-- c oc2 0� -oF 7 C.@ C C a O a _ U C C � C Q a 7 a O Ui U. O mH� O a- c6l >J� __� _� L Cl C O V Qj E [QC U U C W LL tlJ G C •_ LL_ ` a Z .� 'C i i 0 U V a N ran •co N a a p .� jp O W c. E z; i; O c3 G O c@ a a 55 O N O m 'v .r@`. W .G O E ya( (� N Oj 0 O O a 7 E= L C USA W 0 0 d¢ N .0 -7 Q� .� W 0-a` m U U a U1 > m a- (5 (.7 �, � Q C7 0 LL Z a Dz F W �_ ❑ j U7 0 O Yw� z��� a 0(nz LLUZ0 p::ipF— D �o or CL d W C Z Z O N 4 N 00 0 0 o0 0 0 00 p 0 0 0 a m cO to cO tp O N - r I r V V) ~ [V N wa w _} II j 7 ICU p i a "' li a L J c z o c � r I j a7 o I I I I d Y N CL Go aUi > a c o, j o '0 L a p IE no �j mN I Z o c t o G a o x ch z o da y La ? � � N �a oQ I j a Y � t N T m ~ Q N m a Q �� as o Qoo '� C c Q a 0,7 � 00 I t6 - (p to - 0 rn w .� o :t2 a c a CL o d O aM N U E �- Z- y ro o c o a I Q a �o U 1L « C 7 C= Cl) o c Q I I 6 U I J 2 t� a O N Q j O O 0 Z L CLC) E m O O O 00 O O_ a 13 E O b O i b O a c o C Y E o0 00cm so Itn C c o t c c r N Z c vI a IL a K aa m (U cn ¢' E Lcn w U w `m U o (D Z t t' Q d o C U w a p c as X A a c O m a Q UU)wZ LL LL 41 a Z C aCl r W C In o c p �Q J LLRro x 4) m SIN Ci t iN c� alc=i a io Q H d � O] � 1= d Ua LU 7 C' C'' of a ICG fc6 C L c Qo d m. U m � LU moo: �`c Ir yH 2— � _, c 2:2 Q CL .o r a LL� 0 Z taI•- U U c �.�I w U Il vi c U a a u, H L w kIo C E; U a an� �Ldo—.QG W r .� O K uI m �! 3 0, O =L'inO O c'C� a,aO a Z, 2 =" -r-c d U in n— w wt0.c-tKUU4. Vi>roQ-0(D 6 DO � a c M zn Oz �LL �2 ❑LL 2C OYUjCL U LLL)ZC OmOQ m U IL c aU Za �a �a c C% :0 0 1 00 CO -O P. O o ;0 o 0 0 0 Q1 O O -LO CD Ln a O 00r O O ti ui O > J_- L ti 0 Z O m E a - E W 0000 o o.o o 0 a 00 00 cLa u a P m 0 0 0 0 O 00 W T O p N V t() O co N CCL V SH • 0 N a a 3 (V P'J [7 M C _E L5C } N m 0 A O LL 11 .L - D- L C1 O: O 0 0 E o rn'} c o o; 0 0 0 L) ¢ E D m `od 0-01 o o I C o O 00 O �� r 001 o 00 Z L C w d 0 w O t[]: Mi t[7 V O C U Ui m W LO T r - r r E E 1 E aa��� °� N m N f'9 C) y, iN yC L — i C11 o E v m E c n o E M ` O N '� L N FEm O Y6 D L co E FO •r CZ0. '� a-0 c oa~� tf! m E m 0) D C N N 0 c U� o c0i ow -E as L C ca }' E QE L CD L7 o a c G r._E'FZ ZaQD w mE -c LLLU 0 ooZ UH�I a I w `° 0000 o o 0 > 000a vovQ)0 ti o QQ o0 w m Cc F T T LO 00 1 1 c m O D G U 41 i o } c °' W c p t0 D +camp FF U L U M N Co ] N j Q N O W C _ m 0 •a a � cfl rn'� c O � - o Z)_ $ mij N' E o 0 >, N `N Coa m L N 7 m C N C G E 0 d L = O N > > N D� .� C mmw om CL N pU) tNo N D- -`- Et r> 0000 0 00 0 0 0i0 a 0 0 30 m a r E 00010 r0 U -)IM 0 00 c V N N c o cIm L T T co co co Y y m N C 1O O Qi m C 3 Li E W 4) M .0 .GN fa m to -0 m Mn V1 C7 U xr �w C a a O (D C c Q7 ga c._ LL .. N C O G E _ •C C — D E —° M .g m m 0 ar N� mK � U) LL — m O> a U }i Z «.W r2 a C N C mo LU -J m N x c rN Q in a Z yam N o� c _ m� c-0 U) t H LL. cI c cj= -0'-0 -00 m d N Q 0 F- w C� N Co— LLl D C U C L LL— Q a C ca j C c C N Q c ~ caa r° ¢ N G a 7 m d w NCa 0 im 0 y c wLL �ItL =_ Na r- L E ♦Y C Q5 LL Q N Z C .0 �sscl0 �+ m E Kaci° c ~L E a U) -0 D V7 cp c wCE d y�,� C .4}10 G C N L .N 0 m or v L 7 T _Lm Q7 N X t9 i D D O O N r r' LU .c _ U �T N N n WaCL'4`UUd d7�WdC'3C9'� v Z 00 o y �E ZLU O LL (� OJ CD LL U Q O LL Z CL OZ 55 W Q W 0 La (f} Z Q O Q < �EL O d U) Z Z Q of HU) C) N G a M w ❑ C -o o) I I � � � 0 0 (} O O O Q N co W C o cn O i m T U) 'b E � 7 @ LL a m C E o 1 j • co (1} W p — p G O '1° 0 - I LL a N = F U O LL(Dco 6l L N m Q 4) .6 0 Z .' N N CL O O O U E (6 - a r CV j U C m— m I. rn� o O m ev v a... a 15 E O m C 0 V+ U V] T j a T oU_rm E E ami o '� U) U 7 w N 3 -- O 0 O �o O Io O o aid Y N_0 � E( C x 0 o 0 Q, io o 0 0 0z c �i v > v a c m o s 0 co ;n us C) o io o co Lr) a r o o la – j to o CLI a (u C) ico co v d C 1p N yo) •O O0 72 W p O (a ti o c o � I I m (R i-0 ` N L U O 0 Oi010, 0.0 0 O O O 0 T— 1 I I O a C , 10 izC C L p 3 C W V) 0 O L O'O C' 6 Ln' O O i0 - O O 10 H U W u7 .c Z .S N N r" I� I LL (u a a�,�� M a @ 000.00 0 0 I 10 00 0400QI o O O ! O O W -3p —ate) E O p _ O Ln O (O O:(p O, �_ I O r O (�'1 it Q� O t` r M r M O C > F rl I N .CV N QL @ I m 12 ro E a s o 0 0 mai -p U En 00 O O 0 C7 O 4 c !1i E C 2 O ([) '(f) 3 Lo ol I I o o> '3 a w N N r ! I r m n S c w `p w C C U U E. m. Ivo ycaE - o 4m (Q O .. 2 m a-0 6.-C C E O ` N Bio oa .mE m c o > p o d" o m@ jN a oa��'N CL I qCc C m I G N 0 V) as (» " C Y 1 �-0 0) (n � c�-0 C� �� – p 000010 o000:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 ;00 v m 00000 0 O 0 O c m L O '� m E V V O M N r v m M 0) CON, o Y a w C arn ro W.0 q) L) a_cE O a o!i F W00.v_' •+ a U] — N U Ln w>(U m W I W Q E > a a 01 L N N (d p (p = 0 G1 a a .o m (n LU (� c CL m`� CL >� E 'NN�mx Q •� w.0 b w O NS 'IU,u7LU Z E C U) N 7 o N - a Z C¢ C J �-'�"[] N toC d O i' -D O Q5 p Z 'N ❑ n L O a .+iu w G y v'pQ fn. LL CU N -o m t: -0-0 -o H N 'A W 9 7 C. -200 H LL— T U C :3 c C p er C C � O O C 0 0) N 3 U-0 GO 1 c d W c p- N H W 7 -� I __ (6 c0 C [— O C (o 7 LL = m G -- U ia• G �,U (� LL (n. G O C C C Ol W .C� 'Si d7: U N U uJ L o N o rn ro C LUL) o m jc�:: u Xrom000o e N = O(U=° .0 C T`°: c@ N m N U 0 O 2V-� nU.Sz Wa13-10 )a v»030-0, 2 00 � G a M � < � 0 0 0� OI F 7�z 5 E/ m0 0 LU zf m� ƒ�¢Z U022 0-Z 0 -< \a/\ � 0 m� 2J ƒ® F Cl k qk � k\k \ƒ/ 0 w ®®/ m -d -'CCR No � e� 7 � I E \ § -; §§ / U §flommomm ai CIO � & §\§ @°` o �f A:co goo E oa66o 27- CL c R §�\ � 0 q,BR �2E LL CL a) - o § 2\� k am k /Z �'\ ° C4 w �\\ / 2k7 CO 2LU _ \\� /2 E-&6 6&z {/ §C� �z7ƒ `EE %�_ ■� E®;m CL m� \ . .� 2 C;i CL w o K@raj U) = 2 LL Ifo o 2 \ / \ � § 2 \\k ƒ o=) \}{\ % z §k�) \ k E.2 2 E 2 k 2 7 0 CD CL L \ 0) x Ao E ® - 2k£° f 0 -0az 0 m SA w2ƒI $ o 22�k- z 5 § =f o� ) ° E)\\_ 5§�xx0 /$0 \ E %\/ / k 0 k 2 kƒ)� e f `§M § � ; z ®b D( �2]/f �£ 2E CD �j m LU §\ b2��m, Z 0 §�{fu §/ k qk � k\k \ƒ/ 0 w ®®/ m -d -'CCR No � e� 7 � I E \ § -; §§ / U §flommomm ai CIO � & e±oA@ o A:co E oa66o 27- c R 0 q,BR 0� § �'\ cn C4 w w / CO 2LU . .� LIJ z IL / § &- SA w2ƒI 6 \ ■ r< 5§�xx0 62 b = k j/�\®A m LU b2��m, g%=o e2=�f2 ujE @�Bg§ §222zkkR §ƒ§0' # as/E -3}- x7: ) §\) /�§e ID w�= O ao §k§2Ilimk Q O Lr Za- Q z LU �g n U) j O 0YwLU m Z �C/) ��z LLUZO 0 ::10 Q CL °cn Z Q O N n c O �. O o 0 D '6 QO N (7 o Lcr y m 7' C (D o m .Q ? . ELL @ CM 0 N co o N o o o 00 C3 U') ccccoo oo o'o, l o.ni o co co 10 O C W)LO0 o o ti co - I j i 1 I j I I o 0 L 10 l0 h j oa I lm i O 0 0 LO Q 0 0 n ca Oo O F U Q 0101 to 0 0 C 0 0 F v o n r to _ V o co o N ! a N o N _ a rn rn rn rn os O Lj N r N N N 0 (n � i I - C C to cu c LLCLN a_ m a; ami I I z z E m o Z m vJ _ m {gyp C IL O LO LO 1 N y 0 d p 6Y 2 j CL w V . E C t - N C I j o CLL7 c O z N LLayr = cn o 000 o o 0 _o a c c 00 C C 0 0 C o 0 ID fa C L a) = p er cV o o n � co Ln M I 00 @ y C Lli 7 OO 0) OD o (7 — W ICA 00 L z E Q F- U] C im N W C m O C c 0 z 0Z'm � -; =1 E 0 > � �_ } 0 0 I Q�=Q 1 Ncu C @ {h (a N N w @@ W E U Q � CL ai m y a I CD E d E- m p Q cu i s '> $ v a 9 Y E C- p` N E C G C N � E °' o `m E Q W al C E '= WJ W@ p a� d« m. oz m ays m a U) z m o C o to c a c L m UJ -:03m m @ p y Y a E v u Q o r L =cWa p 0 0 0 0 0 00 !00 0 o=CL 0�.�m Q E 0000 o 10 to C ° dz m N �o Qv aN A vaoo(DN rn�rn 00 0, c 0, 00 m m O 6 C o E zy - @ us IO 0 @ ao C6 ao V q1 Vi -O T r @ y a7 W ap a z z 67 O d C OL �' p h @ Q L a7 C Q V1 Q W N _ iI} U m@m m c � -p Z T = N E �. Q1 @ O W W L }i 7 UJ Q7 S2 Z LU - lz SD m� m a7 a "ccNn �� m e O rn O ._ p IQyQ U(n W z LL.� W J lC m V O@ p W Z D a) 7 Q Z=� z m > « W I p a' m 'D.0 _ = C LL X m m c m �N a cm: U m Q CL o O O 3 L ¢� w o -0 ?. "' } f" •p C Q7 y. c'[) W i UH l LL ay Cy O � alcZ'I C v -v m C -o C v H O a C D¢ Q m C@ C C`O— U O O' vJ 7 J,LL TI= Ci == C F^ C Qi d N? O UJ C LL Z3 z O U @ C7C G .� j 7 Vi d (� 4. C a5 a) p H O O a) @ Z W C .' C E }} 3 SL" (u U C p CO of � CIV N3 N E N a 4] a) a Z CL N� 6 C C IA L@ l p tf) U O FL- Q �' � w E w M m .� LU 0— r ri uOl � m rl C C7 � 00 N r Z L- Z _ LL LL c w a r� U Z U) C z O Q Q � � C 0. U Z 0 Z a 10 N N 6 CD 01110. it O O O O O p 0 CD 10 � cl M C¢? d p fV Im N N 1 47 47 A v M j ro v ID 0 d L w o O 01 O 0 0 o 00 r O N I N 1Q li • mE •p N a m O N C LL d m u a) F l0 C a U CL -o V Z oy E 0 N OL N Ln 7 CD y _ V fo L cn M d�-8 -ppm a'p in aadN . E � m •C i m ° Z - s 3 3 m ah u da•cY ,� 0 a •o rn �' � � y vi O4 I Y7 r 0cli E -a O " a O U W o V L N '74 m a7 Z-0 a v m ; LL ti¢maa)iiLm UU 0,010 0 0 0 C c Lm fu Ooo 0 o p -Fod y v o'0 0 "s oIM 0 tO 0 cl 0 iu7 u$ o M V c ri C Icn,(V 4J c17 47 y 6) C T C � Y m � O C C O N j m N N C a� G L co Uco d 9 i C 0 as � m N > Q m °a a c � O C cu L cu (/� b- •a 0 0 0 O 0 0 'O U Q7 y o o O O O O lb Q cmA N N E Lo OO O cl LO Ito U7 Im n 7v N C U m 0 CL W W oa m ai a y U U ; ? o m vZ U Q 0 Na H m.=_ yea a�� j D Qi �O UIcm C 0 Lu C3 m a m O I ¢RNi LL m v Q Z U.X _3 v LU '0Q VOl r CL rn� v O C S m F 2 .y p m— O` v off LU 7 C C O U- O H���roT �D - 3 G m C C m LL m m v0 as C Q H ni C I Q cm IL 'R L) U a) 0. C U OI O .- lalE U c~WU- _cc T (n 'D C C TT N E rn u� c C LL U O` C Z W c .�I o(ED C NI N U w U C E O U co }� U) - !lJ a) — d X � Q C. C �, O' O O O N a O G 0 U O .— a m a LU aL a� U U a v) � m �'c9 C7 1 O z0 O� zLIJ O LL (j 0::1 �m Z LL O z 1LI �g LLJO wa U� r� Z `z O a <� �0 o a- z Z U) Q H � rn in N� N v o .. w c' w o E z O qe T r o Vi � O .L al N 4 nomas 0 O p N O w' N Q vm o c of E a as 7 y- O W 713 w_ 7i Q w(o ro C - s e c � 0. E 7 0 7 0 U a) o o �' +L CU C ar ti Q ago w r w d N r as a ami (uco AA'' 0�> C O LO3 M w N ai 7 0i co m tam c Q c c � c m LLL Q_mLL m ar ` O64 d� } N co 0 N ti T N r N i 010 0;o 0 0 010 10 IMI0 Q 'd O 10 0 o o Id. N i I 0 of 00 C7 0j of cd p V' 1 --r I o 0 4 o CD coo T 0 o 4 O O N a O o r o o d N o 00 i I I 0 i t !o CO a �__�_ 1- -__F _. _ --{ _.d l0 C 0 loo N -� r loo w '0 III j -00 C r ' 0 I o o IO N 0 0 o" 0 0 C O N O 40 0 0 0 O N �Z 0 100 8, s U ,gc a t0 .c; Z LL 0 F- U) w �2 CO o> z MC OYL a LZL O > w3:U) z tiUZ O OJO G 5a -ac O� �Z �a Z� F H� LO tio m c 0 Eu > — y cm u 00 00 0 0 0 sQo0 0 `m }'CDo_ 0 Lri 1 0 L 00 u; Lo n rr r n C r @ E LL d L E C C l T o.@ N 001 O 0 O V C7 a� N ID o 01 o 10 o C m > @ r C) ti H Z O aCL O rr N N N U0 is a ,°'nmr 0 0 loo d Le O i O 10 O LO Uj y N a d d V at `p Z o -Eo w y Qi zLn v, a JF- •� - tlf 7 Q� U E C6 o - - E a U 3 V NID 0 coil G 3 Q N to d cn v Z5 U 0 00 o o C 1 00 0 0 = jcO U,O Ln !O0 0 ', 0 0 C Q NN 0 coG V O O O C 1 N cl Gh f'7 E yU a QCL� C: @ 0 is c N 0 l0 N i Q. o Q d E m L C L r o E cA o N a T 0. E `o -0 J o rn >. CD 0 as o 00 0 010 0 0 C c C �p E O O O O 00 ay N Q 7 T E V N co O O 4 tN C9 (h M CJ (D y 0 � E cu W a U Q- O •� - tJ) to Q is E m a 8 E N W to LU V - Ili e9cp C: 2 Q o a i w Z a m � p G C o H -� m U m v Y N J m fl «w rol2 J z x N M z= Quo ID o'' 0 H c p co �I� F U. m,�v c o �Y c Fig a Q o Uj c c,zpLL moa'.. D �- D r_ cc o �asO �L� _— ro cF 'G = ° ° u a rWn � oF�LL c�� o c LL y Ep Z.�-«.-U a m —I U p C7 E 0 to _m .7 NE d wda iao (] CN =E.NC N�a'❑a0C7 .4 lC6m- LLI t!1 v� ash � ro ��'�a° oO us L z U) W O Y W Ir3:U) LL0z OJO } m � E 0 0- U) Z v ti Lo M v LL a m° ti M N o I I b1c) I I i 40 10 00 ioo iao 0 o f.qIN CO F O [V r Ir r O eo I I I c3 m olo a J0 1 0 0 q 0 o o0 ado 00 ooi oe o N co vo r T c�N N r R Q Q Z 7 C) r Z O ate+ C LL 5 as 6�0 o d ol 00 O O O Z R c a U) 6! to w coil to to e o J N i o ¢� F a Q N I LL , nD 4D 0 �� rY (D m oaa� o o I o0 a z � m _ `. nl� v aI ti (D r- ti C m O O J C CQ r ti M OD 1- OO O j Ncit } _ U U7 NC O = 13 6 0 0 C oa 7� 2 C .N c 0_ M y 0 c r m r o r N m 6 N co c d a m u m w a N a m o ui 0 Oa ' c E m E T � y C .0 O M CL 0 0 N O 0 O O T G C ci � ca a m III r Z rn 4D vai i O m E E U O O b 0 0 0 O O 0 = a NZ Ps CJOaiO O i? OO q7 _ ED oy 3 N CL a) Co E a LO a'6 to fD V t- � A 0) h A = X O N Q1 �.- m M M 00 ti co V N 2 Qs 41 o O O m `' N. Nf M P'7 �_ m.2 E C � p 4o Q _ o = m 0 ro �+ r W W r w a 3 y w U Go r- u, ? g2 W w �I � X W 0 � _� o (D as l p u W Lu 0 v� c `!, R � -o u, O2 = z o r w I.�! uj .� D LL— X' m ^N a; N J d .O� .'_-• z= CL a= 7 7 O 3. E mm u d— O W f(D .0 -o yr a LL m C a� -0 m l Hw=ocx, ao a ti w �� m H U = O Q 11 00 CO G W. c c �': U 'o --; LL— u c m c c m0 J LL co m' m CcC L C d m .0 O¢ rn QF fw11 m C C3 U C~ W �i N C E Nwa`y� y mm a ImO=='; �:a �L a p E5 > �� Ol x 6 0 0 O o--.a� a] 7 c 11 2 0 a o� .s L) n�� wa(Lac),c�a (n i�c� oo LL 0Z Fn 5; LL 0LL (nC QYLua W ?�-- IiUZe o7ioQ UCL�-C Of OL 0 V. Za < F- a a: C'4 � Z r I N O o v N N m n N N N > ro Q c C co I cn C 0 E m E LLL� ~ m CD CDP O ,O C) 0 O O N Q - U~ H i0 Ln In U')W) 0 N ry ri r� M cn X C ••E Oco O 0 0 y O co 'O O ti O -.E C O� L7 OLn O 00 '00 r Ns 7CLp N ,�..,LL N n 2 J o N- 6f a x 0o! 0 0 00 O as z E a o! a O o 0 � a c o LO 0 LO L 0 0 o (U O c c N in roa` w o; V U - t6 s. N �0CD o C L Z N LL cm S° T U) o U 00 00 0 0 C 0 'a T T) Ln 10(D0 rn o w m0 v L v ,n CL G (G os c C) m a o a C C N 01 r r N i N �(u rn d m > U � U c N N Q >CD i IL N N Y N FTE N E o O/ G O O m "' E O V .N a-Np w p 00 QO O O O O "~' Z m y, f9 N O O O 4 O O O O lU U_ O_ Q VO Q 0 O N C0 O co N O L6 N U ,N c C y O L Ch _a) a Q, N C N fJl N �m c w w w m CL c z Ix �w D O C �� �n .r Coy.. G 7 c d �O (� �'��Z C if G dQ y Z cn-y .+ W y'EQ W X N� rIN Q L a Z=_ mE 0FE y~ cv U). W= LL O cnD O QI O ffj C �' Q N .� lC0 @ S�6 C O �,� U a� rn 'o m a N m•-� c u1LLNa' U L cc E N E ix li p D Z W'c 2j2 p E OIC' U a. 1- a c (Q O W L N 7 t c X �. 0 0 Ol O 6) 3E2 E c 0.0 J U OH'u N �� m UJaa�UU❑ mn Q 6L L C a Z a Oz Fn LL 0 L c OYwa z� c~n� O 0 U)z LLUZG O71Oa m— Ua~c OC6 4.Z ooz Za r� a ry co r N m N a LO m j ! m r y a] r N m v = o Q a o c» LO m Q `° r ; v of n sn m li m c m - --�-,- - ° a o O c m O p °° u> c .T) m c o C .. [n a m a E o7 m° c LL d O} .N C C OD 62 U o y emirs m� F c < en - i O N m m U) o m a y c to CO cQp` m v��ij E o 0 o!ol o o i 00 0 0 o R j o;4i o a o 0o e v; m Cao m.00 0 0! Ura (D W u� is Qv dao m = N w (DDm _ O m0. (D co cON Ccu Q Q U 3 d c t p o r c x ooo l!a o coz o a V 010 a 0 o 0 0 0 y a c �_ C T 410 Lo H - O N K? 1A mo 3E'E flim m p N= N fy6 CL U N m rn a = j m An U) LL LL- - - - c c a D r0 c j Lu r I =o -E" m 7 CL O C z - Q N N I LL H t 2 o c m o USh m H Ud UU -0 00 o o 0 > C 0 C O C 7 C UJ a I O Ln N N . N r Y Q7 O O La rn U.� i L) ° Y cm -0 + o Q L Q C N = = O N p 3 m Q au] O N d r r ,= '� ~ L J = a m > N IL a m = O o Q w Eo m U M1 r (Dr m o N i t U d N~ c N 2 a 44 (Da 7 g.0 N rn.N N m f9� ? m y 00 00 o0 0 0 0 00 ao o0 °23 �jyY ct s J E j 0 Ln 0 j i LO LO O -Z5O � N m E L r_ �- LO N i LO ICL N � N N C U ui a D U o o c G i U N o m s - a � c - Li y m fA fA m U «" N a m f`- c O F- v, W Z j W U cv a in�m o7oQ = �W ¢1 J N ar N LL ,� N N .c, - ,ANS I� �a IL v 0 `G C c O 0 N s c g +� ia- 2 N' u!W C Q c W LL N Ui fG ( Z =O = c �, ..+ W Z (D a _U J= Q IDI ro co '- cu Q 4 Q- p cp g O S u3 m F m~ C. -a to L�acc,` F LL LL-�'acm H Cc:,. C a C_ -o o c f E ai -(D U N a- w > «. c c 3 O W U O O _- -! n 0 F 0 U ..�4. a LL C13 2 �O m c 2 ;- O d c V 'p Qi Q m a N m riI C W LL �'a = C Q E (3 J U H� L W C E i0 Vi U a' ) C a N m LO O W to N N m U m tll O C C N = t O [V m :_� J- -a J pHm' 3� �a.�z E wELa`rY'UUIi v0i7a3oac7C7� C) D, co r Q C CL 4z LL �2 ❑ LL �> 2 a O Fa w LLUzc OZipa � LL- o °u. a 14 W.4 c O Op 0c 0 ;0 10 O N o oal 0o s o 0 0 o u i ui' o 0 0 0 o j l o O CU O r O N. O'N N N V r 1 O r H a rQi _ p O N I M N c N U b C 00 0 0 0 -- o0 0 0 of 0 0 0 0 !0 0 0 s6 c °° `n o N Lo Q o �iN N (14 r NID r o C (D N D E y Q CCL LL d m E N Q L0 g C) 010. 010 0,0 O o O 0� 0 0 01 j o 0 0 (y c v 00 0 0 0 0 o C E t5 O p u] k (5, cil N N N, O O O O r O O 2 O Z O N v U (V 3 o w@ o U r 7 Z N m 00 X00, O 0 O O O W Cu 00m 0 0 0 0 0 C >1.2 < .- O r W)Cm N IN NS SII p O t r V m .� O-0 4, N i N v 7+ m V a. CE Z Z ro T �t A C a1 R Q X 001 O Or O Ol O loo 0 c c0 0Ol 001 a0 Op, O C OI p 00 o 0 00 0= ro dd ,� y m �N Lr) Lo 0N' � o v0i E -g c� N I I �• O N .,Z!j tp N m CD c o ID En Q L N C:) C) 0 0 O to 01 O C G a o W rn~ a Q r LoLo 0:0 N o. a LI) Q m,U HU U N r! r r ID LL H L N = L P� U av , W H N 00 001' O 0 0 0 0 L O O p pl O O O O O c 0 �. y E = O O :O al O O. O Q m, Co O 0 M ca r Wa v W o sz :Ga @ 0 y o m o' 00 0 o0 0 'y 6 of O C L a r a' 0 00 O 0 0 O C 00 . O O 0 O i6 L O Q -co Ir Q�?� N ION N D� s E � r r a CL ° .a' coi - o N rfi E N • ro C [2 0 N O N i 1 ami Y tU m C1 N E m o E _ O O y p N • o C[f _�_ Q% U � o I G U m m d C .p o cm m Mn.N r m c C (Da G�+v N O v c O i (D U U« •O 00 00 co 0 O 00 O -O OO 0 OO O C6 O"° OOH 00 O 00 0 0: Nc N E co (Dpn Cn to A N O L0 O p Cl) N ( O N ,L R N Li CAQ- Crrya N p G N ` �a E p C 7j -p 0 N m w - E w m m m Y l0 y 'O m Q E U [A U) U m m c c o Q- � a C v_ O ~ -0 i� p U n �N1 m �i U] W a LL Ca to C .y .� U 'U N F C Q '�, G J Z N'm N •O c J 2 2LU R D x r N O r H ro Q m o itsc G ap2!i LL as."LL �_ ro ro c H M d rn CD uLLJ 12 .2p ro_ i Ci c W LL I cn -0 �. c c 3 3 SC E m a O 'C ro <L .c ,C :_ Z w�'inaV cn c .c ' O �''V'cO�'�m N:(D m y IvN E c.) CL Ha0� U) o m d co c �+ o cca ro LL = co)X— cc=6 olo,R O v - c O0 f, 101 0 0 CL -)d G o wddIrU.Uia U)f, �7C7 c 4 L C CK Za Oz LLQ LL C 0YeI z�cn E 2 U-UZC 0 -Loa c EL fZ 2 a �F- C C) f o j 0 o ll j -01 fl O L6 O o N r m1� cq LO I ! 10 O O III O ° a) O -O. �0 O CII C G (o O CS O Ci O CrJ h _N Q -r- O p> t d_ LL d m LO Q3 N Z - 2!, CMO N O O + I O L) (7 0.O I I O O IOM O M Z p rCL p r w y' j E N L O O 0 0 O yam.+ .0 >G O O O O O O N 7 Y LL. a O N r r Q Q rn 3 '-c4 (D Z 2 Q) C O C p 0 O O O O ,L, t11 Z C O O O O G a O Q) n O O O O O O O IF J F- c� O �i _N E N J I and a U m m N o C) o o m O y Co 0 00 0 o 0 0 a a us .a o 0 0 O O La 0 0 o 02 ILS La r lf'S ii LIM r Ui ~ N Q Q N i U. .!E o co o of o m a 3 C CI o o ck o 4° O O ILS ILS IA E° v Uc '2 7 m 0 00 C 00. o Y ;O 'O O O O O: O tD 'G O w Ifito co i r- e- co M 000 ! O co: O M vi O O -o 'rN r1 N i— N m E �¢ NN Q) O ID c L y C 7 N d C O) U LO � {Q C 7 7 O E N —,r n M oD o Ce)M O 0: 00 Oc N r, w 0 Lf) co LO C O U rn o G 7I TI d n �� ::• U ca O ?L- a) OS Q7 w I ro x L) m " `0 ° 0 °r 4OI M o � M L6 Q7 C p p C M d7 C) n co 0 DD I I LID a Q) a 7 ° E l0 M Lsi to V• of G�1 c N a N 1] Cn N �o rn r a,I� N r C S [p i U f0 O I d U QP �_� m N W LU w o O� r n Lu H c rn CLN Q) jl O C a� W rn >Mv p to Lu O <L U} Gi La 0 Z a ZCL 0 C m LUT �' a) .Q 7 LL N x �, �6I-- @��F a LL d ys 03 C E aE M E' o v �� d� �� Cn U w�ccE �QZ3LL �7cco cc °O 44 'C a� v3 v) ° U N o fZ cri Lu Sao. c '...:-� w H m � mm CH �� : 2: i._ 3 a rn= m dr o LL O , m Z G C ._ ` O L) C LL Lo a) c N 0 c c E __ N 4% CEC U a H LL �n T a LU C E U pC v C p _ G O L� Lo u U) .� U 4) 7 W L 7 S Q7 L d i'C C C. C N N Q O O 0 = O t N C C Q1 Ql "O Q1 7 p (� l` •- L L C f!1 v v oL- w , a�.0 waamUlcUa v»mn.c 0 oo � a L C LL Za 0Z Q LL O w� Q Z (n O `c ri' c LLuz- O5pa C O (r.. dZ F �Q � m � � � w m LU a N I CD wto U N N (6 ON C a: o cc aj Y 4fi3 a ° o c Qal 'a • • Y C C H4 to M co U.C tar LD 7 U O v- z w d O m m N os CM U in ti amm=f E a'min a°r a N L o n 4) 'm ry IL a N ar ` z a ae9 - o�° arZ Z) I'M4 d air m o N r w � m C D ' ia� y� rnCw m C Lm -. I O OC7 IO 00 O .2 o m C 0 a C o'0 0 o G oot LU o C)'. r- r O o'o ca F O o0 NF- o.=LL teL] U Cr Cr 0 o :o o d O n 000 O O Ib O O 0:(D 40 co o CD m a (D o EO 0 u ? Q CD O Z4 Oz LL 2 ow O 0 Ye LZ W OE �z LL0Z� O=oa co Ua¢O Oa 4Z fo Z Z m Q N I O n ui 0 C O v E LLL a 2 C Ln CD c6 9 7 C/1 w _ M � OO N I I i I it ! I ' U m `- Z > Q 0 Wo d j 0 0O I j 0 0 o C c 00 C a N aU OT O 4n LO LO Kn O Ln Q N 0 E N Ll p MCL v C m a z (.2 LL } o o? o(Di 0 t�Z 0 Coo 00 le L (L C 1n 0 0' O a o N I a 0 N i ma c o v j zo E CW7 0 C LL H O Z a N O = IL U @ m 0000 o 0 00 a 0 m o 0000 5 a _ _ s H cf) LO LO LO c m m U m U Q U p 7 Q L m a L c Q op = -C o Ul V 3 w O T d ON N 07 « D ;4 m , U d 'yC N Y L 47 a QHS >� C O_ C OIr m m@ v m o a 0. 47 -O U L O Ql m m 3: n m a o00C) 0 0 0 X N co 0.O O O O a Q7 C 7 y jO o &0 0 > m Q o m -Lo co ' W) W Ln 4Y kn U 1— CL.. O Q� D Ql -C C OU O a is �.� NE m 0 a CU �� LU W � �� o ��,vs L) L mU v O sn m Z d' Qi �.2 o > co W > cn U w L. in U LU a N 2 c E3=0) 3� o r2 m� °icnw0 2 u°'� riN J L o C m Z.� H cI¢ W � C LL X al C r^N �� a m G7 d _ s m ar .� = O .. LL! C.� (� o OJ ._ u LL � H v a'v C C; C CCU ' o''o o F- m c Q LL!' 2 c C L)oo- �OmJLL•=2 0 c� Z) co: m ' m c o � a U)tm LLcnwcco T- E Q. E �'�LL� v U a c P: m o. W E fir- NIU � 0 �l o��-- O W -� m a w m �,O In L.L U L Q O F- m 3 .E M Lu a a' O OI Of o EL O rn 61 o m a Ci' (D7 l 10A Z LL Oz �LL LL Q cr Y w a WD} 0� �:coa U- L) Z — O::jOQ U�F- C ck� CL O U: �Z �a c' 00 0 0 ! 0 a P- 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 L M G 0 1 d o a r 1 o N � 1 I 1� O N f c7 V M O O OO O 0 0 O O O O 0 C) a o o a a o 0 0 a Y r u o LO i o o a a U a •- LO M o co 11 a ¢ : c o U. a o as a o 0 0 0 0 o 0 ~ 0o 0 0; 040 1 a V 0 o Ln 0 to o a CO r cors r0- r Z O 0 O N V LL rp M k6 o 0 0 o _ a o a o N a 0 a C1 M o O o a Q ti s 0 N C: ° •� ` r U") N r r Q143)CL ¢ ¢ u o m z z _ U LLr — - - ---1. O 2 000 c� os Z � 0 0 00 0 I Q CL o LO 0 yrs Ln -t1'1 M0 o 0 0 M' '1� 0 O J H U C N N 'O N d a c U 0 0 0! o o c 7i o O O O 0! O o a Lu 0 LO LO cn N v1 N Z us N LL U) m U LL o' 0 0 a o 10 C? c 0 0 o a o o C t0 I-- M N :1. W) N M 4D a Or a 4D °' o ° f6 0 Q O 01 1 C 0 U) y }} yy 7 U y M MM 0 > C "ho r r r p Q as .CUEas O S) InO N CL c� 1n y s4 m a i I CL as c E m cD ca o as c 0 0 o a a o o -o- E 0 o c 0 3 m N o o o o wE EL CL c5 rn a °s a o E E a -t3 N y o .� a o 0 a 01rn o 01 N -� ro C 12s a 'G Lo [D 0 O �D O CD O tp c s as ELD a co- C M O' co i b i'7 Q) U y E 1111 co 05 N V) Lo N d N N r M IN r iM Fr a L UCL C ` n at c.43) o - 0 I W L!: o f 0 LU Uj C -Y W 2 J .0 C Vl N Z = Q m w E m 7 1! E N OA c U C' i�- W N O C ID Em T ` o co W cu CC Q1 LL c amici m 3 w Q c I Z [A �' m c z 12211 �' w cn 0.pJ x Nm LJ c Q fA a 0 m 0 ? 4D t H W s ` �"' LL H 8� c@_ c C o aau)a m a Q W s�ooN0O��LLM�� a I aai m m cH c �E a2 m 4) vo c� E a v7 roE c WLLusa CC =_ E ^C U N N U E l6 7 1 -0 E" �+ C} V E 1r m Q% 11 0 to a C C N CL N N L 01 W a C I N .,,, N 91 C C y _CIL C 1y. � Qi L y m 'r_. s s i O CO U W rA '- m ' co � -O C 135 - m s- .2 E o }(_ WD.Qo;UUa v ° 0 6 0 v»mia-(D02 0 t0 11 3 OO JN a 0 O Z d ,O,^^ Z V5 5;2 oCO � �o 0 u� z UlLLI_ o U)z LL z 9 OziO~ U a- Q'd a. z U) Z Za �CD 0 N 0 0,0 O O O O O j O O C> n M no 1 RN N IN N o M O N i I I I I i I i I I I I I i M�V I 1!I �O IOM C 10 O _ O -�cod IO 1010 O O O y to lf} N O 10 O M C p j iia` i 1 ~O O O'O o o F A r (O O'' CV r '� I' � I. r Z O o N U m I i I I I r E o 0 C) 0I'iO 0 10 I o En Cd 6, C4 u6 1Lf5 I NCL N Q Q 3 per) 1 z z C r p X I'O O10 OO r o C Ofz q1 10 Q O OLn 'O O C,5 i 411 cv L6 J F- G r r r H - O N i m i O OO o_'lo o 0 0 o N IO a 10 oCt I i ++ w T Ci 0:04 r 1LO T �A ` r a 40 N III N O I O OZ> 0 0 0 p +3 r r r N cu N � ' .c ca O: O O 00 O y E O U) to O YID %n O R w r � ns cu d a) O E _ N r, O o f a co v CD o mj a a) U) o j mCL i a) tJ3 o y O OL0 Q Ey o 4 Q 00 r 0 CD 00 0 r a` I�r N co r Y r R ow w E 0 a i 0w w a z I ! ICI i I ! O G_ Gf C O C a Q CD p N IN c� wx US LJ d LL i/3 = c r W N -= 70 J cc R cc a .Z= Z 3 0 3 v c ai a) .- Q Li xi�m r M' c ro a) al m;o A _0 O m �y HE7 m— �ccc N LL—v�,cns� c o cS ov cc N oNoa)O ��� ago da)� O d w =.4.4��0�!�LL==— = n,,��ch- aoE Vrn� U) cm LL U- cc E VQ pn� wcENl pCv'�ov�'cia O E a u7 N.N a W� bra a X clomp m 2 cIc o 0 o �I O m o w m:� W E mea c o o WELa -XU:UO. 0>mdCD02 00 COOT a C: C M 0z LLLL MC OYwa LLI } 0� �:0z LLUzC 0Z]0 Ua�-C Ir a `CL U. W Z 1- a Lo 0 M a o 0 01 0 0 TNr 0 0.0 0 0 v m Nl L 'Lo Ln a O R➢ N c c > O O N N N' l i N m N Lo Q m Ena� oasaQ ' o c c o000o O m a C)r° °P v m N �,LO ,� c 0 O N N N 0} N LL d U '� A U N 7 ; u� �w 0 00 0 0 0 (�j N s E V y O O O O O O VJ O ~ 9w OD N W) lOfi tn Z - c 0 vl J.- p N N N C N D 7 06 07 v {O C a U C (!3 r mo N - -- -- N m E 0 a 00 o a N C +_ } to I O [D V CDN O NLO 0 N O N I z z w LL } d) V% a 00 4 O' O O' Z .� 07 VI 00N J H W Fq 0 C'O O N N1 N L c E a cis N M 4 a cn � � U ..o.__....... - CU F yr 9)-0 U) ca Fo W o 0 o• o o 0 0 0 0 C T C W C 0• N' C o �' _ Q mW O 4 N N C0 co -s,On2 a N j LL (o 0'5 3 UH U) CD mi cz o o I o io 0 N N C_ `m !9 N 06, LO o `n' N a ! N 'v N a N C U_ d O m t •� a � n > C a� M m v 5 E 0 0,0 olo 0 0 a o o a v_ W U N iQ O O:O O O O U, �j0, N� Go fD co co co O c Cl T CD O rS T T N NE> O1 N U1 t6 N O N N UQ y .- jA x o d a Q1 (13 Q Q) W b 07 ° w E m a E �.+ CO C W E N 0 Cc N > ro 'o a a Y7 c o- m N N c E c ofy w1 .Y m E V ccYN Q Q1. .0 m OL OL O E N O Q 3 m O. O o O OI C E (N i 0 0o 0 0 0 C a N 7 N m r Ir r 15 z U T E E U' a co R U c E m c - - Oowc� w W `m W F- a,no 4D �Z 0: a Lu = m E -r- (DP 0 m � E u, a)lCy (D -0 O m m m l N U, z�� ww �� i�o��x�m; NSI a z 7i C O C C'.' ~ C� � GI -0 C U'O 0 W -Q0 Q �_ E O r 0 'p O Q7 .1<LLH W� C C C pC� {7 3 C fp C C O - N Q r.+ N O flJ o- 07 -j LL m c m m c H E a m U= r m a to d N m.- c `� Wli via c c QIE 0) C- 7 E 0 o LL U 4 C U Z c >> Q c �. O ") .0 N a- p m ++ o N N y N O E .� 0 LU m w a n a. 1C_ c' C C Ul m m0 ooa Qm�� L .Sn C a E m �s mr c �.- c n m Lua.D-Ua 'n>ca aam O'O ooZ) Lo 0 M Q 0 O Ci a 0z Fo W �> OYL� z°CU) O x (oz LLUZg az]oF-- U�<o a - 0(j) 0- � 0- Z V) Q Z 0 CV 76 O 1 0 00 oloi O o a 0 I� co W r th i •T i V j � j � O j 4 fL i i - -,0- - O MO CD 0, O > c E In -a o IO o a ❑ T v co a -a .. z `� _a Na c = o N I � v o U � c Wali, Q,' � � (M O O O. O �0, 0 H ? -0 �' U U) (n In O'. O t 0. O fII LO w N = Nm 2 0 00 � 0 0 O o! OI 0 O a CD 3" .N Ion + w O T co �0 Io N co CL m a w o c� L Q Q Z Z ro ro O j Q y LL >- C; �'' O CS U a -- - - - -- - - b 0 0 I - O - i- - d - O G .2 03 Z d c VS lf] In 4 O O C N d ro 'ro = c r I (qT N7 M V v N} •O N (D V N (4 ro in N 3ro Fn ro va d, ro O O - O C � O '++ n7 M O Cry co M (D M C h C.7 N U Z N I W t LL1 •� = v) f— Z SL U 10Sa o o o 76 -IN G LO Ln a IN. p6 1 o co N 0 0 N U C ro N v y� O r 1 N y c rnw c U7 C ai O Z'j M I E m o� C O Ul 01 C - O L O O 'O a Lq O III O O O OM O A N r M CMS O 0 r N VroCL CL J N m D1 O uj N ma (M cca -' _o d .N o0 O �O E y roa U crow `o ° cp N 07 N m rn j r r> CD o M r r7 w c U N N� Cc E ,•• O N (0 N N U Q a C OL •C Q UQ" U N cu acro C w I CL n o N L c ii N 4= M O (O O M O 0) Ol 01 �I Q- (6 E C Q] d7 M O 0) O' M O. M O j i M C 7 N n= E m O (D (6 w (O O 0, I �OD (O -0 U- 0 w P = 41 O7 t` ` N In l W) r o � L co �_ �_ N U L y O CU ro Q a �?10) O fL E °- m c o Q N W U (6 V) fl) E .ro o o m N W' Vi W U L G! CD ro v (� b 2 0 U .�-� U Q N A7 z m V) M OL oro (D UD E N O.O ro U W .9w Ci �n.N 11�+ '-+FU M 0 CL Q 2 ; Z LL D LLI ❑ w na Z La LLJ 0� �: z L-Uz� 0fi0in~ C) F- O 0a U) Z Q F M o a o N Cis .cn �iD O '(D I co O O C O" N j I m ? r N c i r, v U a o o �' o Q ° °r° cNa m eNo CL o 3U LU C C C Q � U. z ° m z � .N o a co co to o � mc N Q O C O O CcmCp O C;. CV N ep CV N CR N * �` r Cfl (D (D } E m M z z v Li } I- - - a o w 0 ac a) K N o o c o o i o v @ �z X 0 cND 0 04 eDD C4 _ •O roa O N a� I o o aI v cc = y 0 0 0 0 p 7+ W CV N co N' CO; N t0 r Q i6 z N 7 LL �0 0 o Q o CU Q o 0 e C _ �p N N N N w o C Q }+ C LV O 'O O - O Eca Qai� rn oQi am m y O O' co CNA0 v C CL y 0 C OC ] fU O N w N CA Q O O p0• r CL CL 'C L (L "gym CL o' o` E E 00 Cn o0 0 m m E r• CC C N r � fh 'C 2-0 7+ W O C C c N Lo l"'J r co r r O O_ O (D p C N a) c "p CL 0 D a) o m} 0. O S4 'U Cp C E U> O Ci O_ (a O L O Q141 O d) O U N N 0 LE W N O C2 C) 0 1 O 100 O °a a 'E t ^ r-:� 0 a) > F- o us V m ui E cmo v cos a j w L 2!n ~ y w F—C E L U) Q CLc -2C o �L �`a, > a D 'E a�' o Q�a(0 siva w w io 0 c CF 0U W ,L1 Q m y c 04) m Z u] v w M = E E of c (L N O a)S c my Sowo C: CL w Q c rci a ° _ °} Z-0MU) r Og�pa uw m 'D.0 C-0 ��H x �r� Fccl�c= -0-0 -0 +� _ _O (U ,� E a) F- N C O mH W 7 C C` LL _ (Oj O C LQ C C: r� l CH O j ~"CU202E aN 'DO 0 d W a0I0N00�JLL1�=— W _ �' C E CD 7 @ C U C O 07 LL .� C O z M "— Q'. U C C C ` O U (� LL Vl C N N N. -S_ O C C a) M E Gi E U (U Ql � H �O '� U N n CLQ E E Vi rri m (u ui d c E �; y C '� 0 c c vi c Q,� c t .� E (n L D IL (? aIY a�9 Oo WlLd�UUa V)�mdC 0 : 0 00 Zu 0z LL 2 j2 LLJ Cl) Q 0 LLJ a z��_ O a U)z ILL UZ� 0zio U4-�O Oa aZ cn< za �7{ it LL F -- F- 0 Q N 1OO Ca X0.0 C 0 O Cl N C D n � � ISI N� rd•'! �, [+}' I M cu N L l T N V a-- -- I- sn OO O, G G j0. 010i O joo'. O as L o LD N 0 M [+7 I NJ o m .. m c 0 7 Q N _ C W a v m D F C o' loo O O O lR O d IO O - - O O oo o o C o l0 4 In r uiiolui N M o z O q N U Q r N �p M I CL E r 0 0 o C j0 C co U a)N D 2 ee L o Ln o o o 9 a N ¢¢ O Ce`a m z z E r O o x o 0 0 0 o I o c>Z c 0 00 C o v M C a a ,n �n o Ln o 0CO 0 cq H H o M 0. U o o 0o d O o c o 0 000 0 0 o o rn a N m Cl) M c (na N 0 roa Z C 7 LLN a IO IO O i0 O O e o 0 09 o 10 o y �-' U ry� O O o Ci N C', O 00 .O 00 O 00 a o r ar ~ a� m O7 -oo rn ar ..rn.N C o ar o 00 a o 0 QL a o q C 0 0 E yItoi 0 L 0 M M c 7 O 'O � M O N U r p N {� •Q N N N ! a j uT,�ca ro T C:Cl),� j L.' N E E w W O 0000 0�0 U r o 2 E w o', a 00 j o L 4 a L r N R- r T r Q !n Cp r r QI QL = a C r C L 3 a c a 0_ L) i u N U (0 CL N N C� V N NE� w E a O LO O o 0o o In co O: Ln O :o LO 00 ar x - a �a) x o as o ao o a Ca E ry I O C CL L ° L M N M N m-o i � Q n.5 -0 o w c 'N ar a c N m ON w w ca a N U O Q U) �.�LM'ro Uw U C C o�� r� ro m y �� -0 ai a G] c c co OL o o ° co o r� m o C/) ' C: ? cJZ Luz li ra r N.�� a c U •O Z ++w �' aI .0QL=L, arm ro Z, -0 rry �, Q CL E c$ ay O- N [!) 4 _ -o VJ y w �,c r LL- a) c o c C sa 2 C C a~ N O Ho E ° � aZ o o vi a moo O0 U ILL =� roro: CH 1A rl (n .-. U U C w LL N 'VD) C C C =� LL 7 c Z C .0 .` ` O N .• C C' 7Ei E o �>. arm o w E >, a w a�.E K ��w to 2 Q o o � O Qi E�y araa � e C V -> oa m ID co wa.a.XC)(31- o rn>ma..o0:2 w e OO d a LL L C a oz a �LLLLc o �OL UZ W — U� IiUZC O=oa m- ~ c aU U Za §F- F- HF- a. N ° 0 0,0 0 o [hO .V p� Lf7 C'1 C} r r � o M N N n a ~ UD C � I nNi N (6 O 0 0 O 0°" O L C cc r Lo N r7 Cl) CD V V C •p a � c LLL m a� U N f (D O 0 0 o' 0 (Do O a O o 0 0 o c!7 M ~ M (h qr � It 2 C� V N N O (�j -0 D N NCL `gym E o- 00 00 0 CO 0 y Q O O O O d a eD co o " 0 Ln Ln N 0 o N N N N � � U. 2 2 O *" a L K O 0:0 o CD CD O 0 Q o 0 O O C N L cNv m M 0 M U LO d N !, — W O 1010 O O! O O w. O lV fAj C V r N [*1 Ni O M C] M C7 NJ p } Z •• N 7 LL a� CL U1Q � V H O olllo O o O N CO r as (O N CD N lu NF- CM ' N o ¢ O O O O D c: N Ci O O O 0 O- O N c M N M - M N M O T L 3 NCL m o m ann 3 w co d C c =OI }� ro d N N N-- N +2+ .0 -O N N U E N V C Q ° M 7 w O E L •D L N O Q -0 7 O li *+ Uvrnch 'o a L 'gypU O O N - N U G cl d l O 10 - O V aT Q ° m °1 E co 1w w C C c 0 0 r3/! E c) CN N N Q C f0 ° O l� « p a CL $ m L '_ • 7 (D fn W Ui IL G o �OLD o a Q QL d Ur Q w�+ N N L N c Z W ' c N rn_ L) w �+�Xp � D E�000° o as uawZ LL`� C a U --a a � � cQ � C�� Nco, r�� J c� � -a 41 4 c a v O E :- > m M y O — iri i��F- W 3 C i C— 0 c� c= v-0 C3 C M c� C N M� m', co cH Q c m (6 vi N a a m3 CD � v E a W y O,Or�W c ....- 10 mJ�; r wlL ( JLL 2 = � u,� .L E 2 w C O lL n O Q Q) Z C .0 7 7 0 � r ; E V N Qs— '.0 C: C N (D Ul cn V O M € co E N H o N ti a to a WL a,> 0 a )C_ ,NI in m m o �' in oho O = Q c c �- m L 'fA O m f4;:=• L L a m m 0 C)P 9(D.c wn.0-�ioC)CL w>co0-G(7'� O N z O E3 CO Z YLU uj O LL U Z Ozi0 O U] Z H o p P O co N N h7 V Lo .� N ru A ` a 00 p .. d C •D (4 O ib o LLd e c N� m 4 '0 .�-. x O_ t0 I � V D Z p = It - - a) U N 7 .O ?' o N i z 5Q 95 d 0 Q �5 a a - o o E C UL to " O Im zzr�i ,� tiro" oID v, sCL m O 0, c C L d 2 C N L U uj " m 3 o ° U ° r m t a aca a r 4_ p N� c N N W y c 0. O C > CV 00 ID CL N 0 Q C d I ill ill V _ NlU E `m m o --C F- z N LL=LL. -E H E o0 a�oi (n U O O c4 CUv 0 o U Eao� ro�>" O@ N N ° U a �' o m = QC L d N O O U .6 f0 — Oc M M Ca ' Qa Ca N 0 C:r O' d 4 d U U1 N 0a = C o U� ca m . L d n .• C rn � m o p o -0 a E ` CE - iCL yr 0{}, Q QCl O m U a M QQI C)oda CL E Q O r 10 E o o o d o O a)O E cn a v c U QCcn as r-: coag O N cOn O E 0 o d V tL L CL cc 0; S>� Q Nw cn mm w "° Y o.E E -0 a� v �.E "w �z m a 7 4 V L C V C E c o m = m'E aaX w ICL c c"a c" E C a� a aim �i� Lu o pp z n ,� x m L a N N C " z U W V 0 E w to w L-� u7 m O �- �' a LL cu cI^':.1-0' y " ro = O= N [n in n H OEn a) O m— a W _= i !L H — V cm _0 O w = O _O UlOO 7J 2Z =_ _ m L)U d (q `� vi c D w CI LL " C E C?0 m O�a 7 � chE � `oc �HU Vam-0.0 fAv c c LIZJ'c d���Iccin Ely inU :):E ILLE o'o Cy wL c c �L mar �c— to 0 o O N Qp _ U oI- m E 3 m �H U waaof;UUP cr��ma`o(D Z C1 O� 55 Z LL aLL CO C OYwa w E Uz LUZC o--Joa m— CL U�~C d z U 2 Za �F- F- Na C c� 0 C — 00 O O 0 O 0 O Z n C @ r C) M0 N C,41 N C, Cr O N co O> O O O '!O O m =_ Q •• 00 C p O_ O O m ro O Ep In d 0 In 1A tm ` O •� 0co C7 C > �, c LL CL m '= o u� V m oma. COo0 C 0 0 a H u) u O r r. r uS co : 00 Mj us LO u7 Z r O r- r U o 5 C N � 7 O N I d C C O O O :o CD aErn C L 00 0 O pO Q 0) L .. G r CO N r r y 0 En a 0 N L N 7 C Q Q OL Y Z Z O_ .L- LL N O N J } 5 00 O O O p O a1 Z O 'O N c W C 0 O O O J ' t6 C15 N Q N �' • O Vi =0 C O c 0 0 =d a O_ N a c m U s v) a 'E `m QQ - o o'a00 a C N 71 �-' m 0 O C) 0 Q O O G T C W O Q �, R U') Ln O O O a+ fn C) L 0 r CO O O O Q 0 _ 'c tw7 N LL G m 0 Cj LL N m N O Q c N C) O to O O b O L O i1! G N LO U ° ~ C ¢ m m ro .aNm ca=� m CL to } m c e a a Q o 0 cro m o o U a v o a C)ro-0 _ �U- O O O C O O O Q C N U m 2 v N r r r E¢ m m N CL ca m.7 m O C c� i N 'O N cm o mL rnECL d .a j co� NLQ of wN m [� t[S N (p 8L -Fa 07 O fA ' d �m o g o 0 CLs n O oE, m OLE u c2 �o rIA T4n -,A O O uri fA > v '�, a as m x io `A 00 V OND V O C i".�-• m N O co i C NEN w Q CL D y m N ni (Dm In L) ro r W W v MC6 m o LZ ami ° o ° EIli N U) C) Eyo� G Vj C a � CL ��wUc c._ w�.. O � v o m 0 lao, a LIQ 2 U) LU U- _a)-0 z•�;_�'� �� w W.2aLLm4Aa -0 N a 0.— x 3 a Z–•a c O ar c"o U]'v9 w2cci LL–Iv>cm H u c a c2 -O-0 o GG ❑ o ca Fags. -'0 h, :` U a ro c LL 'O f!) �: U 0 0 O O a'-- LL �J-0 roO co = C m m C ++ c auNOc UNC �� 0)w a` N roc=ttlr -1 7 G W LL V1 2z E Ci 7 a C x C Q),2 LL C C m z C C ` m O U �' q), o N O v'Y3iv .a;E o E U O a H a rn� �.> Z) �,� �.a �.. W a c'E u, a0 ig nib c c N oL u'c N CL aL. as V oa.0 a� �c a� Wa(I Co7,C)a- U)>MCL0o 00. � Z O 6) 0 U) OYW LU O 0 w U- rl) Z O'nO Ua� O VJ Z Q 0 o 4 C ro > o LO rn4 a 00 ❑ r O W W) r CD `r "O Y O y p N j n oui r r N O m C 0 -- _f-- III -- -- - C N O._-- G O O G O _ ov y co LO ori Lf) �n cjj E o o o v TI v L ° N U 0 N E� LL O. 3 .� co a in m D D r � s 'c 2)o, 4. L z L (D L ~aL-. N r L V I N O I q Z L O Q C N 0 N r T T U p 0 O O O.L.+ tI C C a Oi 7i O RO O O O CD v p '+� d. i 0 O C7 O N M U C .. C a1 . N ¢l N a Q O r lri st try a r u7 V Ro tn Rot r (6 d C y i al 0 •Q a Cl O CE) ci. N - Z Z t O E ❑ U N O % O O O O O 87 Z> °❑ E m O O JJ O I O kn OT OT N J H SE fi D O r + C� cn � € o a N U� LJ woa.o O .O -5��U F- Z C 2 O O o O a Ii O w NoQLU �aU 3 r o r r r C CL N a Z E A U .� N T r J LLLLJ I^' L O L =° p a 0 J O a Chi. o o O o o f O 0 o 0 0 Z cnLO LO LO to 3 u�, m m 5 ami '.5 o 0Ta ora o (D N Q En O� ro C U al ,C 4 O E 0 m cis 0 m a a� �-• O C O O O � rL- X40 vT�Q o 0 0 00 o m Wm m 0 0 0 0 E N i yro E Q° 0 N I sts c a1 E ° E .a OL.� c N d N N N N - N I N N N b m Q O N .0 Q) " co i Cy Cil LGI m 1A 4M, I 1 L 07 47 o 0- a I o 0 4 Q m O O L .L-. O_ ._ 0" lu �l O 45 V.O. p m 3 N N N N 12C i0 m 7 .D d �r N N N, ro m m rn m E rn w rn ami ' U- C CE C (6 R ¢a co O '° C U 0.4,3 C O CL I Gi z oto r- co D a o� m m as o v inO E 2 0 LU w p o a a E m E 21 LU ac ,� mQ°LL m—a C °)myla ` aic O a > m �? .0 C �I 0F~ ro H O7 UI U1 W LL f6 J a a p c- Z m Z � E m a m �� cJ� o °Q LL X mCArN�Tj T V CO C d a w O °. 3uso mw 3 O N O m �- c m rs U1uH W 7. LL— +3 "Iro 0C�C= �� o C C C; FQ- U 'c C cn m oQ m m N N Q s 8 o c/J w C C i UO0 -- to OproJLLcaM: 0� m rom z Ic s Z ' r •` 3tz a O c.)-, a> m i.. al C E o ° m C a Z M .0 C V O w U- (n c a) LL_ C_ f6 C U a U 4 L w C .0 3 E U Q (57 ai O H �O a w to Cl 2 m C, C O L uJL c a o o op d=— Ksa C fi i c C N QD O O Oa>a�� V t 'N C C1 I� Q U E E GH s�._._ o �U._� U Q Lu�Ia�()0 maC7C7 OO � < LL c c � fR 7ƒ 5; LL O\ e /- EL 2\m& LU ƒ�(n2 IQZQ Oboe y C/ \ CL F-/ 2 E§ $ e Ra N LomQ f � \ _ C ; §�� �o| c i LL IL ! : § \ © k \.` . R 0CL. $ r zz§ 2 ; : ) k .l z a _�� m ±r & 21 kL k y § 2 . ) �@ 8 o � o % �{ d _ �� a o. o k Fƒ 2 k LL E a �\ k 0 k �l � \ � ) k k k k l i k & q R N ! R _ . \ k r4 \t (D} --- -� _ $ [\ L § )j CL e� o � MA \\ a C §-0 ° k k « 7 § k m W' w § � ) } 4e E 0 \a § : � \± mk e $ g z «= 2§ £ e 2 _ CL . \f aD L . 2 k\ }2 r_B 22 \ \k �� E kax LLI °$ 0 3 \� /�(D< °� - )mw ±£ 'a= } 12 (D U. z z#£ opo �¥ -.. ) q% LL Rte&=�� _� ( Q-_ Vic= °m «°° e q LU o,o_oo§�U-M �c @o ,� I-- t a CLFvE§ a § m t5 r- Lu _ . § a �{£ �t� zr o u �3c°®f° o■R - J & u_� �a �e2 ■� wE\£'#/ 0. _ �£- e }} \ W ak -3§k Lu0-ƒ±3ja 2$mƒ\\k �3 z� Ow zUJ O w LU OZ] M �a U LL OZ LL ❑j C!) O af La U �Z z Q Qaf F -O 0-1Q O (J� M 2 U)a z �cn vim, m o a it o NIn.Q G? �LOlI RD w r r N n cv ui m h o ce) r sn (D N I ! l o l0 ! I 3 c° a o0 O_0, .. OI p O O NXtn C1 d co �.. ii a w N I o m6T9' 0 I I LLQ' m I I I I I °o N o 0 o o Q o N c ti o a LOi ISI ori, vs O L Q cu N N O U a o o a c o o a a' o c .. O m LO i u T in Tl rl sn M 'En0 ma`N aQ _ �� z z co o LL} I I E Z y x o I o o Col, a mZ ami 'y a o o = d o S m Ln Ln vi N 01 C C N Ali -0x03 U 3 CD — — o i m 0 0 � � C C O o U} - N `� i LO LO 47 ++ y W E.— r L r r l r c o C o C7 H@ m e Z �°'a 0 N LLo a a y. o x i I li Ndcvn (D L) CD a o 0 CD o �0 0 o 0 o I o Im o o oa 0)m m rn E ELE ~ E U a w � 13) _ C 3 13)4 O Q O N CL a p o Q N N O Q y a, a, a I o 'o 'C7 d 1 n o i w } N CL 10 m n q7 cIm Q. E �a Q CL N ° c `-' oI' 0 0 fid'E (D NI o N N N N E c^ r l r r I r T o Q E T 92 � o Q 0 LUz 0 a LL r m 0 W ul 2 E w da L) U i o a =.� v, ACL v c 0 C L a 7 a a°'i Q 8 0 Wz i u_ Q _� Q Z r « W � � c '- -i xIN[Q r Nc rN `u Q IL Q: O m v o u ar— W c� w' �H c',c c00 LLF- c �ii ti a�= �� `° o ~ O L n Q E Q Vi m m = a' - N w �_%rnc a cul-�ulc En Ww�a �c E 0 = E �r G LL 2 to (� c a Z C .0 e 3` O U IK q7 � �_ (U C— o _ O C N o W LLJE f!J M W ( D �U OO pC OC DUl O= U p `6C E2 := U vLLw LU D- 10- CL CD O— Z LL Q LL�g LL F�c - � -- LU >_ W3:`nC LL U Z — o::ioF- r U IL c CLCL d W Q Z < F- Of F -CT C CIN Y � � r N U 67 i rs r v rn 'n c s I o ma afro I .� � � a N •• m N i3 id 3 Ll, d � .L-• E Q- O a o E o a UenU N C U '+ Q N.�.L-• O U G r N C L1 O co in. �� '�v ca N 0, I '0 U i] '0y L O O O O O �W T2i6 U O O O O O O E(nL oLo j o 00 0 0 y 45 Lm U O (D Q O N Z o U) C L N r r j r 0 Z O a � "L' ] O LL } N ?C a «Z Ql OC 00 O a O O o +� c ova o CAE m Q o'o a" o a o m ca La .E o E.� a La OQ 00 0 -O O 7 C .2 f/J W 4 .2 ~L U N N a St 7 LL o m` Coo - _2 a Co C .0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O ` r, N N N o do U L rnv w O zi a oi0 0 Lin. LLo ! O i Q ca 3 C u o v_ r�M a 4 cn as ICJli It L6 N u) 4] Ln W) Ql r/j N N NN O -p S L L6 m a O o tm a L"] p c E C s E O7 Ir O v CjI N N MCC m D C4 to O M cm CO N Ln LO M co C O E M r W ap D 6) CO v M'.aD LO .M fQ ` U 6 N v _N L[] vN.CBN Lr� O N O•� d -0 M � iLoco) r !N O w c a * , L6 Leo c'(a L8 N 9 m NNr�oo rn10ti0 co O m > O> til � m U 61 d0 co v 61 O v M M lC] M O O v u E v M Ln rl a If a) 0) co o r` v SC a c` m N0,Ta N o a a m QL M R w m D d ImN d 'yp O p L > z or v o E7 c a o a d -- 'i3 E>m N ❑ N Q -v -� I (nN w w 7� m Q Q 0 c LA c E a N U me O ++ is: C Q1 U N o y 7 m O N � U U] Q - Lu Z LL111 m. = Ltl �L A Z w Q a+LU C N �N.0QLL tA'a!ra �N t a U) Z c o c d= ._ C F. Q c a U) ss W 3 C C 7 LL m I c c-0 C 2 o v C N C H Cd _O Q C U m C3 Q ty N y O d u 0 0 .- Q O o N J LL m 2 y m c H c a a� c C� .m E E N m •� c~ LU LL w -O e c 4r C— ❑ 3 as E O LL 6 0 N m c .� o` 6 U U X 0 0 a .o c of — w E R Ua F Q—aa) VS /A m .a' N .T n a wt'p �= wcE a� K- inw� 'ay [} C C '�+ O = O eco, �m L .� L O �L LU -sem❑. w0.am00a TID o cn�Mac70 N 3 OO n a L C za O LL�2 0LL OY�a Z to Q W U)z LL Z9 C)M0 c�aF'C cr- CLZ Z U) a Z of a~ O N 00 0 00 C o o 0 0 O O r co 00 O Co 4 0 O O r� N O> C�r m f O �(y �a = a a,a o o a o Ca O O O o O 0 00 0 Q pp O 60 C O O N[n C N o N 0 � Com') m r j > ! U- m I c o o U o 0 Le)I IILO Z 0 (N N N C14 I + N O N �I U E 3 Q E m Etm M 93 C N o (D fn 'a LIE} w 0 UN N - - --- - - �, OI Z vi C f6 C d U .� LO j Qcn J ro O N W O D Q �N P: c:; m Q I o, m o 00 0 00 CQ O oa 'O o_ o 0 ,C C1 s O O �M O 66 00 Q coy Q O w � N M i i co M Y U m m c � (D a) D C - c cl, C13 di C `O -0 U a d co ¢' ECL o Q U p J cm Q i rn U) Q m .N V M m v a Q C o 0.0 0 0 0 1: c � .0 Q y O 0:0+ 0 _ 0 �Ci 0 ¢ n cc m E E o 616 as O N o + 0 0 0 � v .g -o 3 st r -:m in- 4n %n 0 3 N (D - > _ .•+ m e j m .5 a t�0 id w}-. o c 0 U) 3 LU W m a r c al G' y m c o to C U W y co 3 `, E m a) K ami m VQ} c Lr) co.� �uJo o m¢ .2 LU LL J eGa o N Z U E .~. W V� o�� x (Dm N-0 fI) d Z m0 a vi m C. a) 0 v LL H c a 2 ~ Q� ~ � 0 O r%a w, c 2 O LL- Q �� c m= C C y o a = 4 U co dLu �,.E c~ LL ry c O13 j ll cu C3 < LLWE F 0 J C co s_ a10 - � W di � 0 m C mo d �( C- N C C'41 Q O Q Z) 0 L.� a) m 2 C I6 C N :+. N t� aS a C 0 o]$ v, �s :j LL, 11 0 a. 0ED(L0,(D2 DO Z) SECTION SIX APPENDIX • Abbreviations & Acronyms 6-1 • TIP Adopting Resolution 6-2 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS The following list defines the abbreviated words or acronyms used in the City of Renton's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan. ACP Asphalt Concrete Pavement ADA American Disability Act BAT Business Access Transit BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BRAC Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee CBD Central Business District CIP Capital Improvement Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CTR Commute Trip Reduction (State Act) DOE Department of Ecology EB Eastbound ECL East City Limits EIS Environmental Impact Study ER Emergency Relief FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMSIB Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board GIS Geographic Information System GMA Growth Management Act HOV High Occupancy Vehicles ITS Intelligent Transportation System LF Linear Feet LID Local Improvement District LOS Level of Service METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle MOU Memorandum of Understanding MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NCL North City Limits NB Northbound PMS Pavement Management System Precon Preconstruction Engineering/Administration (design phase of project) PS&E Plans, Specifications, and Estimates ROW Right-of-way RTA Regional Transit Authority SB Southbound SCATBd South County Area Transportation Board SCL South City Limits SMA Structural Matrix Asphalt SOV Single Occupant Vehicle ST Sound Transit STP Surface Transportation Program TUM Transportation Demand Management Program 6-1 TEA -21 Transportation Efficiency Act TIB Transportation Improvement Board TIP Transportation Improvement Plan UPRR Union Pacific Railroad UPS Uninterruptible Power Supple WB Westbound WCL West City Limits WSBIS Washington State Bridge Inventory System WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation H:',.Division.slTRANSPOR TAT PLANNING'JulianaVI'IP.20141Publish`,ACRONYMS.DOC CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, UPDATING THE CITY'S SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2019. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has heretofore adopted a "Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program" pursuant to RCW 35.77.010, and the plan and program having been amended and modified from time to time as authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after recommendation of the Public Works Department, held a public hearing on June 24, 2013, after notice to the public as provided by law for the purpose of considering adoption, modification, and amendments of the plan and program; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on June 24, 2013, due consideration was given to the proposed changes and amendments for the purpose of updating the plan and program; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS; SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City's "Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program" and the City's "Arterial Street Plan" are hereby further amended and modified, all as more particularly shown on the attached Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION III. The plan and program, as evidenced by said Exhibits, shall be and constitute the City's "Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program" and the City's "Arterial Street Plan", and shall remain in full force and effect until further revised, amended, and modified as provided by law. 1 RESOLUTION NO. SECTION IV. The Administrator of the Public Works Department and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to file this Resolution, together with the Exhibits, with the Director of Highways for the State of Washington and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2013. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1601:5/10/13:scr 2 Denis Law, Mayor June 5, 2014 City of Renton Atm: City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 JUN 0 5 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP, dated May 19, 2014. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant =--all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. -� Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. in the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Stan As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a previous Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this project (Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5' Place/ 156t` AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration. Until such an analysis is completed and made available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process, it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets level of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: 9 Withdraw the May 19`h, 2014 Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE 5" Place. • Once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, reconsider the SEPA Threshold Determination for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination.. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — R. Paulsen Comment Letter I.sxhibit B — Request for Reconsideration (April 16`h) Exhibit C — Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D — Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit F — Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F — C.E. Vincent Letter Exhibit G — FRC Meeting Summary EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @d Jdinga(x-,rentonwa.,gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"`t. 1 also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142'd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142"d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself; the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3 -way stop at 142"', and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3 -way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3 -way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "roiling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5'h Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. 1 am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th! 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156tH! 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 7 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot 44, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4- l 1-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot 44. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24`x' deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determinationrp for to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M -DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22°d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, l ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at Ro erAPaulsen cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: Citv Clerk Renton City Ilall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, A"A 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) "Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the Citi- and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the. City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the. City of Renton's code section 4,8,110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply= offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study= and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country- is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`" Place/ 156`x' AVP. SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under Sha? �, has the potential to adversely impact both my, personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (I`IA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own Policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the FRC, the author states as follows `The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Polig Guidelines_ far Trak Impact Analysis far New Development". By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Pear I lour Trip contributions are X20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic. Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: `The Trak Impact Analysis (F �vhil)it 10) also includes a Level o f ,Service q,0)) review of 'Ibe surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity.. , " This report goes on to conclude that: "... the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 1.56"'.A venue SFl SI.-,- 142N' Place intersection. " Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156"'/ 142" Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156"' Ave SE/ 142"`i intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant, Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5`" Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only, analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17"), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156" at SE 5` Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is riot supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the. ERC concluding that it did_ Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns 91 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City= of Renton staff are not oraly aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156", but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "...impose left tura restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D, Page 1.0 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 150/ 142" intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will 3 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156", further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`h/ SE 5th PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156" Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156Fh, the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `It is not anticipated that the pmposed project significantly adverse# impact (sic) the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the con rtrzrction of code required frontage improvements " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156"/ 142nd intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy= the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156`h/ 142'` or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's "Transportation Division is `iurrently assessing any improvements are warranted (f any)... ". This confirms that worm is on-going at this time (April 15") to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 This e-mail serves to document yet again that rhe FRC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as -%vell as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir Fromm: Steve Lee serer: Tuesday, April 35, 201411-14 AM To: CifyClerk Records cc: Jan Illian; fill Ding; Neil R. Watts: Jennifer T, Henning; Rohini flair Subject RE: New Public Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) Attachnnnts: TranspoConcPolicy140415.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City process for concurrency, slandard5 and process relating to Renton Cole Section 4-6-070. i believe this is the information Mr. Paulsen is se6ing. Tire information, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen hour the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-Fi-i170 notes that. transportation concurrency can be a coribination of improvements or strategies in place at tete time of building permit issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 4-6-070 A.1, or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the neve development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division k the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord. 5575, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Birvision has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, 'Within the City of Trenton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Ready makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (wh ch the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using f 56 th 5E to access Cemetery Road." Thanks. -5tev€ tee, PE, MS, CESCt City of Renton [rev, Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 51e�� rerltbriwta.gov Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of thisproject. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prier to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public hearing on.?.pril 22"`x. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22 the the opportunity to provide input to inform the SP.P.A review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application...") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"d, and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: \Vithdraw the 'Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5`h Place and 156`h Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 150 • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with review=ing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5`s Place Renton, VGA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C.: — Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D — Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E — Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-II1itigated EXHIBIT G THE ENCLAVE AT DROLF RIDGE xxx-xxxx --k--SE R .• -� I ��: j .' ,Hji f .- � i iiSY f �� y i �[O'� i � G'� � a �4 ,�[ k-- 4 Lip - e S .fes 111 { AEjf -I ;i-1 i f let �� a p i :Zt�f If { ! ji r 1�a-I 4 — — .IAM..._ _lI�1Lyyi+ --lzj:. f. 1 4 i A i.. ITI i 4 4Vi4q 3lbER F i! x , � 3 � SII EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS lei k W901 a N =1 ill Ill 1101 kil Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36t" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by Tji";tffE'wjI THA F`F`IC EXPE R rS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 rraffay nr0RrHwr5r TR.aF77c ExwERrW 11410 NE 124th St. #590 KirWaW. WA 98034 Phone; 425,522.4118 Fax: 425.522,4311 April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36'1 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analsis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5", PI/156t, Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142nd PI. SEISE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 51h PI/156th Ave SE and 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page T The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rjw queues were observed to back up from the 142nd PI. SEISE 156th intersection to SE 51" Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH NB 2093 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 1hPI/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142n PI / 156th Ave SE Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5" Pl./156`h Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all -way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/156`h Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Y)Ivffmy PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 51h PI/1561h Ave SE and 142"' PI. SEISE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142nd PI. SEISE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th Pl. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th PI. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 511, Pl/ 1561h Ave SE WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) North Site Access/ NA NA WB (C 15.2) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB {B 13.3} SE 142ndPI / 156th Ave SE Overall F 66.4 ( } Overall F 89.9 { } Overall F 92.3 } (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156th Ave. SEISE 142nd PI. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142ra PI. SE/156�h Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 ffMy The Enclave at Bridle Ride 7)v SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(a)nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 5 W ST E q` JA L Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx i EXHIBIT E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M- O R A N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 156t" Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1560 Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmail.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform 'Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h;lalivision.s\tra nspontat\operatfoVon\tam\tom9645a.doc 1 EXHIBIT F Denis Law yor CAA of. Community & Economic Development Department May 22, 2014 C.E"Chip"Vincent,Administrator N Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5`h Place Renton, WA 98059 RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat / LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration, the City conducted an independent study of the 156"' Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. it is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430-6598 or via email at !ding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, J,—L� . (f, 2. C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc; ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin lagers, Applicant Sally Lou Niper, Owner G. Richard ouimet, Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 . rentanwa.gov I EXHIBIT G Denis Mayor City of k a � + v Community & Economic Development Department May 19, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Roger Paulsen .6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Subject: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION_ Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat / LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) held a meeting on May 19, 2014 to consider your Request for Reconsideration, submitted April 16, 2014. Please find attached to this fetter a copy of the dt-cision of your Request for Reconsideration signed by the members of the ERC including one .new SEPA mitigation measure, If you have any questions, please contact the project manager, Jill Ding, at (425) 480-65.98 or via email at.jding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely; Gregg. Zimmerman Environmental Review Committee, Chair Attachments cc: Bonnie Walton, City .Clerk Justin Lagers/ Applicant Sally. Lou Nipert /owner G. Richard Oulmet /Owner Parties of Record Renton City full 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057. rentonwa gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY �► �C;r� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (mV3 M E M Q R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNS -M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). - - The DiJS=M was published on,.Apflrh4 20T4 With an appeal pefii el that ended on 2014. A request for reconsideration of the SEPA determination was received -oh *April 17, 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS -M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 155th Avenue SE/SE Sth Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. After conductingthe additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed bAr_e&p1anninglcurrent planninglprojects114-000241.jiJllerc reconsideration rmommmdation metno.dot.dwx Enviro=icntal Review Committee Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system, The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. eased on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SOPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 156th A�eiiue SE/SE 142"`5#reet intersection; it' i`d`nof include a LOS analysis for fine 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item ## 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development"- The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 1S6th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA, The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE ,5th Place intersection. According to the addendum the LDS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LDS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:lced\planninglcmmt planning\projects'+14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration reconimeu&6oa nnerno.dot docx Environmental Review Co;nmittee Page 3 of 4 May 19, 2414 156th Avenue SEISE 51h Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the existing DSN-M`with one new r6itigation measure as follows:. . 1_ Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to.the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0,00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m, on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. h:lcedlplanninglcurrent planninglprojects114-000241_jilllerc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot.docx f,nvironmental Review Commiacc Page 4 of 4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: GreggZimm r a Administrator Mark Peterson Adm[nistrator Public Worksa artment Date Date p Fire & Emergen Services .4 ferry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development h:lcedlp[a"iizglcurrent planninglprojmts114-000241. jiff\erc reconsideration recommendation,mexno.dot.docx Denis Law Mayor June 9, 2014 Mr. Roger A. Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 �► City of Re: Enclave at Bridal Ridge; LUA-14-0241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Paulsen: City Clerk - Bonnie (.Walton Regarding the referenced land use application, the City Environmental Review Committee issued a response to your April 16th Request for Reconsideration on May 19, 2014. On Friday, June 5th, you personally filed the following in this office: 1) A letter dated June 5, 2014, withdrawing the pending appeal dated April 16th that was being held pending the outcome of the Response to Bequest for Reconsideration. Your check #9443 for the appeal fee was returned to you. 2) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014, serving as a new Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination. 3) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014, serving as anew Appeal document, accompanied by your check #9490 for the $250 appeal fee. After review it has been determined that there is no option or availability at this time for another request for reconsideration of this matter. The Response to the Request for Reconsideration dated May 19`h clearly sets forth the option for appeal, however there is no option at this point for request for reconsideration. Therefore it is necessary that the Request for Reconsideration filing dated June 5, 2014, be considered invalid and will be marked void. The appeal process, however, will now go forward based on the appeal document you submitted June 5, 2014. The receipt for the appeal fee is enclosed. Our appeal notification will be coming to you by separate letter soon. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk Cc: Gregg Zimmerman, ERC Committee Chair Jennifer Henning, Planning Director 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 . (425)43G-6510/Fax (425) 430-6516, rentonwa_gov n • • . Apinn *CAR Commoxi`Fy Alliahce io keack but & EAgage P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 206.898.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Phil Qlbrechts Hearing Examine City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 June 24, 2014 RE: The Enclave,at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat - LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. fllbrechts, This copy of my notes is provided for easy reference in the record. We offer a few attached exhibits as well to which I will refer in my remarks. Thank you, Gwendolyn High CARE President CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-040244 k*k T* -r-,* CAR Cov mky%i-fy Alhahce `ko Peack bui & -EAgage P.O. Sox 2936 Renton, WA 98056 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Gwendolyn High will represent CARE in this matter. She is co-founder and President of CARE and has led CARE's previous participation in these comparable Land Use Actions in the community: Evendell Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L01 P0016 and 1-01TY401) Liberty Grove Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L03P0006/L03TY403) Liberty Grove Contiguous Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. 1-03P0005/1-03TY401) Nichols Place Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L03P0015) Highlands Park Preliminary Plat (Renton LUA -05-124, PP, ECF) Threadgill Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L05P0026) Heritage Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Cavalla (KC DDES file No_ L06P0001 and Renton LUA08-097) Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L04P0034 and Renton LUA08-093) Heritage (KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Saddlebrook (Renton LUA12-077) CARE has represented the needs and concerns of the East Plateau residents since 2001, as a group of concerned and likeminded neighbors. We incorporated and were recognized as a 501c4 nonprofit in 2003. We have an email list of over 400 households. CARE households own properties and reside in the community surrounding the proposed project. There is considerable potential for this community and the environment to be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is permitted without adequate conditions to mitigate increased traffic, light and stormwater. CARE's participation in this matter is in the public interest. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible land use decisions in this community consistent with state and local laws and regulations. We bring historical experience and familiarity with the existing conditions of our community as well as the detailed understanding of the potential negative impacts that must be adequately mitigated. Our intent is to facilitate the appropriately thorough consideration of the facts that bear on this proposal. This document is not a formal legal argument, but documents the concerns of the community and our requests for adequate mitigations to properly accommodate the impacts from the construction and eventual occupation of the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision (Enclave). GENERAL ERRORS: Staff's Report to the Hearing Examiner page 3: "E. 1A Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. " Contradicted on p.12 of same report. "E. I. c. Surface/Storm Water: There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 156th Avenue SE to the north of the project. " Pipe is to the south of the project and an open ditch is to the north. TRANSPORTATION: TraffEx TIA page 3: "156th Ave SE is straight and Nat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. " CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 This is a true statement, but it is insufficient to fully describe the situation. SE 142"" PL is rot straight at tills location and has terrible sight distance. When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 156 h Ave SE, any vehicle waiting to turn either right or left from SE 142 PL onto 156"' AVE SE will not be able to see. This will be particularly dangerous when vehicles is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project. The driver will be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of the stop sign and the southbound car, and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street. In a scenario with a southbound vehicie turning left into the project, the driver will be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation. If the tractor trailer truck that lives at parcel# 5336700015 is parked where is usually is — the driver will see that truck and very little else. Please see the accompanying SightLinelllustration.pdf. TraffEx TIA page 4: "A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years." There is no citation to support these assumptions, we therefore ask that the following questions be answered and considered in evaluating the reliability of these unsupported assertions. • Where did this data come from and by what standard is it justified? • How have the pipeline projects being built and occupied now been accounted in the analysis?? • How have past and proposed cuts in transit service accounted in the analysis? • How have the effects of the improving economy, and the resulting increase in people commuting to work accounted in the analysis? • Did TraffEx regularly measure the traffic rates over "the last several years" in order to be have this data available for this TIA? ROAD STANDARDS: Report to Hearing Examiner page 10 under Streets section: "As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. " TraffEx TIA page 4 and on to 5: "The south site access is located approximately 250ft north of the 156" Ave. SE/SE 142"" Pl, intersection and therefore meets the standard." The southbound stop sign and crosswalk for this intersection is located about at the center point of parcel# 5336700015 which is approximately 70 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Figure 2 of the TIA shows that the stormwater tract is proposed to be 95.24 feet wide and Lot 19 is proposed to be 94.59 feet. This yields a measure of 189.86 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site as the proposed location for the south access to 156"' Ave SE. 189.86-70 yields a measure of 119 86 feet which fails to meet the intersection distance standard of 125 feet. Please see the accompanying 156thAveSEIntersection Location. pdf. Therefore, we request that the street access as proposed be rejected. The original Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit _B_ -_ Traffic _ Impact —Analysis.pdf) states (bottom of page 2) that 156th Ave. SE is a "minor arterial". Based on the traffic volumes Renton reported as a result of the citizen recommendation to investigate the need for signalization earlier this year (and which Roger Paulsen graphed) the road segment including this intersection should be classified as at least a minor arterial (12K Average Daily Trips). The table in the code indicates a need for 4 lanes and 91' of pavement to properly accommodate such such levels of use. If the project is permitted as proposed, there is no indication that sufficient right of way will be required to accommodate the eventually required upgrades - particularly considering this is officially designated as a bypass corridor in need of arterial improvements in the attached WADOT 1445 Corridor Plan (I405MasterPlan_052808.pdf). Report to Hearing Examiner Page 9 under Streets: "The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. " Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Public Services: No comment recorded from Fire Department re: cul-de-sac CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 There is no evidence in the Exhibits made available to the public that the cul-de-sac meets the specified standards. Therefore, we request that the street plan as proposed be rejected. Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Schools: "Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 156th Avenue SE & SE e Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 15e Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 15e Avenue SE north of the project along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide safe walking conditions (exhibit 25)... Continuing on Page 11: The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 15e Avenue SE and board the bus. New sidewalk from this project will only extend less than halfway to SE 5`h PL. The crosswalk sign is obscured by vegetation. Kids will walk along this arterial, in the dark and rain, in the shoulder ROW, and cross before the bus arrives in order to be there waiting when the bus arrives. Without a lighting plan the public has no way to evaluate what lighting improvements will be made. There should be some improvements to the crosswalk, such as the flashing lights in the pavement on the nearby Duvall Ave SE which is also and arterial on the same 1405 Corridor bypass route, to ensure students' safety under normal conditions during most of the school year. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: Carlos e-mail,pdf From: Nancy Thompson <Nthompson@rentonwa.gov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast To. "cmbayne@gmad.com" <cmbayne@gmad.com> Cc: Chris Barnes <CBarnes@rentonwa.gov>, Ron Mar <RmarcDrerilonwa. ov> Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic volumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. From the MEMORANDUM of 4118/2014 from Neil Watts (PRR-14-085-Memo.doc): "Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat_ " 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program page 5-25 (TIP sheet.pdf): "[hjistorically, on average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed every 2 years. It is our understanding that funds from the developer for the project's impact must be used for that purpose within 6 years or returned to the developer. Since the available evidence indicates the signalization cannot be expected within that time limitation, we must expect the mitigation funds to be forfeit and an even longer wait than the 18 years as a result of this loss of funds. This project should not be approved until a plan for the required intersection improvements are programmed — planned and funded. From 4/15/14 email from Steve Lee responding to Rogers Records Request (Public Records Request _1_Reply. pdf): The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access_ Widening 1- 405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SEto access Cemetery Road_ " CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 These statements contradict everything we have ever heard since 2001 We have been assured by WA DOT, King County, and the City of Renton that there is no option to provide additional north -south access to the East Plateau from the Cedar River Valley. Additionally, while widening of 1405 might add capacity, we are not aware of any even preliminary plans for such activity. If such work has been done, please provide copies. If it does not exist, then this is irrelevant speculation and of no use in evaluation the impacts of this project or the appropriate mitigations/improvements for this corridor. What is not speculation is all the other development activity in the area. • The Enclave project at the 3 Way stop, Hearing on Tuesday, will add 31 houses. • Alpine Estates (Alpine Nursery) is in pre -app for 29 lots (which requires two access/exit roads. It lies between 160th Ave SE and 161st Ave SE). • The 4.5 acres on the west side of 156th at SE 6th (SE 139th Place) is in annexation {the plan is for 14 lots with a through street between 154th Ave SE to 1561x' Ave SE.) They tried to include the 5 acres on the west side of 154th in their annexation also, but could not get the required 60% signatures. • The Burnstead Co. is putting 14 homes, Maplewood Park East, on the parcel at 6101 NE 2ND ST (SE 132nd and 152nd Ave S). The paroel at Nile (148th Ave SE) and NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd) is slated for 7 lots. There is also an 8 lot parcel in pre -app on the east side of 160th Ave SE at SE 140`x` St. There is 2 lot short plat at 156th Ave SE and SE136th St. • There are 46 homes planned for the Copperwood project which is slightly southwest of Maplewood Heights Elementary. The listed address for the project is 5001 SE 2nd PI. The project sign is on SE 2nd PI just west of where it intersects 144th Ave SE • And there are 4 plats being actively developed at 210 Duvall Ave SE 31 +29+14+ 14+7+8+2+46+4=155 The Highway manual standard is to calculate 9.9 vehicle trips per day per house so: 155 x 9.9 = 1534.5 new trips per day. Most will travel some portion of the 156th Ave SE corridor, but each project will be considered independently. The cumulative impact will continue to accrue, and the infrastructure deficit will remain for decades. Virtually all of this traffic will traverse the corridor from the intersection of 154th Ave SE & SE142 PI (the first intersection at the top of the hill w Tom Carpenter has more detailed information, and there is an email from a neighbor at the end of this document) through the 156'h Ave SE and SE 142 1 PI all the way through the intersection of 156'h Ave SE and SE 128`" St. The proposed new connections to SE 156'" Ave SE from this project are at the heart of this vital regional corridor. The travelshed is already over -burdened. We are in the midst of a new development surge. This quality of life in this community and safety of thousands of daily commuters in this corridor new, and it is the City of Renton's responsibility to provide infrastructure to meet the needs of the development it permits. STORMWATER/DRAINAGE: Report to Hearing Examiner page 11 under Public Services at the bottom of the page: "The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of the maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements of this de veiop men t. " Despite the garbled sentence structure, it seems clear the intent is for the HOA to be responsible for maintenance of the pond and stormwater system. It was our understanding that the code had changed and Renton was taking ownership of all new subdivision stormwater facilities now. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 ERC Report page 5: "According to the TIR (Exhibit 9)the upstream areas are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible. " Even though this community is on a plateau and not in any flood plane, there are historical drainage complaints everywhere (Drainage Complaints). Even this project site itself has experienced flooding due to a plugged culvert as recently as 1997. The site is directly north of the major groundwater induced landslide in 20D6 that blew out the side of the cliff above the Cedar River and filled several houses with mud and debris, The vast majority of development on this plateau occurred in the 1960s, well before the first King County Drainage Manual (the basis of Renton's stormwater regulations) were adopted in 1964- It will take many more decades to slowly address the systemic lack conveyance and water quality. The system that exists is poorly maintained and chronically undersized. Our homes exist is a state of fragile equilibrium. Every new development pushes the system CARE has the longest and most consistent participation in land use applications and project implementation in this area. In every single project we have participated in (see list above) we have won Level III drainage mitigations. Nonetheless, these measures have consistently proved insufficient. We have had to participate repeatedly when these mitigations have failed and neighbors downstream of those projects have suffered serious damages to their homes and properties (list drainage complaints and list properties affected by the different projects). Due to our highly compacted Alderwood soils, surface flows are intense to begin with. Since the major wave of development in the 1960s, existing homeowners have implemented site-specific mitigations to deal with this situation, but every time a new project is cleared, new measures have to be installed. Level III drainage mitigations should be required here, too. LANDSCAPINGITREE RETENTION: Report to Hearing Examiner page 6: Proposal to plant Heavenly Bamboo, which is an invasive species with berries poisonous to native birds and should not be used in a plat landscaping plan. o/:; i d e x. _ (Heavenly bamboo .htm) RCP Policy CD -17 (page 7 of Report to Hearing Examiner) "Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. " But on page 8 of the Report to Hearing Examiner, staff say that installation of the required 15 foot landscaping buffer around the storm drainage pond could not be done because it would cause the loss of at least one lot, even though the project is proposed at 4.45 lots per acre when it is zoned at R-4. In the next paragraph, staff removes the specific requirement of trees in the on-site landscape strips along all frontages. Not only is there no justification for this, and it violates RCP Policy CD -15 In repeated surveys of our community, the trees are the consistently reported as the defining characteristic of our community. We are already losing over 300 significant trees in this project. We ask that this exemption be disapproved for this project. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: To the condition requiring a tree protection easement under section J.5, please add a requirement for prominent and permanent signage announcing the protection of the trees in order to prevent accidental homeowner or HOA removal. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 MISSING DATA: This Hearing is the last opportunity for the public to participate and to ensure that adequate administratively and legally enforceable mitigations are required of and implemented with this project. Staff has allowed several documents essential for the surrounding impacted community to evaluate the effects of the proposed project to be prepared and submitted after this Hearing is concluded. This makes it impossible for meaningful community input on the following: 1. Report to Hearing Examiner page 8: City of Renton Arborists report promised 2. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Landscaping Plan 3. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Retention Plan 4. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Protection Easement 5. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Street lighting plan 6. Report to Hearing Examiner page 13: HOA maintenance agreement If items 1-4 are not required until application for construction permits, the trees will have already have been removed during the development/site preparation phase of the project and the issues becomes moot. The trees in our community have been consistently and enthusiastically identified in every single one of the land use actions CARE has participated in since 2001. Without item 5, the public cannot evaluate the adequacy of the protections for school children walking to the bus stop on 156th Ave SE or the potential impact to the privacy and enjoyment of their properties. Community members on SE 4" Place had a months' long challenge of emails and meetings with the City and Puget Sound Energy when new lighting meeting the new standards was installed just 2 streets away. The new lighting was a huge disruption, and we need to ensure the new development does not make sleep at night impossible. A statement from an affected neighbor is included at the end of this document. Renton has a responsibility under RCP Policy CD -15 to ensure that this project is "reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architechtural stypes, and/or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation," etc. We understand that new development will be more dense and the housing styles will be different. Further, we appreciate to beginnings of plans for the tree easements. However, we have repeatedly heard lovely aspirational allusions to responsive development during past preliminary plat Hearings, only to see radically different realities built in our neighborhoods. Cavalla was supposed to save and replant giant specimen rhodies and japanese maples. That didn't happen There was supposed to be no road in the 162nd Ave SE ROW, but the bulldozers plowed right through — stream and all. The only things we have a hope of actually seeing must be conditions by reference in the Hearing Examiner's report for this project. Given the intense concern about and established history of drainage issues resulting from development projects in the area, the community needs the opportunity to review the "maintenance and responsibility" for the "stormwater facilities" that the HOA will voluntarily take on to ensure adequate measures are in place to prevent off-site damage. We cannot do that without item 6. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:47:46 -0700 Subject: Re: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda From: m.rollinger@comcast.net To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com You can also add that nobody goes the speed limit up/down our hill. Ever. Well, unless it's crawling that is. - One neighbor requested "a light" outside of their home (date unknown and i believe the request was directly to PSE) - Nobody, including the requester, was notified before PSE installed 4 extra large cobra head led street lights (large roadway type) on our tiny cul-de-sac (7 houses deep) on - Residents had light pollution/trespass everywhere; in backyards, bedrooms, etc. - City was notified with a list of the issues they caused on 7/22113 - Didn't hear back from the city on the initial email sent until 7126113 (after emailing them again) - Petition emailed (with pits) on 7130113 with one signature missing due to him being gone on vacation - Completed petition hand delivered 815113 along with a chat with Mr. Barnes at City Hall - The issues weren't resolved until . , , , v For two months, the residents on SE 4th Place had to deal with overly bright LEI] lights that were completely inappropriate to the neighborhood. This disrupted people's sleep, made yard use unpleasant and in some cases was a safety hazard (blinded while backing out of garages). Neighborhoods should have a choice/say in the types of lighting used and a study of existing neighborhood houses should be considered- Lighting should also be appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood with minimal light pollution to disrupt the natural world. Marsha Rollinger From: johnson.k.b@hotmail.com To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:08:14 -0700 Gwendolyn: I live at 14506 152 PL SE and regularly come up from the Maple Valley Highway to access my home. That involves a left turn at 154th Ave SE and SE 142 PL. It is a challenging enough intersection with limited sight visibility, no left turn lane, and long waits during commute hours. Under existing conditions, the traffic can back up already from the 3 way stop. Frustrated drivers finally decide to go for the left after long waits for breaks in traffic. Unfortunately, I've seen too many oncoming cars slam on their brakes because the left turner didn't really have a big enough break to pass through easily. The Enclave development will increase congestion at our left turn and make more drivers make a left turn into a too - small traffic opening. As the development increases in the East Highlands around Maplewood Heights Elementary, we are seeing an increasing number of people who are making that left turn to access their homes. The increased traffic from the Enclave and its odd street layout will complicate the 3 way stop traffic, increase the number of cars, and back that traffic problem back to our already dicey left turn. I realize that the Enclave development will go through even though I question the wisdom of having its two streets funnel out so close to the 3 -way stop. Seems like it is almost making it into a 5 -way intersection. But I doubt the County has the appetite to force the builder to change his site plan. For us left turners, a left turn lane would provide some welcome mitigation and straightening out the curve - even just a little - would give more visibility and help safety tremendously. Not sure you can do anything with this but thanks for trying. Kathy Johnson CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 From: johnnanney@hotmail.com To: highlands neighbors@hotmail,com Subject: RE: CARE Update: 1000+ new trips, Wild Babies, and Meeting Monday Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:39:25 -0700 Gwendolyn, The 111 bus line which goes out to Lake Kathleen is scheduled to be truncated in September to not go east of 156th but rather to leave Maplewood and go directly up 156th St. This would only happen during the morning and afternoon commute hours as there is no service other times. That will be another major disruptive factor to the 156th st corridor_ In addition to the bus traffic along 156th, there will be the bus commuters who will drive and try to park along the bus route to connect to the new stops. This will impact the residents along this path plus adding the congestion. An example of this type of "staging" for the bus line is in Kennydale where the entire area is parked up along the 111 route as it heads to the Park and Ride. It adds a lot of congestion at the worst time of the day for it. Not to mention making a number of us no longer have a commuter bus to downtown on weekdays. It also will affect the kids at Liberty who need the bus to get to the Running Start program at Bellevue College whereby they take college classes for both high school and college credits during their high school years. One of my points was that with the bus stopping all along 156th..... traffic would be disrupted greatly at the worst time of day at a point where many trips are being added. The parking mess is true all along the Kennydale section of the 111 with people driving to park at bus stops instead of the P&R. John Nanney 16921 SE 144th St Renton, WA 98059 425-830-6525 Alyssa Nanney 16169 SE 146th PI Renton, WA 98059 425-226-4726 CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 r' 3s 3nr (Jtai { 3ne►t1aG 3S 3W r • ..y 3s3Ar+uPct � d 3s ld mita r 35 3AV FFA -� L qq ai"I a 353AY Kimt'PASl�1C1i A rt 77 � 3S 35Y mkrrF r iu f _ z li W C9 1it13T A'i: y= e� L r Y Y �' ¢ tq � y, a ' � .,. L3 LI f� tt VL .A �Ghb :iiia r r 7 7 y y n f uIN ut E -ts 7dW Ay. r, tjl. F IN;Ar IWAni1 I y LI r 11'lI�::1 tisk �k r,' fa �+ , i +`,+$•' ,4 S r J; u .c m o � oVa 3 - ID an IF-V 2Q m LD W � N a $rQ °ems 7t 00 P 3f0m� mac._ mE}mp °o 0 w a9�� pGj a E—x � c3 �L� a U aaa mix a maI'D W.-= J2 t� �mmC7 >:E pe 3 M' O m�E�, rn m._ V 02-00, ae �m m o m`PMAS Y 0 b � Qcm� 3 n Q.5 ro S EEE VS $gmr a m u,c a NQ U F- C E y 0 E O Y mP1 �o n 20 �� V N -bO g E mA !Gm m� 1t Ewaa d O �3�� a A PA 41{YYa ArT Y� h v O Z3 m U ir.�!LAY.r Ati 4. 7 X E L 7'1JFk ^i� i .41 y+ - 121ST AV SE U u .c m o � oVa 3 - ID an IF-V 2Q m LD W � N a $rQ °ems 7t 00 P 3f0m� mac._ mE}mp °o 0 w a9�� pGj a E—x � c3 �L� a U aaa mix a maI'D W.-= J2 t� �mmC7 >:E pe 3 M' O m�E�, rn m._ V 02-00, ae �m m o m`PMAS Y 0 b � Qcm� 3 n Q.5 ro S EEE VS $gmr a m u,c a NQ U F- C E y 0 E O Y mP1 �o n 20 �� V N -bO g E mA !Gm m� 1t Ewaa d O �3�� a 114 h 000 V, m w w J 'v � Y .5 A T- U N 3 D c n c C 17. • � 0 0 U C C Cb �u 15,5 im y M n flj - t= So L O Q } F � m E CO ti o�pc a nj Q1 CL Q1 w o'a4't n aEcc o �ax'- mc O Y o E V -Q Q OJ ' 'V ` � •� C � fD c? �3m a Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects The I-405 Corridor Program _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — K'M:: C�!+Yrti !ANI' '.i1 . .,..., .. i ... ,ell What is the 1-405 Program? The Interstate 405 Corridor Program is a broad term for a program of more than 150 individual, coordinated projects to relieve congestion and improve mobility for motorists, transit and freight users along the freeway's 30 -mile length. The full name is "Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects.' The master plan for fixing 1-405 traffic includes all transportation modes, adding up to two new lanes each direction to 1-405, a corridor -wide bus rapid transit (BRT) line and increased local transit service. It will fix bottlenecks such as the 5R 16711-405 interchange, improve key arterials, expand transit centers, and add about 1,700 new vanpools and over 5,000 park and ride spaces. The 1-405 Master Plan will ultimately. • Add up to 2Isnes in each direction in h405 • Develop a Bus Rapid Transit tine with stations along 1- 403 and expanded transit centers • Improve key arterials • Accommodate an additional 1I0,000 trips per day in the corridor • Reduce time stuck in traffrc by over 13 million hours per year — an average of over 40 hours per year per regular user • Produce travel time savings valued at $569 million each year • Save $42 million each year in decreased traffic accidents • Create 1700 new vanpoots — a I00% increase • Increase local transit service by up to 50% within the S14 area • Build 5,000 new park -and -fide spaces • Create eight new pedestrianlbicycle crossings over 1-445 • Enhance freight mobility through better interchanges, travel time reduction, and updated and technologies • Provide much-needed economic benefits for Washington State — for each $1 million spent on new construction, an additional 30jobs are created 1991111, Washingtan State v� e Departmnt of Transportation 2 l SAMMAM!: 11 s!ENr 4 •' ISSAWA ® .I k �NI N�A"Ili � t d i __ <?, � Add:d Freeway LanesBWrnectioos l { 1 Aw, aew larzs aSdeCerr d!e¢mr, or, 99r j ... Ff„5 ano rier[AanBh'Ut'�'aOetl. Trey t I ui a [✓'mkc,Vln/5 ruM 3' SY JC1190 .11 -ATransit MR,I smi. —Oh—Os 441 AWVIY^ j�3 srs!cm deAlgied Kh " � TraoslSm!c- $� Usis. sE JiCe lf'LreaSe nNovi— "'J6,2V 575 ac esEimp ore •�5 Arterial lmpro ments I,,,,.y 2ecai arlellals bnAmrrd gf` ,lima V HOV Lane Access Poim , BRfStalicns 516, nne+18Nlsla " �. LI�¢11 Gansit Centers dntireO'S'l Winders Qj Parq- and -Aida Lots 5.1ivpn carp ano 6,te paces The 1-405 Master Plan will ultimately. • Add up to 2Isnes in each direction in h405 • Develop a Bus Rapid Transit tine with stations along 1- 403 and expanded transit centers • Improve key arterials • Accommodate an additional 1I0,000 trips per day in the corridor • Reduce time stuck in traffrc by over 13 million hours per year — an average of over 40 hours per year per regular user • Produce travel time savings valued at $569 million each year • Save $42 million each year in decreased traffic accidents • Create 1700 new vanpoots — a I00% increase • Increase local transit service by up to 50% within the S14 area • Build 5,000 new park -and -fide spaces • Create eight new pedestrianlbicycle crossings over 1-445 • Enhance freight mobility through better interchanges, travel time reduction, and updated and technologies • Provide much-needed economic benefits for Washington State — for each $1 million spent on new construction, an additional 30jobs are created 1991111, Washingtan State v� e Departmnt of Transportation EXHIBIT B THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9875 SE 36" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by al, NCRTHWEST T,qA FFIc E-xpERTs 11410 NE 124th St., ##590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4918 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 rralyzzy December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36t` St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: NoRrHwzaT 7)r.4i7cIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St, #590 tM WA.i Phom: 425.522. 118 �x 42 .522.4311 We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 156`" Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 7 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156'h Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156t' Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 ffay The Enclave at Bridle Ridge T'ra TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips i P Tris P Tota! Trips per unit Entering Exiting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 4.75 6 17 23 25°/0 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 31 620 371 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site -generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156' Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142nd Pl. Residential Access Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ride LnI.M&Y, 156'h Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 1561' Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" PI. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156' Ave. SEISE 142nd PI. is an all- way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156h Ave SE or SE 142nd Pi. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156th Ave. SE and the 156'h Ave SEISE 142nd St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156th Ave SEISE 142ndPl. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analvsis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Hic hwa Ca ac' Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Rid a Traff, TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F Signalized 10. >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. 0 X20.0 <35.0 X55.0 X80.0 0 Stop Sign Control —` 10 >10 and <15 >15 and X25 >25 and <35 >35 and X50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections, The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 1561' Ave. SEISE 142rd Pl. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft. from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ride rl`vm, approximately 250 ft north of the 1561x' Ave. SEISE 142"� PI. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 8.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156'x' Ave. SE. Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton, No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425.522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince nwtraffex.com or la nwtraffex.ccm. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page,5 �9�V L,— ti ICA 1011 Ja15 STgR��� 'aiua. Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2075 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 156'' Ave SE/ EB (D 26.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd PI. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (8 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SS (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 � 47?T WE f,sTfEx TRAF-ric EXPE'RT'S' . �t Fna F11.ISF .. rl 2nd. TI. ., ,SF3V� ..rr . ilk,_... .. S SEI 36th Ln SE.33711!St 'r ' cn ...:S>: 137th St rt C' SE a - R SE 3rd Fel SE 3rd Pi S€ Ph Std SE 51h ST SF -1391h PI �.. to SE 1 d Tsii ► Protect SE tQnd St SE 142nd St. ls2��4N S.fi34 -drl .. `. SE 143rd St ro. .. E 144th St �-, S m SE 1`441h Pf Ln rrt r� ! cS t3k / AEI �5i SE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map 1 1 N �1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure Site Plan 1 2 rrafyw",f- ®% 1VZ7R7'HWEST TR.4 FF/C EXPE74T.�J' 1.56rHAVE SE I f I a i t i a F I .r Now t r H I I ; N �1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure Site Plan 1 2 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 20 Exit 11 Total 31 Or I r 2 c rn N Access/ 156th ave S Access! 156th Ava 156thAvel SE 142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton NZirf"r�; CRTHW--.ST TRAFFIC E-X)=eRTS SE 142nd St PI r,. M` Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic — 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution 1 3 ao- ct: lz' S£ 1391h PI t;n zz `N Project site Cy .. (k a. ... SE 143rd St .. Com]N rn PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 20 Exit 11 Total 31 Or I r 2 c rn N Access/ 156th ave S Access! 156th Ava 156thAvel SE 142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton NZirf"r�; CRTHW--.ST TRAFFIC E-X)=eRTS SE 142nd St PI r,. M` Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic — 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution 1 3 N AcmSs/ 15,th ay.- S Access/ 156th Ave LO LO 00 �D CD 309, o N n] cif [D 156thAvei SE 142 PI N Amess/ 156th ave S Access/ 156th AvP 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI { 4 (D r r r2 'Ir C- N Access/ 1th ave 5 Aa;ess/ 156th Ave N 4, { 0 � r Q N 1561h Ave! SF 147 RI N Acxessl 15ith ave S Access/ 156th Ave rl- 6l r tC f� 332 �' F 106, t CO M 15Alh Avol CFid 3 Di The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 4 CO ER7r4FY Sl� 13911 Pt � c 1 Pr9ject rn siteSE 1,41,5t PI 5E 142rjd st SE 142nd 5t . a_SEi4dP t I y� SFI<IrdSi .- Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project N AcmSs/ 15,th ay.- S Access/ 156th Ave LO LO 00 �D CD 309, o N n] cif [D 156thAvei SE 142 PI N Amess/ 156th ave S Access/ 156th AvP 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI { 4 (D r r r2 'Ir C- N Access/ 1th ave 5 Aa;ess/ 156th Ave N 4, { 0 � r Q N 1561h Ave! SF 147 RI N Acxessl 15ith ave S Access/ 156th Ave rl- 6l r tC f� 332 �' F 106, t CO M 15Alh Avol CFid 3 Di The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 4 TECHNICAL APPENDIX I'n�,n;Ir�r L—LZ Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, hic. Phane: ;257j 928-6D09 FAX: !2531 92p.Tif 1 E-t.10i1 T�,QT£2+nrsan; 54'Hk.'IDHE VIteraecRlon_ lSS;h:I.. St: & 5}' la2r„i €'! Cela of Gaunt TucS Lacallen: licn:itl,. SA'ashin em checMd By: h•ss Time From North an (Sa) Frain South on {NB} From East an RWa) From West on (EB) 97tervei imm�al i 16th nee SE I56(h A, Se 0 SE 14221d I'I Teta[ En6nax T I_ 5 €t 7 I. I S R T 1. J A S i. R 4:15 P 2 4 M 12t. 0 32 I E D 1 0 0 0 0 ?0 0 2s 2ti3 4:.OP G 0 I? k72 1 i4 1? U ;i n U U 0 ,U 0 308 4-45P 20 is 1'/ SS 0 0 o (1 0 94 0 ?U 11:5 9:401' U U tEi }'i9 ?? 19 �) 0 13 tl n 0 70 (1 2p i 2 3:151' 1 b 1) I.I& 1 ?X 17 0 0 fl U 13 0 70 0 24 '06 5730P 1 0 20 1•IF f} i4 In p D 0 i1 0 0 77 0 23 "97 5:45P 0 0 24 151 0 IX 19 0 0 It 0 0 0 93 FI 29 };q D 24 144 2 f IX 13 0 P U 0 0 1 74 EI 17 2`31 0 0 n 0 0 0 t3 0 0 U 6:101' U Il V U ll 0 0 IY 0 EY U d 0 0 0 0 V 45:45 F 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 U U G 0 0 0 7:Jt] P If Trawl 1 Surer I' 0 157 12:4 Ei 171) 117 t! U 0 p p V 6!X li 202 2497 11ea1: 31aur.. 4:1.5 I'M la 5:15 I'M TrOai q 0 68 655 .1 9W 63 0 11 tl 0 0 0 309 If IEI`.I 1237 Aprmsch 723 €55 0 409 12V ',;II V 12% a.e',: v., na , CX I'l le 0.93 ate' i56tif :�s'L' SI> I0n5 I SF. I.i?nd 1'I 8 U ^'Ped I'tely 0 i 156 30'7 410 4: 15 PINI ¢1 5'i51'M I {ki cans a_,_., N S }_ 5Y ..W..._..--_.. I'cil <3 ' 'r_ of 1360 1.9 P11F Peak I lour vuluax ;NTO1 0 NrO7 0 Ell iN7 O3 U i6F { I,:t Ch,cl, 51'3 ;Nr 7 ._ ...._. 0 its: 1257 5ti urt6,5 U T;3 Oal: 12V Sib NTC& \171 EDS 15th Avc Sc 7 Int, Blcyclm From; N g g W 'NT 32 0 .NT01 � n 5-8 INT 34 ..- V _ _ NT 62 f} 15– w 11 ... U INT03 - f) IS - INT', ',..._ 0 --- --- - INT 04 ..0 15* INT 12 IY INT05 - --- 0 X -i0 I} I I) it ±) INTO& NOMKi'.S. ........... 0 3-i0 spcd.,I Noccs INT 07 Nulling ylICSiC bender! Sit - tl Inxxyl fl,♦'SC WT C'A uCrc 9-X vehiefcs actually ,IoppCd. INT 15. s,g�rir,os ruuing :!acne as rsr zs- 1 scc. .. .... INT 10 f0 ir7r It �N7 12 0 0 77_0 0 0 11 4 TRA13184M Ofp Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th AVE: SE 12!26!2013 Baseline Synohro 7 - Report Page 1 -.4 -v "N t 41 Lane Configurations Y *T T Sign Control Stop Stop stop Volume (vph) 309 100 92 63 68 655 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.83 6.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 332 108 99 fib 73 704 Volume Total (vph) 440 167 777 MOMMM Volume Left (vph) 332 99 0 Volume Right (vph) 108 0 704 Hadj (s) 0,03 0-12 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.6 5-2 Degree Utiiiiaiion, x 0.75 6.30 1.12 Capacity (vehM) 572 526 679 Control. Delay (sl 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach LOS D 8 F Delay 62.9 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7`4 ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synohro 7 - Report Page 1 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12iM2013 Lane Configurations Y T T Sign Control Stop stop Stop Volume (vph) 328 106 98 67 72 695 Peak. Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 353 114 105 72 77 747 Volume Total (vph) 467 177 825 Volume Left (vph) 353 105 0 Volume Right (vph) 114 0 747 Hadj-(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.7 5.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.80 0.33 1-22 Capacity (veh;h) 571 518 665 Control Delay (s) 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach Delay (sl 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach LOS D 5 F Deiay a5.8 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 115 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 166th Ave SE 122612013 � � 4\ Lane Configurations Y 4 T Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 Volume Total (vph) 471 180 828 Volume: Left (vph) 357 105 0 Volume Right (vph) 114 0 749 Hadj (s) 0.03 4.12 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.7 5.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.81 0.33 1.23 Capacity (veh/h) 571 516 662 Control Delay (s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach Delay (s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach LOS D B F Delay 88.1 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 1212612013 Baseline 5ynchro 7 - Report Page 2 Lane Configurations Y T Volume (vehlh) 2 4 177 3 7 774 Sign Control Ston Free Free Grade 0' '. 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 4,93 0.93 Hourly flaw rate (vph) 2 4 190 3 8 832 Pedestrians Lane Width (ii) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Bight turn flare (veh) Median type !Jane gone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1039 192 194 vC1, stage 1 coni'vol vC2, stage 2 conf voi vGu, unblocked vol 1039 192 194 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p4 queue free % 99 99 99 CM capacity (veh/h) .256 855 1392 Volume Total 6 194 844 Volume Left 2 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to capacity 0.01 4.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12,6 0.4 0.1 Approach LOS g Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56,3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline 5ynchro 7 - Report Page 2 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 1 212 612 01 3 Lane Configurations ' f+ 4 Volume (aeh)h) 1 4 170 3 7 769 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0°/a Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0,93 0,93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 4 189 3 8 827 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1033 191 192 41, stage 1 conf vol vG2, stage 2 conf vol VCU, unblocked vol 1033 191 192 tC, single (s) 6.4 6,2. 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2,2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 258 856 1393 Volume Total 5 192 834 Veiume Left 1 0 8 Volume light 4 3 0 cSH 585 1700 1393 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0..11 0.01 (queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control: Delay. (s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacffy. Utilization 56.1% ICI! Level of Service. B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Heavenly bamboo: The red berries this non-native shrub are deadly for 10-1 birds Page 1 of 2 OREGONLIVE Heavenly bamboo: The red berries on this non-native shrub are deadly for local birds nandina.jpg The nandina bush, also known as heavenly bamboo, has bright red berries in the winter which are toxic when consumed by many birds in the Pacific Northwest. (Jerry W. Davis) Special to the Hillsboro Argus By Special to the Hillsboro Argus Follow on Twitter on December 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, updated January 28, 2014 at 3:19 PM This story has been updated with more information on ]an. 28, 2014. It can be fun to try new plants and shrubs in the yard. And every now and then, a particular plant becomes popular and is widely introduced into an area where it's not native. At times, the newcomer settles in well and simply adds to the landscape. Other times, however, a non-native plant can cause trouble. Often, because it has no natural `enemies' in the environment it can be invasive or difficult to control. Occasionally, the introduced plant does far more harm by actually poisoning native wildlife. Such is the case with a plant recently brought to the attention of the Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) by Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University Extension wildlife specialist, who reports that a common landscaping shrub may threaten local bird populations due to its toxic berry. The shrub is commonly known as nandina, sacred bamboo, or heavenly bamboo. Nandina is found in the landscaping of yards, parks, hospital grounds, and other locations across the lower 48 states. Planted for its bright red berries and contrasting dark green foliage, the shrub adds color and texture in residential and commercial landscapes. Some homeowners planted nandina with the intention of providing food for cedar waxwing, American robin, northern mockingbird, and other birds that depend on winter fruits to survive. Nandina berries stay on the bush for months, attracting hungry birds when food is in short supply. And that can be a major problem for the birds. When dozens of cedar waxwings were found dead in Georgia three years ago, investigators at the University of Georgia found the cause to be nandina berries. Bird autopsies revealed the berries lodged in the birds' crops, as well as hemorrhaging of several internal organs. The root of the birds' distress is the cyanide and other alkaloids contained in the berries that produce highly toxic hydrogen cyanide, which is extremely poisonous to all animals. Sudden death may be the only sign of cyanide poisoning and death usually comes within minutes to an hour of exposure. file:///E./CARE/LandUse/Enclave/HearingPrep/Final/Heavenly%20bamboo%20.htm 6/23/2014 Heavenly bamboo: The re-' '-erries on this non-native shrub are de _- , for local birds Page 2 of 2 Worse still, nandina is a non-domestic, noxious, and highly invasive weed that displaces the non-toxic, native plants on which local birds normally thrive. Nandina has been imported from China and Japan, and has invaded many natural areas. Homeowners and commercial landscapers are still planting this toxic species, unaware of the risk. "Over 220 bird species nationwide are in serious decline, including our most common birds. Birds are being killed on all fronts," said Jerry W. Davis, a certified wildlife biologist from Arkansas. "By working together, we can eliminate this toxic and noxious invasive plant. If you are not doing your part, the job is not getting done." Consider these simple steps to help reduce and eventually remove the presence of nandina in the local landscape: 1. Avoid using nandina in landscaping projects and opt for beneficial native plants with a similar appearance, such as Pacific ninebark, red elderberry or red huckleberry. 2. If you have nandina already and aren't ready to part with it, take care to prune the bushes to remove the berries as winter approaches. Planting a variety of non-toxic food sources such as serviceberry, snowbush, or red twig dogwood will help fill the gap. 3. Currently, there are no control efforts underway in Washington County for nandina, but sharing this article with the landscaping company that handles your home or business may help. And report sightings to the Invasive Species hotline at oregoninvasiveshotline.org. For more information on identifying invasive plants, or learning about native plants for your landscape, see the SWCD website or contact the SWCD at 503-648-3174 -- Jennifer Nelson, Tualatin SWCD C 2014 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved. file:///E:/CARE/LandUse/Enclave/HearingPrep/FinaUHeavenly%20batnboo%20.htm 6/23/2014 Page 1 of 2 From: Carlos Bayne <cmbayne@gmail.com> To: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.corn> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 4 53 pm Hey Roger! I have an email to share with you... Read below, please. Carlos "if you're trying to drive me crazy, I can walk from here..." --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nancy Thompson <Nthompson cDrentonwa.gov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast To: "cmbayne(dmmail,com" <cmbayne(cDgmail, com7 Cc: Chris Barnes <C8arnes rentonwa. ov>. Ron Mar <Rmar rentonwa. ov> May 14, 2014 Carlos Bayne cmbayne(aa)gmail.com RB: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast Dear Mr. Bayne: Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic voiumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. If you have any further questions about this or any other transportation operations matter, please call my assistant, Ronald Mar at 425-430-7297 or me at 425-430-7220. Sincerely, Page 2 of 2 Chris M. Barnes, Sr. Transportation Operations Manager cc: Ronald Mar, Civil Engineer TOM Record #9645 File COMMUNITY & D '�`i1tvof ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT "" �. `� dttam M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 32,743 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Proiect subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by prolect?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton Transportation Concurrency Test - The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 2014 The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070,D, which is listed for reference: D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 9. Test Required. A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development pem7it. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page X1-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS -tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. Sandi Weir From: Steve Lee Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:14 AM To: CityClerk Records Cc: Jan Illian; Jill Ding; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. Henning; Rohini Nair Subject. RE: New Public Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) Attachments: TranspoConcPolicy140415.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City process far c— iteurtency, standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. 1 befieve this is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeking: The information, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 4-6-070 A.I, or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord. 5575, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing ) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road," Thanks. -Steve Lee, PE, MS, CESCL City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 slee@rentonwa.gov From: CityClerk Records Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2414 8:05 AM To: Steve Lee Subject; RE: New Public Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) Thanks Steve From: Steve Lee Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:21 AM To: CityClerk Records Cc: Chip Vincent, Neil R. Watts; Judith Subia; Jennifer T. Henning; Debra Mikolaizik; Jill Ding Subject: New Public Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) Chris, Can you send me the original public records request? I was not cc'd on the original request (therefore no attachment) and wanted to respond appropriately to what was asked. I Amended 09/19111 and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows aut of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability. Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at -intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety_ Six Levels of service are defined wing letter designations — A, B, C, D, E and F, with a LDS A representing the best operation conditions and -©S F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow Is relatively uniform flow, but -there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity forsingle occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel_ However, because of traffic congestion in the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. in recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three premises: ■ Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; + it is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SC)V) travel; and + The decision -makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. Renton's LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HCV, non - motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; ■ Encourage a regionally -linked, locally -oriented, dynamic transportation system,- Establish ystem;Establish a LDS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level -of -Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and + Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit elements of the LOS standard are based ori travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non -motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi- modal goals of Renton and the region. Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections, and it provides a multi -modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi -modal travel. The Renton LCIS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following: XI -1.5 Amended 09/=S/1I • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and HOV travel times for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access ,irtra-Renton travel time to regional system, and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (index) using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV made splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system, including State --owned facilities; and • Selecting a plan that maintains the established L05 standard. other elements of the LOS implementation process include: • Monitoring the area to re -validate transportation plans; + Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordlnatian issues; and + Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). Level Of Service Standard A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30 - minute travel distance for SOV, HOV, and Transit as follows: 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30 -minutes from the City in all directions 2 times Transit LOS SOV HOV (includes access time) Index 1 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* * Rounded As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehick! (SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle (HOV - carpool, vanpool) could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive_ The initial value (3.4 miles in 2072) is Chen weighted by doubling it (to 6.8 miles) to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger -carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard, presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995, was based on raw data collected prior to 1994_ Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-2010) transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and examining the raw data, the 2002 LDS index was found to bp -42.. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: 1) reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints (e.g, passage of Initiative 69S); ii) limited implementation of XI -16 Amended 09/9{11 Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990-2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30 -minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. With the 2002 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30 -minutes from the City in all directions 2 tiM es ha'nsit LOS 50V HOV {Includes access time) Standard 15* miles 17* miles 10* miles 42 * Rounded This standard will require that the travel time of SOV (15) + HOV (17) + 2 T (10) or the sum of these three modes {42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years. - The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub -Elements that are designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development_ To test against the LOS standard, the 2022 planned Arterial, HOV, and Transit improvements identified later in this Trarsportation Element are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model_ The Traffic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV, HOV, and Transit* modes along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments of known distance) including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sura of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42. *Otherfactors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access time. Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton`s LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995. LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) (Le. 1-5, €-405, SR 167) have been adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)_ For urban areas the adopted LOS standard is equivalent to the traditional LCIS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways (non - HSS) in the Central Puget Sound region (i.e. SR -900, SR -169, SR -515) were adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 30,2003. For urban areas the adopted LDS standard ranges from LOS E/mitigated (pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E) to the traditional LOS D. (Further information on LOS standards for HS5 and non-VS5 facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton's modeling estimates of Renton's projected growth, and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities_ These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton's city-wide travel -time based LOS standard, which Is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Renton's Transportation Element has identified )0-17 Arnerided 09/19/11 SOV, HOV, and transit -oriented improvements to state -awned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway system_ Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi -modal corridor capacity on the Renton arteriai system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi -modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised. by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as-frriprovements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, economically feasible_ The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1 -7 - The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arteriai improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with. the Transit Plan and HOV improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of Service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2022. XI -19 Amended 09/29/21 Additional information on the determination of the mitigation trip rate fee is contained in the Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document. A development may qualify for reduction of the $75 per vehicle trip mitigation fee through certain credits for development incentives, construction of needed transportation improvements {arterial, HOV, transit), through public/private partnerships, and transportation demand management programs. Specific credits and the amount of reduction in the mitigation trip rate fee that could result from such credits will be determined on a case by case basis during the development permitting process. The Mitigation Payment System provides flexibility to modify the basic trip rate fee as needed to ren to the effect that credits may have on developer mitigation as a funding source. Concurrency Management System The Growth Management Act (GMA) describes concurrency as the situation where adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. This description includes the concept of available public facilities. The GMA defines "available public facilities" as facilities or services in place, or a financial commitment in place, to provide the facilities within a specified time. For transportation, the specified time is six years from time of development. City of Renton policies that support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land Use Element and in this Element. To address concurrency under the GMA and City of Renton policies, a concurrency management system has been developed for the City of Renton that is based on the following process- • The City of Renton will adapt a multi -modal Transportation Plan that will be consistent with regional plans and those of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the Transportation Plan will be defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • The City of Renton Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy, although it differs from the traditional LOS for arterials, its consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies and will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. • The Transportation Plan will include a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy One of the fund sources will be mitigation fees collected from developers as a condition of land use development within the City of Renton. The approval of the development will be conditioned upon the payment of this Transportation Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent facility impacts. • The City of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the improvement elements of the citywide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS and land use deve#cpment is met. • The City of Renton will establish concurrency by testing the citywide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level of Service standard_ The City of Renton will adjust the transportation improvement plan as necessary to meet the LDS standard. • Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS -tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. Transportation Concurrency Regulations (Ordinance No. 4708, adopted 3-2-1998) and Guidelines and Procedures for Monitoring Transportation Concurrency (adopted 4-6-1998) comprise the procedures, standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new land use development. X1-55 1 Amended 09/19/11 As specified in the Regulations and Guidelines and Procedures, a concurrency testis conducted by the City of Renton for each non-exempt development activity. The concurrency test determines consistency with the adopted citywide Level of Service standard and the Concurrency Management System, using rules and procedures established by the City of Renton. The concurrency test includes technical review of a development activity by the City of Renton to determine if the transportation system has adequate or unused or uncommitted capacity, or will have adequate capacity, to accommodate vehicle trips generated by the proposed development, without causing the level of service standard �o decline below adopted standards, at the time of development or within six years..A written finding of concurrency is provided by the City prior to the approval of the development permit- if the development activity faits the concurrency test, the City allows the development applicant to submit alternative data, provide a traffic mitigation plan, or reduce the size of the development project in order to achieve concurrency. Monitoring, and evaluation of the City of Renton`s Concurrency Management System and Transportation Concurrency Regulations will be reviewed as part of ongoing transportation work. Sunset Area Community Roadway Improvements The City of Renton studied potential infrastructure improvement needs to support growth anticipated in the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS in completed April 2011. The planned action neighborhood study area is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. Capital improvements identified in the EIS would be needed within the 2011-2030 time frame. The improvements identified in the EIS are estimated to cost $37.2 million. The project ousts and funding sources rnr these projects are identified in the Sunset Area Community Capital Facilities Pian found within the City's Capital Facilities Element. T n r a b raj} to -0 �C) 0 Z - n '•'! co �0E:0 -4 C Iz O Z O --c Z gO o f -a -L- m m Ja C UlmI = M `� n rn'a15in .0 o00 OR 0 0 141�IC,,�! �, Ut Ch T �T f •c � 3 U� _, O y m p� c7 I41 Q a ° c zCD w o O r to a !D UCCi Vi y Z3 j m MF � I C0 O" Q 7 m'Maa (D M a co aY'o o To ce n ON w " 0, x m o 3 S m C � In o i m o� �! CD �� < �. o am w � m � S!7 J 7 pt cD ra M .Q m m; n �� m 7 v m 3cn m N crO N I ! ro (5" O ._n-. I � f i f + N m�� n a C)3 5 °. n�� <� It V N O O �1 O 0 O Ipi C Olp Q m o i N a N I I IV N 4 0 N b d en OI C O C7 0 Q ? m Ln o, a o (D J T rj rn �' m a m Iv N r O S r m Ut Qn O 4 M, Co cn p I c'-CD O 6 O CD < `b mem C) C7 Ol0 p X � C c G cn CPT R O Q m p G1 GIa O .. p a c p ca a a Ul I N N ,.. p O o I 0 7� o' 0 C 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 CD (D U v a b raj} to -0 �C) 0 Z - n '•'! co �0E:0 -4 C Iz O Z O --c Z o 0,oC� mCD .0 o00 O F-IF Ut Ch CD •c � 3 U� _, O y m p� c7 I41 Q a b raj} to -0 �C) 0 Z - n '•'! co �0E:0 -4 C Iz O Z O --c Z o mCD .0 O CD •c � 3 U� _, O y m p� c7 _� Q a ° c D w o O r to a !D UCCi Mm y Z3 j �. MF � a C0 O" Q 7 m'Maa (D a co aY'o o To ce n w " 0, x m 3 S m C � In 3 ao m (DID �! � '(<D ' < �. am w � m � S!7 J 7 pt cD a `C m; n �� m 7 v m 3cn m N crO N (5" O ._n-. m�� n a C)3 5 °. n�� <� mO N O U] m I m o o � ' Z Z CL s CD F �. Q ? m Ln Q� (D J T N _ N rn �' m a m S r m CD < `b mem 23 ;R � a0 n> _0 CL CD (D y ) v DCD cQ ti a b raj} to -0 �C) 0 Z - n '•'! co �0E:0 -4 C Iz O Z O --c Z J . 45 a It 1 f , •�J,Y1�GIffi�y� sR i-; =r 1 x� r T • 1 _, 777 � k, r J . 45 a It 1 f , 4ip yi 44 n 3 � s r r r �x4'y� 1110 low TO AW Tit No t +33.y1£'.� ray yt� �j�yjy�.: �. .�-� ,yam,.. r :}u� �A.- :" � `�fy, r� p' j�!�� A♦ � t '°'.t�s''r '� 1�v'�- ,�. '� '�� vs �£' 1 a�p '•T7± Wap 9' �'�'�s¢'.' 1'�yi`2 +�th 4 'my�k .fs7' W t..{ to Y� � ,��, r Wi V-X ,.• � ��., � ..,�. ASA . , _.... - � ., r. , . - � Y`� � ',�.� *�� - r 4h. sf 1 �� �• F, -Y1 �d i '4 nn -- 2 Y �r/-!.f NO �9 T J In 'fn •. low WAR 1'14 ,'� r ary. H s ke ;t Kh Nit LT ilk Via 04 � � n Or 17 41 a. Arl TA iz f A[ x 1,/p, � iii $ �r � �' � ,�q�� j :& r•, � — aa�tl i' '£S' �• "7. { '. - •,, ��N ' r4 'v:�k, 4�'ir��Te L 9 • "`F - -' ,p7i K. : • �,� .': rte, .�Y �,��' t ��P � _ �` fY � •ji � � G=SM 4x, r k 7 h e v r o. os t Y Iry 1 o. os m -7 not -0 A JQW J7" -, 20 35 Aw OUR L r Vi SL VIP O 3S qTS I ci LL 1 -4,11 z 78" I -N id 21 [i 3N ql. rl A"n ri Z, A, . . ..... -mp -is w • F _ 1ILMUM CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF. SERVICE BY MAILING On the 17 day of June, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Hearing Examiner Agenda, Re(+p[tort and Exhib{L;it documents. This informationwas sent to: ¢PP(,Efs:- [_�i Phil Obrechts Hearing Examiner See Attached Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) SS W —� rQpolvilr,� The Enclave at Bridle Ridge OA LUA14-000241, ECF, PP 7J' y�igdr,�e_4 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante '�N` a 14 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the use mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Public in and for the State of Washington oses 2110M. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge e 6 er LUA14-000241, ECF, PP template - affidavit of service by mailing AN3Av-oq-oo8-L wog AMAe-rnnnnn M_i,. Huniu 6608 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise 5tachowiak 6614 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 ,Y,dn dod pjogaj al jalanaa ivawadjey:) f @09L5 ®AH3AV 11jege6 al zasmin ap suas ap uge a pey el g zalldaa . , jalad a same} sauenb:�� DAVID MICHALSKI Wade WillouRhhv 6575 SE 5TH PI 6512 SE 5th PI RENTON, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Roper Paulson 6617 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nigert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolvn High CARE PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Mazama, WA 98333 ,,,oBp3 dn-dod asodxa jaded paaj®o%S aleldwal �baAV asn I 009LS OAMBAV p of aull 5uole puaB 7 ; slagel (Dlaad Asea f DEPARTMENT OF COM_._JNITY y .� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DATE: June 24, 2014 Project Nome: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004 156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Applicant/Concoct: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, 98040 File Number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager. Jill Ding, Senior Planner Project Summary: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with one single family residences and a detached garage proposed to be removed. No critical areas are present on the project site. Project Location: 14038 156th Avenue SE Site Area: 328,129 SF (8.8 ac) Project Location Mop HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Corr—unity & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL IARYPLAT LUA14-000241, ECF PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 2 of 13 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Staff Report, dated June 24, 2014 Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Plat Map Exhibit 4: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing (2 sheets) Exhibit 5: Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 6: Landscape Plan (5 sheets) Exhibit 7: Topography Map Exhibit 8: Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 9: Utilities Plan, Generalized Exhibit 10: Road Profile and Cross Section Details (3 sheets) Exhibit 11: Preliminary Traffic Control Plan Exhibit 12: Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Northwest Traffic Experts, dated December 27, 2013 Exhibit 13: Technical Information Report, prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated February 19, 2014 Exhibit 14: Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated February 5, 2014 Exhibit 15: Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc., dated February 18, 2014 Exhibit 16: Wetland Report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated February 3, 2014 Exhibit 17: SEPA Determination Exhibit 18: ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Exhibit 19: Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 20: Comment letter dated March 21, 2014 from David Michalski Exhibit 21: Comment letter dated March 22, 2014 from Roger Paulsen Exhibit 22: Staff response to David Michalski dated April 9, 2014 Exhibit 23: Staff response to Roger Paulsen dated April 14, 2014 Exhibit 24: Drainage (Surface Water) Standards Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation, dated February 4, 2013 Exhibit 25: Safe route to schools exhibit Exhibit 26: Transportation Concurrency Test Exhibit 27: Comment letter from Eloise Stachowiak Exhibit 28: Staff response to Eloise Stachowiak dated May 22, 2014 Exhibit 29: Request for Reconsideration of the ERC Determination dated April 16, 2014 filed by Roger Paulsen Exhibit 30: ERC Response to Request for Reconsideration dated May 19, 2014 Exhibit 31: Affidavit of Mailing of ERC Response to Request for Reconsideration Exhibit 32: Letter to Roger Paulsen from CED dated May 22, 2014 Exhibit 33: Email from City Arborist dated April 30, 2014 HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report to the Nearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE JARY PLAT LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 3 of 13 C GENERAL INFORMATION: Sally Lou Nipert 1. Owner(s) of Record: 14004 156'h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: G. Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Road Bothell, WA 98012 Residential —4 du/ac (R-4) Residential Low Density (RLD) Contains one single family residence and a detached garage. a. North: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) b. East: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) c. South: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) d. West: Single Family Residential (King County R-4) 6. Site Area: 328,129 SF (8.8 ac) D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No_ Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5099 11/01/04 Pre -zoning — East Renton N/A 5254 01/17/07 Plateau Annexation N/A 5398 08/11/08 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities a. Water: Water service will be provided by Water District #90. b. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in 156'h Avenue SE. c. Surface/Storm Water: There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 1S6th Avenue SE to the north of the project site. 2. Streets: There are no street frontage improvements along 156th Avenue SE. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Cor --unity & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Exominer ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE JARY PLAT LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 rage 4 of 13 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations b. Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 3. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan — General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets —General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks—General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots —General Requirements and Minimum Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element H. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat in order to subdivide an 8.8 acre site into 31 single family lots, one stormwater tract (Tract A), and one open space tract (Tract B). The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 du/ac. 2. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on February 27, 2014 and determined it complete on March 10, 2014. The project complies with the 120 - day review period. 3. The proposed plat would be located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139`h Place and SE 143'd Street at 14038 156th Avenue SE. 4. The property is in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Residential -4 (R-4) zoning classification. Lands in the RLD designation are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger -lot housing stock, at urban densities of du/net acre, to its inventory. S. The project site is comprised of a total of three parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and 1423059057. A Lot Line Adjustment (City of Renton File No. LUA14-000250) was submitted concurrently with the preliminary plat application. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat. HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE WARY PLAT LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Hearing Date= June 24, 2014 Page 5 of 13 6. The proposed subdivision would result in 31 lots ranging in lot size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet, one 32,174 square foot stormwater tract (Tract A) and one 490 square foot open space tract (Tract B). 7. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. S. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 9. The current site contains 303 significant trees of which 57 are determined to be dead and/or dangerous by the applicants Arborist, 46 would be located in the proposed roadway and 35 are proposed to be retained. 10. The site is rectangular in shape. 11. The following table identifies the proposed approximate dimensions for Lots 1-31: As Proposed Lot Sire Width p__ epth Lot 1 8,190 SF 70 feet 117 feet Lot 2 8,190 SF 70 feet 117 feet Lot 3 8,986 SF 76 feet 117 feet Lot 4 12,566 SF 70 feet 123 feet Lot 5 8,346 SF 70 feet 101 feet Lot 6 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 7 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 8 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 9 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 10 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 11 8,051 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 12 10,479 SF 101 feet 105 feet Lot 13 11,1705F 94 feet 115 feet Lot 14 9,266 SF 82 feet 114 feet Lot 15 8,398 SF 73 feet 115 feet Lot 16 8,6_25 SF 75 feet 115 feet Lot 17 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 1S 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 19 9,251 SF 80 feet .115 feet Lot 20 9,264 SF 82 feet 115 feet Lot 21 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 22 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 23 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 24 8, 683 SF 75 feet 115 feet Lot 25 9,533 SF 82 feet 115 feet Lot 26 9,1685F 82 feet 115 feet Lot 27 8,683 SF 75 feet 115 feet Lot 28 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 29 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 30 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 31 9,539 SF 82 feet 115 feet Storm Drainage Tract A 32,174 SF - - HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Cor^munity & Economic Development Report to the Nearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE JARY PIAT LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Hearing Date: lune 24, 2014 Page 6 of 13 Open Space Tract Tract S 12. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avevnue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. 13. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. 14. A wetland report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (Exhibit 16) (dated February 3, 2014) was submitted with the project application. There are no critical areas on site. 15. The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6) submitted with the application includes the installation of street trees within a proposed 8 -foot planter along all street frontages. A 10 -foot wide onsite landscape strip is proposed along the frontage of all lots and a 10 -foot wide landscape strip is also proposed around the storm drainage tract A. Vegetation proposed includes: Red Maple, Flowering Pear, Katsura, Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, Vine Maple, Himalayan Birch, Maple, Ash, Rockrose, Euonymus, Orange Sedge, Dwarf Ft. Grass, Evergreen Huckleberry, Lavender, Heavenly Bamboo, Oregon Grape, Pacific wax myrtle, Evergreen Azalea, Blue Oat Grass, Maiden Grass, Emerald Green Arborvitae, Heather, Kinnikinnik, and lawn. 16. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) have been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. 17. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 14) infiltration on the site or individual lots is not feasible. 18. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on March 31, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M) for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 17). The DNS -M included one mitigation measure. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on April 4, 2014 and ended on April 18, 2014. 19. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measure with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1) Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 20. A Request for Reconsideration was filed of the ERC Determination on April 16, 2014 (Exhibit 29). 21. The Environmental Review Committee revised the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated (DNS - M) on May 19, 2014 to add an additional mitigation measure (Exhibit 30)_ A 14 -day appeal period commenced on May 23, 2014 and ended on June 6, 2014. An appeal of the DNS -M was filed on June 5, 2014. 22. Based on a review of the Request for Reconsideration, the ERC issued the following mitigation measures with the revised Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Cor -unity & Economic Development Report to the Nearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE IARY PLAT LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Tearing Date: lune 24, 2014 -- - - - Page 7 of 13 1) Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2) Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156Th Avenue 5E/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 23. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report. 24. Staff received two citizen comments during the 14 day public comment period (Exhibits 20 and 21) and a third after the comment period had ended (Exhibit 27). On April 9, 2014, April 14, 2014, and May 22, 2014 staff responded to the citizen comments (Exhibits 22, 23, and 28). 1. CONCLUSIONS: RY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA: MANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: F designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal nt with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies if all conditions of approval are complied with: Policy LU -147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for ✓ residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. Policy LU -157. Within the Residentia14 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 ✓ units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing_£lement. Policy CD -12. Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along streets in established neighborhoods, where sidewalks have not been previously constructed. sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic and, where practical,_ match existing sidewalks. Policy CD -15. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding •� to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. Policy CD -17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION: The subject site is classified Residential -4 du/ac (R-4) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. RMC 4-2-110A provides development standards for development within the R-4 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are complied with: Density: The maximum density permitted in the R-4 zone is 4.0 dwelling units per net acre. All fractions which result from net density calculations shall be truncated at two (2) numbers past the decimal (e -g., 4.5678 becomes 4.56). Calculations for minimum or maximum density which result in a fraction that is 0.50 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Corr -unity & Economic Development ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL GARY PLAT Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Report to the Hearing Examiner cua14-000241, ECF, PP Page 8 of 13 HEX Report 14-000241 number. Those density calculations resulting in a fraction that is less than 0.50 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number_ Staff Comment: After subtracting approximately 79,419 square feet of rood for proposed right-of-way dedications, the net square footage of the site is 303,707 square feet (6.97 net acres). The 31 lot proposal would arrive at a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (31 lots / 6.97 acres = 4.45 du/ac), which falls within the permitted density range for the R-4 zone. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-4 zoning designation is 8,000 square feet. A minimum lot width of 70 feet is required for interior lots and 80 feet for ✓ corner lots. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 80 feet. Staff Comment: As demonstrated in the table above under finding of fact 11, all lots meet the requirements for minimum lot size, width and depth. Setbacks: Setbacks in the R-4 zone are the following: front yard is 30 feet; a side yard along the street is 20 feet; interior Side yard is 5 feet; the rear yard is 25 feet. Staff Comment: An existing single family residence and detached garage are located on the project site and are proposed for removal_ The setback requirements for the new residences would be verified at the time of building permit review. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a demolition permit be obtained and all required inspections be completed far the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 SF in size in the R-4 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 SF, whichever is greater. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 55 percent. Staff Comment: The building standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. Landscaping: Ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4-070. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060_ Street trees and, at a minimum, groundcover are to be located in this area when present. Where there is insufficient right--of-way space or no public frontage, street trees are required in the front yard. A minimum of two (2) trees are to be located in the front yard prior to final inspection. In addition, per an Administrative Interpretation (effective date February 4, 2013) (Exhibit Partial 24) a minimum 15 -foot wide landscaping strip around the outside of the fenced stormwater Compliance detention tract (Tract A) is required unless otherwise determined through the subdivision review process. Staff Comment: As proposed the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6) does comply with the 10 foot wide on-site landscape requirement along street frontages. A 10 -foot wide landscape strip is proposed around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A), which is less than the 15 foot wide requirement. However, if the proposed subdivision were required to include the 15 foot wide landscape strip, this would result in a lass of at least one lot. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to install a 10 foot wide landscaped visual barrier around the outside perimeter of the stormwoter detention tract in lieu of the required 15 foot wide landscaping strip. The applicant has proposed to install Red Mople trees in the planting strip along the 156"' Avenue SE frontage, Flowering Pear trees in the planting strip along the east/west frontages HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Corr—unity & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL iARY PLAT Lua14-aa0241, ECF, PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 9 of 13 HEX Report 14-000241 of Roods A and B, and Katsura trees along the north/south internal access road located on the east side of the project site. As such, all lots would have trees along the frontage, therefore staff recommends approval of eliminating the requirement for trees in the on-site landscape strips along all frontages. However, the requirement for a mixture of shrubs and ground cover would still be required and is shown on the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6)_ Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 1Q foot landscaped visual barrier around the outside perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat_ Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two ✓ vehicles. Staff Comment: Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. 3. COMMUNITY ASSETS: The proposal is consistent with the following community asset requirements if all conditions of approval are complied with: _ Tree Retention: RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development_ When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. Staff Comment: The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, detached garage and associated gravel driveways. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or ✓ replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2 -inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. The trees identified for retention ore located along the eastern boundary of the project site. In order to retain these trees, the applicant has proposed to curve the roadway which terminates at the southern boundary of the project site (see further discussion below under Access). The City's Arborist has conducted a site visit and concurs with the applicant's arborist regarding the trees that are available for retention (Exhibit 33). A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application that verifies preservation of the all trees identified in Exhibit 4. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final tree retention plan be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist_ 4. COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for the subdivisions. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with: Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement per the requirements of the street standards. Partial The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall not exceed nine feet (9') and Compliance double loaded garage driveways shall not exceed sixteen feet (16'). Staff Comment: Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public rood (Road A and B). The driveway width standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Co nity & Economic Development ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRELWARY PLAT Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Report to the Nearing Examiner LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 10 of 13 building and construction permit review. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site_ Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are sold as individual lots, each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in a tree protection easement. Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees. The 23 trees proposed for removal (identified as trees 5406, 5408-5415, 6181-6185, 6234, and 6229-6231) have been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 15). The City's arborist has review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 4)) and Tree inspection Report (Exhibit 15 ) and concurs with the with the applicant's arborist regarding the trees located along the east property boundary that are available for retention. Staff recommends as a condition of preliminary plot approval that an easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. .� Staff Comment_ There is one block proposed and it contains two tiers of lots, therefore the proposed preliminary plat complies with this requirement. Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Staff Comment: The following street improvements are required: • The current transportation impact fee is currently assessed at a rate of $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. • A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City Partial code 4-5-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53 foot wide right of way, with Compliance 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8 -foot planter strip and a 5 -foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per rode, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. if in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. • To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8 -foot planter strip and a 5 -foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. it is shown on the plans. • Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Cor iunity & Economic Development ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE VARY PLAT Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA14-000141, ECF, PP Page 11 of 13 HEX Report 14-000241 • Tract B appears to be a 'spite'strip to prohibit any new Jots created as a result of the future subdivision of parcel 1423059057, located to the northwest of the project site from gaining access to proposed Road A. This is not permitted, Tract B shall be required to be dedicated as right-of-way. The applicant provided Road Profile and Cross Section Details with the application (Exhibit 10) which shows the required frontage improvements. A street lighting plan was not included with the preliminary plat submittal, staff recommends as a condition of preliminary plat approval that a street lighting plan be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. Staff also recommends as a condition of approval that the plat map be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-cf- way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. ✓ Staff Comment: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated R-4 on the City's zoning mops and King County maps. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourages large lot development. 5. AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES: Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant ✓ provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Schools: It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 156t6 Avenue SE & SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). in addition, the ✓ City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. ✓ Staff Comment: A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Corr -unity & Economic Development ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL VARY PLA T Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA14-000241, ECF, PP _Page 12 of 13 Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level flow control, which could be elevated to Level depending on downstream conditions. A level flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre - developed rates for the forested condition extending from 509b of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development_ The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (Exhibit 14). A SEPA mitigation measure (Exhibit 17) was imposed by the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERQ requiring that the project construction comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 14). The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, the geotech recommends a contingency in the project budget be included to allow far export of native soil and import of structural fill. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, storm water facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manoger for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plot. Water and Sanitary Sewer: Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8 -inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with 5E 144th Street and extending the sewer main into the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay ✓ pavement restoration for at least half street. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10 foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. System development charge (SDC) fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. The current fee per lot based on 3/ -inch or 1 -inch water is $2,033.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid. HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Co unity & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE 'VARY PLAT LUA14-0002.41, ECF, PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 _ Page 13 of 13 L RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, LUA14-000241, ECF, PP subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 -foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A)- 4. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 5. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 6. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 7. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 8. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 9. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 10. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 11. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat_ HEX Report 14-000241 TME ENC EXHIBIT 2 OR OR IJI THE ENCCAV EXHIBIT 3 r a a 3 aI/ I r �a E � n� /oil o. to I 1- 9 I t' j1j AS lV I r o +���y,�°�;�� E � .* .ts I + � II 1 it ••r I k` ^i ' gl I HKI ♦Y r Y . &N - r� � - �l ,' �[f1 -•� E � w--= !I. #A rl >, �'� ^,.�"��q � I '.:r __t arm 41- 1�` 41 h l I ! .'�: pa,_ Oe ':i �`� _ pe '! Ors — x� mo-• r r -1 ri{� is }tom r^ cJ 07 xis. .�_-i--0—� 0 'D It TWO '� �•�, l� a � s �� Lu YY I 1 r 1 -3YY All :`• �' I t _.".__ �F'- '° nr- .I - 4 _I L_ j iF, a +tiI Yq EFri If a jI, 1 1 3 I{� 1� In! 3i' 1N Hid! 114 INN M hot Z. m xo p 6 {p K 1. _ y p .. -ME ENa-A% EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 6 FNw HQL91NC45. LLC JR ca -;r _ 1 pp !gj FNw HQL91NC45. LLC as 3 3 i LPNV50n PON X42" � �} :i� - ENCI EXHIBIT 7 . g .Soi J y y $ s {f ! I M ^t s 4 a T Pa a' �y r �� � ■ � Y "Y 4 - tl .i.7 , _ � ..- � {' L.ie ��ivrlr � _ L�•{` � I ! �� —Vln q Ap is Km ~O b - MJ�i ,�`� 'h 1��� M ,M4�%� � � z' � y'�•-f�d cy.r� 4v� s �tV - x Its xY p SLY �d tInm 00 ,Si: g� 00 aB- P xx ! �`. a F 3n j 888888ags r '10 aq baa t - inns..R R `�Y. a A v pcQ' p K 5:> v 4 � z Y xg q all NO a �, �� �� a eta is s m" ` , x � K tl NZ a �A4. g r�esauaeVlrnmTtir�N+1+M.+eMJnuw uuun�• t+rra ry THE FNQ EXHIBIT 8 F 8 C y g Aj mi Zd a � 8 a � v � � Z � n ��s P t� D � u m >kn � ! a � I C y g Aj a � THE EXHIBIT 9 I !t 94 I �I F THE EXHIBIT 9 I I I- I 1 I I i I 1 ! i�Y - r N -' I I �� b I i u � 1 1 i 'M' i I" 1 1 ! •' �. ',r'3�' WI -' _�• I\ a -2 .a- K � '� I I THE EXHIBIT 9 I- I 1 I I i 1 ! i�Y - r N -' I I �� b I i u � 1 1 i 'M' i , 7 •' �. ',r'3�' WI -' _�• I\ a -2 .a- K � '� � - r N -' I I �� b I i u � 1 1 i 'M' i , 7 •' �. ',r'3�' ;o C] � z� -�� m �a Y /� H om -am n D I m Z t s��� 7 o ,�Y.,.RSVsnMY��ti+nta.wvrawwr�w V4� exa v•r a I� RJR THE ENt EXHIBIT 10 lk a a THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE xxx-xxxx �7 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE I XXX-XXXX AWA 7M'NA E SiA rs+6a sF SHEET CIO f i r I 9 i 1 m — /\ 11 t a m � M �Fn .a p o n S Z Q e N � ^l Ta _ I THE ENCLA EXHIBIT 11 EXHIBIT 12 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by .r AWAW IVCRTMWEST&X TRAFF/G EXPE TS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone. 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED 'Tu OF,e,���� �'LANFJ;;1� DfViSjU�� EXHIBIT 13 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038156 th Avenue SE Renton, Washington o� �0 X32 W NAL DRS Project No. 13917 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant D PNW Holdings LSC 9675 SE 36t" Street, Suite 105 FB 2 7 2N4 Mercer Island, WA 98040 - Report Prepared byp CI NTO JIftNG DIV1510N D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6207 th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2094 rr�nie n 0 cronhir_ 1 1 EXHIBIT 14 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Q,. Sten H. Avri'� S Geologist �A <\ (Lk Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED ES -3220 FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RFNTON PLANNING DIVi310N Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 ;) Greenforest Incorporate 2/18/2014 Consulting Arborlst EXHIBIT 15 REC^'EIED Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC CIT'; Or- ;-dr-,0N 9675 SE 35th St., Suite 105 rt.ANNJTvC DMSlON Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree -free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 Spwa EXHIBIT 16 February 3, 2014 Justin Lagfrs PNW holdings, LLC 9675 SE 35th Street, Suite 105 RECEIVED Mercer Island, WA 98440 SEB 27 204 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton SWC Job#13-187 C1T° ()F REN ^ ON PLAANNIO [)IVISfC,V 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156t' Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity Map DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 17 ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) PROJECTNUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 15Gth Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059457 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project Site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 15G" Ave SE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-114 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 434-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: April 4, 2014 DATE OF DECISION: March 31, 2014 SIGNATURES= Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Mark Peterson, Administrator Public Works Department Date Fire & Emergency Services Terry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, dministrator Community Services Department Date Department of Comm Wily 8c Economic Development 31-�I(/y Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EXHIBIT 18 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT [DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of ars 8.9 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street_ The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would . be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single. family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 1.4038 156" Ave SE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering5tudy prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). ADIVISOl2Y NOTES: The following rotes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Becouse these notes are provided as information only, they ore not subject to the appeal process far the land use actions. Planni 1. RMC section 4-4-030.0-2 limits haul hours between 830 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days_ Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. -The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit: This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5 - inch Storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within 150 - feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90 -foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500 -feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension - Water.. 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2- A water availability certificate from Water District #90 will be required_ 3- New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots_ 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer_ 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8 -inch existing sewer main, [ocated south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with 5E 140 Street and ext6ending the sewer main into the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 155th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer rnain from the south on 15e Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street_ The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10 -foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1 -inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid.' 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope - Surface water: ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 4 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2003 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report- The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow contro# map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flog control facility is sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00. 4_ A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation; 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation Impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will• be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit, 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips_ Weekday peak hoar AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53 -foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8 --foot planter strip and a 5 -foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 12.5 feet. if in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156' Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8 -foot ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 4 -- ----------- planter - -- ----- planter strip and a 5 -foot roadway per City code 46-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. S. Paving and trench. restoration will comply with the City's Trench It'estoration and Overlay Requirements. 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be. included with the civil plan . submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. Atree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Mirtigatian Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 4 L - OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION LSSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NOWSIGNIFiCANCE - MTFIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSON'S OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME End— p Bridle Aidg. Pmllminwy Plat PROJECT N LIMBER: LUA14-000241, EO, PP LOCATION: 14GAx ISO Ave SE DESCRIPTION: Proposed suhdNtslon of an 1.8 awe prnjrct %rte located wtthir the R-4 (Resldetydnj 4 dwelling units per acre) inning designation. The proposal ova d result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tmcta (Tract; A and BJ and a new public Ar -L TTM prop—d logs would range In slit from 1,050 square ket to 11,566 square Teel Arie4l to 1tm ne los would be provlded via a racer pub4c street of ISa1h Avenue SE. Alot Fwe adjus3"nt (iUA14-o00150J Is Prof—d b twaen L� patceh 1423OS9057 and 14i3055L22 winch -All result In 30,.175 "dare feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed tmm the proposed subdivisiu,c The site is currently developed with two siroA Family residenrrs and a detached garage. An exJrdng residence is proposed to remain nn parry1 1423DS9057. All other structures arc proposed to ba removed though the suhdiA icer proccsl. No critical areas are Present on the project sites THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL RTVIfW COMMITTEE IERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOE5 NOT HAVE A SIGN IFICAN f ADVERSE IM PACT 07tl THE ENVIRONMENT. APpaals of the envlronmerrtal deternslrution must be filed In writing on w before SM p.m, ort AMI 18, 2014, together with the required fee with= Hearing Faatnlnw, City of ReMm, 1035 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-114 and information re fording the appeal process may be Dbtalned from the Renton Oty Clerk's Office, 14251 4311--55i0. A PUBLIC HEAAING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARINCa EMMINER A- HTS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBF115 ON THF 7TH FLOOR OF QTY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY. RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL sir 2014 AT 16:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE'1ANDITIDNAL U5L FERMIT, SHORT PLAT, FTC*. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS FOGUC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMTv1uNrTY & 9CONOMIC D FVFLOPM ENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTTCE WFTHOLIT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER-WHiN'CAWNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFItA7jON. EXHIBIT 19 I, T r ' ereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were p steel in conspicuous places or nearby the desproperty on Date: � �77 - I L4 -Signed-.—z7-_ 'A STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that E know or have satisfactory evidence that' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. _ ,``,�ttttttll►��� f Dated: -%y %%O: '', Notary P nell A* Notary (Print) �o iointment expires c in and for the State of Washington Ila T-61� � T 00 1_7 ! fi_ � N•".�Y'� "'I �tl� �_�[ "'""� _ "r'e i I S f y-.��.4a' � Yi :L�i Cl SIC'J]� rY'�'YG'Lb� i [ f U. .4� � � 5741 '.g u -.cc iS,ul.h'j, SI�M.0 iPr•,wc.•.aa'`�,u-'Tr*:.€'-'�-�3 •_- V0+1.,IL.�9 �, �,ra:;--.3'nr�.. cxaE.'.''n'syr,_rt�r�a"'T---r�r: ' 1tf•3[1iNiG Ai�el.����%; ;J�YYS.:Y�.IY S `-.��'Ir uY .�. i3-41'H':^L.••yf �'.".C'y'S4 i -.�"N✓ '�'SR �__S.��N_ i4Y l4'I 9 N A 4w �d-"d . i N•''r�} 1"NS.xL�, 3 f..Ll'nLT-. 3 'a}• Jr �k, S" �il�k� _ r°��c QE' , .�, a i"Sruae� •w--. � � � '�x Y-2 ,'.•"'r•.�. - �u;ua y ar rer= 'r..�^s .-r'T�y. -`y��� - =��=,��`�-�+:h°h�,iM�,_, �,�'�;.�:���:=������AFFl�3A�/�T�D �1 �'B'��IA{kfit!1� -�, .� • � �'''�"����=--- �� �.i;=r.;v:; :.rat:ar-l.ir..l, s�_.tyilt{C�.�1v��kva..��_y���'?-'�.?�::_� pi�..tr _ n._. �. �= .��,,,. .. _ y � '� �- •�—�•sT�f.re�•.:I 'I• ;��u:: Ig:�'�� ��L f �.�� Y T.�Iv L ry t'".--.a'H ;.: w� S tF1 � �. �-��un.�.1: 'X�.� - .,Z .�v� F..'Y�- r�.sl:�4c=.i �_N �'.�rftl!I r S� •�n.�Y'.ix .ice` L. !L _ L� ...F"�J!t.3 t1�.1�ir. .I CfY: �.5 �•:txr.:.... .^rtS--.�.%�x�.a.Rl...-„�,s-•�-�._.�� - ��54,::'.i�L. r�F_...._ t .. SSS: N.IIQ.�r. x � ��. On the 3rd day of April, 2014, f deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA determination documents. This information was sent to: ......,._......- Agencies See Attached See attached Owner, Applicant, Contact, Party of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON j SS COUNTY OF KING C}k-LY PQ certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa M. McElrea �`s"rp'�{tf/� i signed this instrument and acknowledged itto be his/her/their free and voluntary act far#*6jes mentioned in the instrument. `7 Ga Ltd► - Dated: 3 _i e,t �'��. 1917 NotarVhblic in and for the State of W4' Notary (Print): My appointment expires: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DDE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept_ of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review 5ection ITIS 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SLPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 — 172d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 - WSDOT Northwest Region'* Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn, Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev, Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue 5E PO Sox 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn-- SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: S*eve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, A1CP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS. XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. `*Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMH & Notice to the following email address: sepaunitPecy.wa.gov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PfYiT, & Notice the following email address: se acenterPdnr.wa.gov template - affidavit of service by mailing The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD 4 y, }L _�,,�.•i�3'�E-'�4�- li- n�s� "jn'ar K :� - 2-.ti};+��,•"4; PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com Sally Nipert 34004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Panty_O, ecAri�:s: Roger Paulson 6617 5E 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-1589 '"a u3" c � ��',%.+�i�.�r�'.Y^���'.rv" "�`�nsi-��n`'-T::}? _��✓es��i''�:��»� Maher.loud! R.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38th PI, 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 M.A. Hariiu 6608 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-6594 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines In Mazama, WA 98333 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 DAVIT] MICHALSKI 6525 SE STH PI RENTON, WA 98059 (425) 271-7837 Page 1 of 1 David V EXHIBIT 20 6525 se _ r_ Renton, Wa 98059 March 21, 2014 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-OW241/ECF/PD. I live off of SE5th pi and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156"' Ave Se. Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the traffic on 156th ave se is unbearable. Coming out of any of the side streets off 156th ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down, there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156°h. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented_ I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Raad? Sincerely, __D4ryxtcAal David Michalski Email: dcmichal@msn.com Ph## 425-271-7837 "'�Co vrr, C/7 -Y op 14 P"r�rr�r%3 D N0p� a,1, March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -- Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENA" via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay a* Jilingarentonwa..-oy Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, EXHIBIT 21 Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public 'Hearing_ Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5"' Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5a' Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156t` Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current; the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 1561h and 142d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5"' Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139t' Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3 -way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156`h north of the 3 -way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3 -way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156`1' even more difficult. The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the protect by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed_ To allow this oroiect to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public_ isting residents who access 156"' from SE 5`° Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. 1 am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) frotn the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic backup that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156d7 142d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156t17 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. /Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing horses with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional horses, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project, Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot 44, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (Sec; Section 4-1)-254 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot 0-4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24h deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22!-'d public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further; the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M -DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but or�ly those who provide conunent prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton'code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22" a, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have aay questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at Ro erAPaulsengcs_com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDP of Notice of Application Jill Ding EXHIBIT 22 From: Sill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:38 AM To: 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' Cc: Rohini Nair Subject: RE: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Dear Mr. Michalski, Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding. your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review. The City is aware of the delay at the 156th Avenue SE and SE 142 d Place intersection_ Unfortunately, the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project. According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 23 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development_ to the City of Renton street system. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22, which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. If you have further comments or concerns, I encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again for your comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner From: DAVID C MICHALSKI mailto:dcmichaI0Jmsn.wml Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill ping Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP EXHIBIT 23 Angelea Wickstrom From: Jill Ding Sent- Monday, April 14, 2014 6:46 AM TQ; 'Roger Paulsen' Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Mr. Paulsen, Thank you for your cam ments. They have been included in the file for official consideration by the decision maker, Below I have attempted to respond to the concerns raised in your letter. 1. In your letter you cite the proposed development's impacts on transportation. Per the submitted traffic study the current delay at the southbound approach to SE 142'd PI and 156th Ave SE is 94.8 seconds. The future delay without the project is anticipated to be 133.2 seconds and the future delay with the project is anticipated at 137.1 seconds. Therefore, it is anticipated that the traffic generated by the proposed project would result in an additional delay of 2.3 seconds. 1 also understand that you have concerns regarding the traffic heading northbound through the SE 142nd P1 and 156th Ave SE intersection as it makes a right turn from SE 5ah PI difficult. According to the submitted traffic study the northbound traffic at the SE 142nd PI and 156th Ave SE intersection is currently operating at a Level of Service (LOS) B and is anticipated to continue operating at a LOS B with the construction of the proposed project. The City's transportation department has reviewed the proposal and has concluded that the payment of a traffic mitigation fee by the project proponent would sufficiently mitigate the additional trips generated by the proposed project on the City's street system. 2. You also indicated in your letter that you would like the opportunity to connect to the sewer being constructed with the proposed project. It is my understanding that the City cannot require the applicant to provide sewer to abutting properties. In order to gain access to the sewer being constructed, you would need to contact the developer (Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings Inc. 253-405-5587). The City would then review any plans for additional connections. 3. You also noted that additional wildlife, not identified on the SEPA checklist is present on the project site. Thank you for this information, 4. You expressed concern that adequate public comment has not been provided for the project and that the City's notice of application is misleading. The posted notice of application is in compliance with RMC 4-8-090B. The notice advertised the 14 day public comment period on the project and also advertised the date of the public hearing. Any comments on the project not made during the public comment period can be made at the hearing, currently scheduled for April 22"d at 10:00 am. If you have any additional comments or concerns, I would encourage you to attend the public hearing on April 22 at 10:00 am in the Council Chambers as an opportunity for public comment will be provided at the hearing_ Thank you again for your comments. Jill Ding Senior Planner From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:46 AM To: Jill ping Cc: Vanessa IDolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair; jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Please find attached an electronic copy of my comment letter for the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge deve#opment_ I'm sending this via e-mail while traveling in order to meet the March 24' comment period deadline_ I'll be entering an area of the country (southern Utah) where Internet access is unreliable. I'm copying my son, Jason Paulsen, on this is so he can address any questions or issues you may have if I'm unable to respond_ Jason can be reached at iasonmpaulsen2gmail.com. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication via e-mail to both Jason and me. Thanks!! Roger Paulsen ---Original Message --- From: Jill Ding <JDin Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen <ro era aulsen c�cs.com> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee Rentonwa. ov>; Lisa Marie Mcl=lrea <LMcElrea ct,Rentonwa.ctov>; Rohini Nair <RNair ct,Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 6:38 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Thank you for your email. Could you send us your mailing address so that we can add you as a Party of Record? The plan reviewer assigned to review the Enclave at Bridle Ridge for utility compliance is Rohini Mair. I have copied her on this email. I do not have her direct line, but she can be reached by contacting the front desk at 425-430-7200. I primarily work remotely. I do go into the office once a week on Thursdays from 10am-2pm. I will also be happy to answer any questions you have on this project via email. i will let Vanessa respond to your request for public records, as I am not sure if we grant them electronically. Thank you, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [rogeragaulsenOgs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:41 PM To. Jill Ding Subject: Fwd: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Jill, I'm forwarding an e-mail l had copied you on -- but had your address incorrect. Hopefully this one works!! Roger Paulsen ----Original Message ----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsenAcs.com> To: VDolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <IdingCa_renton.wa_gov>, jasonmpaulsen <iasonm aulsen mail.com> 2 Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 10-37 pm Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, This is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence regarding the project named "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", file number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP (see below). Now that the project has officially been posted, I request to become a party of record. Attached is an electronic copy of the required form, with my contact information. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, I am traveling out of the area, and won't return until after the end of the comment period on March 24th. I am an adjacent property owner (parcel 9425200080), and this project is of vital interest_ l had arranged for my son (Jason Paulsen) to watch for official notice of the proposed development, and have been copied on Jason's correspondence with Jill Ding, of your department_ Apparently Ms_ Doing is out of the office on vacation until March 20th, and was unable to assist Jason in obtaining an electronic copy of information on the project. I'm writing you in the hope that you can help. If possible, I'd like to receive an electronic copy of application materials and supporting studies pertinent to the SEPA decision so that I can comment prior to March 24th closing date. I am especially interested in reviewing the traffic study. I am quite willing to pay the reasonable cost of providing this information. Let me know the best way to provide payment. Now that the project application has been officially accepted by the City, I'd like to pursue my question regarding sewer service. Can you tell me who I canlshould contact to determine whether this project will provide an opportunity for adjacent properties to connect to the Renton Sewer system?? Thanks for any help you can provide!!! Roger Paulsen ----Original Message— From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(,8Rentonwq_qov> To: 'Roger Paulsen` <ro era Paulsen cs_com> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:28 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Yes you are correct, as long as you are the property owner. The City uses the King Co. assessors data to mail out to the 300 ft. surrounding neighbors, so whatever address the assessor have for tax purposes is where the City will mail the notice. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th f=loor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen[mail to: ro era aulsen Acs.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:33 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for the update!! My wife and I will be away from home for the next 6 weeks, so I won't be able to watch for the pink notice posters. Based on my conversation with Chris on Monday, I understand that we'll also receive a letter in the mail because we are within 340 feet of the development_ is that correct?? Our property actually abuts the development. We're having our mail forwarded, so I should receive the notice in time to become a party of record, and submit comments on the project. I'm assuming my question about access to the Renton Sewer system will need to wait until the City has actually accepted the application. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message— From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbeeaRentonwa.g-ov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(cDcs.com> Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 12:25 pm Subject: RE, Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, The name of the project based on your photos is 1561h Ave_ SE Assemblage" This project did go through the City's 'pre -application process but has not been submitted to the City as an official application. The developer is required to install these public notices signs prior to application to the City. At this point in time we do not have an official application to add you to as a party of record. Please keep an eye on the big white sign, once you see a bright pink "notice" poster stapled to the front of the sign, the application has been submitted to the City for review. At this time please contact the identified person at the City that is noted on the pink "notice" sign requesting to be added to the party of records list. Please let me know if you have any other questions Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1455 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen mailto:ro era aulsen cs.com Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for getting back to me!!! Attached is a zip file with photos taken of the "Proposed Land Use" sign recently posted on the property. The address is 14038 156th Ave. SE, I believe the project number is 13117 Does that help?? Roger -----Original Message --- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee{a7Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' pro era aulsen cs.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 5:23 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, have searched the City's permit system for a project with the title "Enclave at Bridle Ridge" or a variation of this title. We do not have any records of a project with this name in our system. Can you please provide me a site address or tax parcel number so I can identify what project you are inquiring about. If you would like to become a party of record for any project, the City has to have an application to assign "you" to. In order to do this I need to identify what application you would like to become a party of record for. Thank you for the additional information. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen mailto:ro era aulsen cs,com Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:09 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, By way of introduction, my wife and I live on the East Renton Plateau, adjacent to the NE corner of proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I had some questions about the development, and met yesterday with Chris in your department. He suggested that I forward one of my questions to you. Our property has a 50 -year old septic system. It's currently functioning correctly, but I anticipate it's life is limited. I wonder if the new development will provide us an opportunity to connect to the Renton sewer system?? If you're not the right person to address this question to, please direct me to someone who can. Although we haven't yet been formally notified of the development, I would like to become a party of record. Can I do that via this e-mail?? If so, the following is my contact information: Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th PL Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 RogerAPaulsen@cs.corn EXHIBIT 24 _City_ YY� "�1V '�IRr �•sLifr `IXYBr � "`•rll� •••Ml1V �• MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards REFERENCE: N/A SUBJECT: Landscaping, fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. BACKGROUND: The current drainage code (RMC 4-6-030) references the current King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for compliance with stormwater standards. Requirements for landscaping in stormwater facility tracts are included in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Section 5.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM restricts planting in berms that impound water or within 10 feet of any structure. Requirements for pond geometry and side slopes are listed in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. Adopted standards allow for the side slopes of an open detention or water quality treatment facilities (pond, wetpond, stormwater wetland, etc) to be steeper than 3:1 if a fence is provided along the wall and/or around the emergency overflow water surface elevation. This standard is resulting in facilities that are difficult to maintain, expensive in labor and materials for maintenance, and create a safety hazard to the maintenance crews. Fencing requirements are also standardized in section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. A fence is required to discourage access to the stormwater pond, prevent litter, allow efficient maintenance, and in consideration of worker and public safety. JUSTIFICATION: Recognizing that requirements for landscaping and tree planting contribute to the aesthetics and value of new surface water installations while needing to ensure proper functionality and maintenance of facilities, both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community and Economic Development desire to clarify standards H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\DocketNAdministratiue Policy Code Interpretation\0-38\code interpretation.doc EXHIBIT 24 Department of Community and Economic Development Development Services Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION MUNICIPAL City of RMC 4--6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards REFERENCE: N/A SUBJECT: Landscaping, fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. Department of Community and Economic Development Development Services Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4--6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards REFERENCE: N/A SUBJECT: Landscaping, fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. BACKGROUND: The current drainage code (RMC 4-6-030) references the current King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for compliance with stormwater standards. Requirements for landscaping in stormwater facility tracts are included in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Section 5.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM restricts planting in berms that impound water or within 10 feet of any structure. Requirements for pond geometry and side slopes are listed in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton_ Adopted standards allow for the side slopes of an open detention or water quality treatment facilities (pond, wetpond, stormwater wetland, etc) to be steeper than 3:1 if a fence is provided along the wall and/or around the emergency overflow water surface elevation. This standard is resulting in facilities that are difficult to maintain, expensive in labor and materials for maintenance, and create a safety hazard to the maintenance crews. Fencing requirements are also standardized in section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. A fence is required to discourage access to the stormwater pond, prevent litter, allow efficient maintenance, and in consideration of worker and public safety. JUSTIFICATION: Recognizing that requirements for landscaping and tree planting contribute to the aesthetics and value of new surface water installations while needing to ensure proper functionality and maintenance of facilities, both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community and Economic Development desire to clarify standards H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\Cl-38\Code Interpretation.doc DECISION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVAL UTILITY SYSTEMS DIRECTOR APPROVAL DATE: APPEAL PROCESS: pertaining to the landscaping requirements applicable to stormwater facilities. Concerns for public safety have also raised questions regarding the necessity of more extensive fencing requirements for drainage facilities as well as lesser side slopes for flow control and/or water quality treatment ponds. This interpretation is intended to provide guidance and consistency for projects currently under review. Briefly, this determination clarifies: Fencing Requirements: All flow control and/or water quality treatment ponds shall be fenced. Fence material shall be six foot black or green coated chain link. Cedar or other materials may be installed only if owned and maintained by a private property owner or Home Owner's Association (HOA). Landscaping Requirements: Landscaping is required in those areas of the tract/easement that will not impact the functionality or maintenance of the facility. The fence shall be placed at the top of the berm with the maintenance access road in the inside of the fence; or 5 feet min from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road to allow access for proper maintenance of the facility. No landscaping shall be planted inside the fence line_ Pond Geometry and Side Slope Requirements: Side slopes (interior and exterior) shall not exceed three (3) feet horizontal one foot (1) vertical. The full text of all clarified rules regarding fencing, side slopes, and landscaping in storm drainage facilities is attached as Attachment A. Neil Watts Lys Hornsby February 4, 2013 To appeal this determination, a written appeal --accompanied by the required filing fee --must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the CI -38 Page 2 of 3 basis for the appeal_ Section 4-5-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. CODE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT DETERMINATIONS: RMC 4-3-060, Drainage Standards; RMC 4-4040 Fences and Hedges; 4-7- 070, Description of Required Landscaping Types; Pages 5-1 and 5-2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the icing County Surface Design Manual CI -38 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A 4-6-030 DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: 1. The purpose of this Section is 11-e-premete and devel9p peri With a the City's w at„FE^..r5„s a1A to preserve them he City's watercourses by minimizing water quality degradation from by ffevieLIS siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water, and to protect trtb itapy to deV00ped and UR deyel .pe land from increased runoff rates and to ensure the safety of roads and rights-of-way. 2. It shall also be the purpose of this Section to reduce flooding, erosion, and sedimentation; prevent and mitigate habitat loss; enhance groundwater recharge; and prevent water quality degradation through permit review, construction inspection, enforcement, and maintenance iR ewer 41 pFEiRg9te the esffertiyeRerr .,f the rnr� i i Fe FR a FAS 3. It shall also be the a purpose of this Section to regulate the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) regarding the contribution of pollutants, consisting of any material other than stormwater, including but not limited to illicit discharges, illicit connections and/or dumping into any storm drain system, including surface and/or groundwater throughout the City that would adversely impact surface and groundwater quality of the City and the State of Washington, in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 11 Municipal Stormwater Permit. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) 4. It shall also be the purpose of this Section to provide landscaping and fencin standards for surface water facilities that create attractive functional facilities that improve public safety. B. ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING AUTHORITY: The Administrator of the Public Works Department is responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section. All provisions of this Section shall be enforced by the Administrator or his or her designated representatives. (Ord. 5526, 2-1- 2010) c' storm�ater draft code.doc 12127 C. ADOPTION OF SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL: The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton, and hereby referred to as the Surface Water Design Manual, is hereby adopted by reference with the ,,.,,-eption of adopted. Chapters 1 and 2 of the Sw4aGe Water gesigR MaRual, as @i�ReF4ded by the City refer-enEe. R.e-ferenees 12,3, 41A,13, 41O, 7B,7,5F, 8G, Q- A- rd1-9 the King C-OuR y S1-1Ffa.-„ %AJatnF Design M.,.- Ual aFe Gt adopted. One copy of the Surface Water Design Manual and _the _City of Renton's Amended Surface Water Design Manual shall be filed with the City Clerk iREI, ding a thereto. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) D. WHEN REQUIRED: All persons applying for any of the following permits and/or approvals shall submit for approval a drainage plan with their application and/or request: 1. Mining, excavation or grading permit or license; 2- Shoreline permit; 3. Flood control zone permit; 4. Subdivision; 5. Short plat; 6. Special permit.- 7. ermit; 7. Temporary permit when involving land disturbance; 8. Building Permit; 9. Planned urban development; 10. Site plan approval; 11. Construction Permit; 12. Stormwater Permit; 13. Binding Site Plan; 2 c: stormwater draft ccde.doc 12127 14. Any other development or permit application which will affect the drainage in any way. The plan submitted during one permit approval process may be subsequently submitted with further required applications. The plan shall be supplemented with additional information at the request of the Public Works Department. (Ord. 5526, 2-1- 2010) E. DRAINAGE REVIEW: 1. When Required: A drainage review is required when any proposed project is subject to a City of Renton permit or approval as determined under subsection D of this Section and: a. Would result in two thousand (2,000) square feet or more of new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface or new plus replaced impervious surface; or b. Would involve seven thousand (7,000) square feet of land disturbing activity; or c. Would construct or modify a drainage pipe or ditch that is twelve inches (12") or more in size or depth or receives surface or stormwater runoff from a drainage pipe or ditch that is twelve inches (12") or more in size or depth; or d. Contains or is adjacent to a critical area designation, defined and regulated in RMC 4-3-050; or e. is a single family residential development that would result in new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface or new plus replaced impervious surface. 2. Scope of Review: The drainage review for any proposed project shall be scaled to the scope of the project's size, type of development and potential for impacts to the regional surface water system to facilitate preparation and review of project applications. If drainage review for a proposed project is required under subsection E1 of this Section, the Renton Development Services Division shall determine which of the following drainage reviews apply as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual: a. Small project drainage review (also known as residential building permit drainage review); b. Targeted drainage review; c. Full drainage review; d. Large project drainage review. 3 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 3. Core Requirements: A proposed project required to have drainage review by subsection E1 of this Section must meet each of the following core requirements which are described in detail in the Surface Water Design Manual. Projects subject only to small project drainage review (also known as residential building permit drainage review) that meet the small project drainage requirements specified in the Surface Water Design Manual, including flow control best management practices, erosion and sediment control measures, and drainage plan submittal requirements are deemed to comply with the following core requirements - [For brevity, core equirements: [Forbrev_itylcore reg_uireme_nts 1 through 8 not printed here, but will remain in the code. 4. Special Requirements: A proposed project required by subsection E of this Section to have drainage review shall meet any of the following special requirements which apply to the site and which are described in detail in the Surface Water Design Manual. The City of Renton Development Services Division shall verify if a proposed project is subject to and must meet any of the following special requirements: a. Special Requirement 1— Other Area Specific Requirements: The Surface Water Utility may apply a more restrictive requirement for controlling drainage on an area -specific basis. Other adopted area -specific regulations may include requirements that have a direct bearing on the drainage design of a proposed project. b. Special Requirement 2 — Flood Hazard Delineation: If a proposed project contains or is adjacent to a stream, lake, wetland or closed depression, or if other City regulations require study of flood hazards relating to the proposed project, the one hundred (100) year floodplain boundaries and floodway shall be determined and delineated on the site improvement plans and profiles and any final maps prepared for the proposed project. The flood hazard study shall be prepared for as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. c. Special Requirement 3 — Flood Protection Facilities: If a proposed project contains or is adjacent to a stream that has an existing flood protection facility, such as a levee, revetment or berm, or proposes to either construct a new or modify an existing flood protection facility, then the flood protection facilities shall be analyzed and designed as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual to conform with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations as found in 44 C.F.R. d. Special Requirement 4—Source Control: All commercial, industrial and multifamily projects (irrespective of size) undergoing drainage review are required 4 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 to implement applicable source control in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and the Surface Water Design Manual. e. Special Requirement 5 — Oil Control: If a proposed project is a high -use site, then oil control shall be applied to all runoff from the high -use portion of the site as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. f. Special Requirement 6—Aquifer Protection Area (APA): if a proposed project is located within the ARA as identified in RMC 4-3-050, then the project must comply with drainage requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual and RMC 4-3- 050. (Ord. 5525, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12-12-2011) F. CREATION OF TRACTS AND/OR EASEMENTS: J._ Method of Creation for -City -Maintained Facility for New Residential Subdivisions with Drainage Facilities that Collect Public Runoff: New residential subdivisions must lace stormwater flow control and water quality treatment ponds, vaults and other similar drainage facilities along with the required perimeter. landsca in in a separate stormwater tract granted and conveyed with all maintenance obligations (excluding maintenance of the drainage facilities contained therein) to the homeowners association. An underlying easement under and upon said tract shall be dedicated to the City for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein. The stormwater tract including the landscaped area must be owned by the homeowners' association. Each lot owner within the subdivision shall have anequal and undivided interest in the maintenance of the stormwater tract and landscaping features. Per RMC Section 4-6-030G the homeowner's association is responsible for all landscape maintenance. This requirement is graphically depicted on the following page: 5 c. stormwater draft code_doc 12/27 T— ne.aary Ferre location es required. Rekrm Ceneml Notes. 9:I YMMCm SCE b.OPF9. V'caI1 YJHL9 FllOr�o, ] FEhICE REIXNRED ON TOP OF VN4LL _l{ LNLY GRASS ANDICO ShAA 1 SHRUGS MAY RE ALLCWFP. _3 L"OSICAPINGa TMEES, STD. P1Ahr — 234.30 PUBLIC WORKS POND GEOMETRY` AND ±Aurae DEPAMUENT FENCING STANDARDS APRIL 20;2 c: stonnwatm draft code.doc 12f27 �e -;:,�;yr,-, ergxrr.r:m,mw�l4pv,n.awbina.ena.d.�- GENERAL NOTES' ••, This delaU k a edtemalic mpmsenlatan wry, Amml r�nr.w.r.fi—all vary dcpendnp m p -& .d. f �•, b, L _ f �, -•'.�:.::, omshaints and appNcable daslpri rrimri.. on slarrneeler I ..Aties b be mairaalned by fie City, a r 7- L IBnre rhea he N.Otha lop at the harm wdh Me 14' lit mslnlenarpa acr•••roatl in the maids o'L a tanrn: OR ``J W * f tact minirrJm from lop o! berm C th.>rc a nn matld�v R55 k ;:_P. �• .ceurgad allowhtp prop—nni;nanne dNnefedily. .'��.F`� YJo k ndswpng 6 albxed inside he lance. landseapin9 ahaN he planted h a-sardano^_ xiyr lire •K `: 'FWith regU6 e b,h Induded In a Wi, 5.7 i f he KCSMM prea] Iande pLn N any hwrna lhdlm nd •' -r rJx �'•r" water rxwitMr sq t0et of any s7aeh,re. v 4` Exposed eadh on are pond boyQn end titmlor skit a)PPes chap be agdded a wedded wrlh an eppmpliale �m 4ua : seed mcdure. All nemaninp areas or the Vack must be seeded planted -Ith omen mlxMmr ap, ir, a order ff. l ..... 'i KCSwDM ae ad.I ted - AN vacs arldwher planorgc shah cardomn to rtrt ' -� KCSINDM q.—LA and rtsbkgans regardu9 f x% Iv_aCon over cher lnhasfnLctllre wU aswatec.ower, �� K • ""cT °i mOR - E5tt )' Fanms shah he 91ea1 in height mor a%ample designs, M15Ot7T Sterderd Pien L,2 TYpe 1 a 7ypc 3 rllein •(" .' 4fik mom wine - ! ' Ik k lance. �, � 7 � - fa'fencec fp b! ny NWlned b)'the City, fano malerw' * '� : P- shah ba 4 gauge 9elverllced clod Iatric wbh bcalded vinyl coating, For steel fabric fences the fdid.N9 ePpSa=: ''.l ' ;t - vinyl coegne shah be wmpatlsle wlgn Iha p, wnoundlnB amrironlmnt (e,B, omen In gPer. grassy areas and black in or hlovm'm wooden areas). all G OVNIERSW OF STORM WATER l RACT ON RESIDENTIAL DE VLLOPINLNTS: p.,i,, — ban. and Blas t .N be ;,Wtc VYhen Inndsenping (h wml$o of Wrens) leatwrea ars Iona led :r 8rorhlw•ler trach M'"'­et.1d coaled 4, same m1m es myt chain h^M fmrcY , id wit Ise the respG 4bP,,lly M the property awn ars Wlbin the sriltlitiaion, The home owners ceproperty­ •• jlentt pons end fa Ns shah wnfonn p WSIJOT sulado.�c (HOA)a41 bo responsible five he mafn4eranca f said Gtormwaler ts.. e>rCleding the Slandam Plen L-2 Types 1 3, or 4 drain link lama, drainage lar cities co+paiaed therein. A —1,nssigns M.1 aeadt pr—dycxree es havrrg equal end • ,'' yrs IeMa wood fer. es AM AIIO Od in aUbdhl•xl> u rd irded mk—toagr Ne mainlenancc d the slormwsltt bxt st.11 he placed in Nle find pl,L An Wil ba maintalnad by hameowpers asaodatprsw -.dying easement under a.d open said dr�nape lad Gall b. cam•eyad Iq line" of Ramon kr me adhcant lot owners a in pN w c—o ti mal o0nduchsal P-4—of oV..U..,. ma�nhrinirp, improting. �epeacrng aM keeping in good repair the drsinapa riteswhere N. Ien— wll be P".Tdr mmtalned- The farllldes w�lafned ll.wdn. nv—,tfenoaah.A ba placed on private pmparfy, . -• Nfned lames twhen allowed by the (:hy) ahaN haus gasaue veatad pose (U—t! correct rased) ether _ sea. N 24.trxlh deep ranuete Rgar)ngs w attached tri :�_,` _: tooiings 1>y gafvanirctl Lnnd:cla. RaNs and lave LANDSCAPINGALLOV DPEiR SECTION 53.1 OF THE KCSWDM, bgettli ahaN lw cedar nr prlfium 5'a1Mf ar hmrror� SOD OR SEED WITH APPROPRL47F 5EED MIXTURE. l}m sbpa srd lencirg ragsirementr in NS &.N aupansdes IF. r.q.iMn,.n1.listed in the Goy sdopted Surtax Walrr C esfgn Mw -L _l{ LNLY GRASS ANDICO ShAA 1 SHRUGS MAY RE ALLCWFP. _3 L"OSICAPINGa TMEES, STD. P1Ahr — 234.30 PUBLIC WORKS POND GEOMETRY` AND ±Aurae DEPAMUENT FENCING STANDARDS APRIL 20;2 c: stonnwatm draft code.doc 12f27 b. Text Required: The following language is required to be noted on the face of the e plat. Tract is for stormwater landsca e ur oses and is hereb conve ed to the subdivision home owners association (HOA)'_upon the recording of this plat. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract . An overlying easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the facilities contained therein. The homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance of said tract excluding said drainage facilities. A stormwater easement is hereby dedicated to„the, City of Renton over, under and across „tract _ for t,ht purpose of conveying, storing, managing and facilitating storm and surface water. The Cit of Renton is_herebyKrant_ed the right to enter said stormwater easement for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, improving, and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein, Only the chain link fence (if required by subsection G of this section), flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance facilities will be considered for formal acceptance and maintenance by the City_ Maintenance of all other improvements and landscaping in„said stormwater tract shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided interest in the maintenance of all other improvements constructed within Tract 2. Method of Creation for Privately Maintained Facility: As determined by the City, other types of new development shall create stormwater facilities either within an easement or within a tract not dedicated to City. In the case of a tract, the developer and successors shall own the tract and associated develoament site with an eaual and undivided interest. 3. Method of Creation for Cather Developments: As determined by the City, the City may take over maintenance of the drainage facilities located within either an easement to the City or within a tract owned by the developer and his successors in ownership together with an easement to the City. c: m mwater draft code.doc 12127 G. ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCING AND LANDSCAPING: 1. Landsca in Landsca in shall be consistent with the provisions of section 5.3 of the KCSWDM, except that within the City of Renton, landscaping of drainage facilities is not optional, it is required. Additionally, landscaping shall comply with the requirements of RMC 44-070F8, Storrs Drainage Facilities. 2. Fencing Around New or Expanded Storm Drainage Ponds and Signage Required: All flow control and water quality treatment ponds and similar facilities, as determined by CitV Development Services shall be fenced with a 6 -foot tall chain link fence and access gate. Fencing is required immediately outside each new stormwater flow control and/or water.q.u.ajity treatment pond and other similar facilities as determined by Cit Development Services. For stormwater ponds, the fence shall be placed at the top of the berm with the maintenance access road on the inside of the fence; or 5 feet minimum from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road to allow access for proper maintenance of the facility. The chain link fence shall be coated with black or green bonded vinyl and installed as determined by the City between the facility and the required landscaping. Unless otherwise determined by the City, the fence gate must be„posted with a 12 inch by 18 inch "No Trespassing” sign. Cedar or other fencin materials may be installed only if owned and maintained by a private _prop rty_owner or homeowner's association (HOA). 3._ Maintenance_ of Existing Facilities Required: Owners of existing drainage facilities not maintained by the City are required to continue to maintain existing landscaping and fencing. Replacement of deteriorated fencing and failed plantings is required. H4-. REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW: All persons applying for drainage review as specified in subsection E1 of this Section shall submit to the Development Services Division all engineering plans for review in accordance with the Surface Water Design Manual. The drainage plan and supportive calculation report(s) shall be stamped by a professional civil engineer registered and licensed in the State of Washington. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) IG. ADOPTION OF STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL (SPPM): The 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual (SPPM), as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton, and hereby referred to as the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, is hereby adopted by reference. One S c: stormwater draft code,doc 12/27 copy of the manual shall be filed with the City Clerk including any amendments thereto. (Ord. 5526, 2--1-2010) JW. DISCHARGE PROHIBITION: 1. Prohibition of Illicit Discharge: Materials, whether or not solids or liquids, other than surface water and stormwater shall not be spilled, leaked, emitted, discharged, disposed or allowed to escape into the storm sewer and/or drain system, surface water, groundwater, or watercourses. [For brevity, subsection a through a not printed here, but will remain in the code.l 2. Prohibition of Illicit Connections: The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of any connection identified by the Administrator or designee, that may convey any pollution or contaminants or anything not composed entirely of surface water and stormwater, directly into the M54, is prohibited, including without limitation, existing illicit connections regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. 3. Remedy: a. The person and/or property owner responsible for an illicit connection and/or illicit discharge shall initiate and complete all actions necessary to remedy the effects of such connection or discharge at no cost to the City. b. If the person responsible for an illicit connection or illicit discharge and/or the owner of the property on which the illicit connection or illicit discharge has occurred fails to address the illicit connection or illicit discharge in a timely manner, the Administrator or designee shall have the authority to implement removal or remedial actions following lawful entry upon the property. Such actions may include, but not be limited to: installation of monitoring wells; collection and laboratory testing of water, soil, and waste samples; cleanup and disposal of the illicit discharge, and remediation of soil and/or groundwater. The property owner and/or other person responsible for the release of an illicit discharge shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the Public Works Department or its authorized agents in the conduct of such remedial actions and shall be responsible for City expenses incurred due to the illicit connection or illicit discharge, including but not limited to removal and/or remedial actions in accordance with RMC 1-3-3. c. Compliance with this subsection # shall be achieved through the implementation and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. The Administrator or 9 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 designee shall initially rely on education and informational assistance to gain compliance with this subsection 44, unless the Administrator or designee determines a violation poses a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare, endangers any property and/or other property owned or maintained by the City, and therefore should be addressed through immediate penalties. The Administrator or designee may demand immediate cessation of illicit discharges and assess penalties for violations that are an imminent or substantial danger to the health or welfare of persons or danger to the environment. 4. Elimination of fllicit Connection and/or Illicit Discharge: a. Notice of Violation: Whenever the Administrator or designee finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this Section, he or she may order compliance by written notice of violation to the property owner and/or responsible person, by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested. Such notice may require without limitation: i. The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting by the violator; ii. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; iii. That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall immediately cease and desist; iv. The abatement or remediation of stormwater pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; and v. The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. Any person responsible for a property or premises which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and nonstructural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system and/or waters of the State. These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit. b. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Connection: The Administrator or designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested, to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit connection, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit connection to the MS4 that the connection must be terminated by a specified date. is c: stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 c. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Discharges: The Administrator or designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit discharge, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit discharge to the M54, whether it be surface water and/or groundwater, that the discharge must be terminated by a specified date. d. Sample and Analysis: When the Administrator or designee has reason to believe that an illicit connection is resulting in an illicit discharge, the Administrator or designee may sample and analyze the discharge and recover the cost of such sampling and analysis from the property owner or person responsible for such illicit connection or discharge pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, as now or as hereafter may be amended, and require the person permitting or maintaining the illicit connection and/or discharge to conduct ongoing monitoring at that person's expense. e. Right of Appeal from Administrative Decision: Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision of the Administrator or designee may appeal such decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. f. Any illicit connection and/or illicit discharge as set forth in this Section or the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual is hereby declared to be a nuisance pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, and as defined in RMC 1-3-4A11c (23). S. Reporting Requirements: a. In the event of an illicit discharge or spill of hazardous material into the stormwater drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the emergency dispatch services (911). b. In the event of an illicit discharge of nonhazardous material into the stormwater drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the Public Works Department by phone at 425-430--7400, or in person. 6. Inspections, Investigation and Sampling: The Administrator or designee may lawfully enter property to inspect the facilities of any person to determine compliance with the requirements of these regulations. a. Access: Jf c, stormwater draft code.doc 12127 i. The Administrator or designee shall be permitted to lawfully enter and inspect sites subject to regulation under this Chapter and Section as often as may be necessary to determine compliance herewith, at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspections, sampling or records examination. ii. The Administrator or designee shall have the right to set up on the property necessary devices to conduct sampling, inspection, compliance monitoring, and/or metering actions. b. Compliance with Inspection Report: Within thirty (30) days of receiving an inspection report from the Public Works Department, the property owner or operator shall file with the Department a plan and time schedule to implement any required modifications to the site or to the monitoring plan needed to achieve compliance with the intent of this Chapter or Section or the NPDES permit conditions. This plan and time schedule shall also implement all of the recommendations of the Department. 7. Record Retention Required: All persons subject to the provisions of this Section shall retain and preserve for no less than five 5 thfe-& } years any records, books, documents, memoranda, reports, correspondence, and any and all summaries thereof, relating to operation, maintenance, monitoring, sampling, remedial actions and chemical analysis made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any illicit connection or illicit discharge. All records which pertain to matters which are the subject of administrative or any other enforcement or litigation activities brought by the City pursuant to this Code shall be retained and preserved by the person until all enforcement activities have concluded and all periods of limitation with respect to any and all appeals have expired. (Ord. 5525, 2-1--2010) I(t. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 1. Process: All storm drainage plans and supportive calculations shall be prepared in connection with any of the permits and/or approvals listed in subsection D of this Section shall be submitted for review and approval to the Development Services Division. 2. Fees: Fees shall be as listed in RN4G A rt 1899 the City of Renton Fee Schedule Brochure on file with the City Clerk's Office. 3. Additional Information: The permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or designee. 12 c stormwater draft code doe 11'27 4. Tests: Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of this Section or Code, or evidence that any material or construction does not conform to the requirements of this Section or Code, the Administrator or designee may require tests as proof of compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified by this Section or Code or by other recognized test standards. If there are no recognized and accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, the Administrator or designee shall determine test procedures. Suitable performance of the method or material may be evidence of compliance meeting the testing requirement. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) LJ. BONDS AND LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED: The Development Services Division shall require all persons constructing drainage facilities pursuant to RMC 4-6-030, except for single family residential lots, to post with the City of Renton a surety, cash bonds, assignment of funds or certified check in the amount equal to the estimated cost of construction calculated using the Bond Quantity Worksheet as described in the Surface Water Design Manual. 1. Construction Bond: Prior to commencing construction, the person constructing the drainage facility shall post a construction bond in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of conforming said construction with the approved drainage plans. In lieu of a bond, the applicant may elect to establish a cash escrow account with his bank in an amount deemed by the City of Renton to be sufficient to reimburse the City if it should become necessary for the City to enter the property for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating hazardous conditions relating to soil stability and/or erosion. The instructions to the escrowee shall specifically provide that after prior written notice unto the owner and his failure to correct and/or eliminate existing or potential hazardous conditions and his failure to timely remedy same, the escrowee shall be authorized without any further notice to the owner or his consent to disburse the necessary funds to the City of Renton for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating such conditions complained of. After determination by the Department that all facilities are constructed in compliance with the approved plans, the construction bond shall be released. 2. Maintenance and Defect Bond (required only for those facilities to be maintained and operated by the City of Renton): After satisfactory completion of the facilities and prior to the release of the construction bond by the City, the person constructing the facility shall commence a two (2) year period of satisfactory maintenance of the facility. A cash bond, surety bond or bona fide contract for maintenance and defect with a third party for the duration of this two (2) year period, to be approved by the City of Renton and to be used at the discretion of the City of Renton to correct deficiencies in said maintenance affecting public health, safety and welfare, must be posted and 13 c, stormwatcr draft code.doc 12127 maintained throughout the two (2) year maintenance and defect period. The amount of the cash bond or surety bond shall be in the amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the estimated cost of construction for a two (2) year period calculated using the Bond Quantity worksheet as described in the Surface Water Design Manual. The owner of the property shall throughout the maintenance and defect period notify the City in writing if any defect or malfunction of the drainage system has come to his or her notice. Failure to notify the City shall give the City cause to reject assumption of the maintenance of the facility at the expiration of the two (2) year maintenance and defect period, or within one year of the discovery of the defect or malfunction of the drainage system, whichever period is the latest in time. 3. Liability Policy: Before a permit shall be issued for any construction, insurance will be required as follows: a. Duration and Limits: The applicant shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of the permit commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence/two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) aggregate. b. Additional Insured: Copies of such insurance policy or policies shall be furnished unto the City with a special endorsement in favor of the City with the City named as a primary and noncontributory additional insured on the insurance policy and an endorsement stating such shall be provided to the City. c. Cancelation Notice Required: The policy shall provide that it will not be canceled or reduced without thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City. d. Waiver: Upon showing of a hardship and at the discretion of the Administrator or designee, the insurance requirements may be reduced or waived for single family or two-family residential applications. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12- 12-2011) Mg. MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES: 1. Drainage Facilities Accepted by the City of Renton for Maintenance: a. Responsibility for Maintenance of Accepted Facilities: The City of Renton is responsible for maintenance, including performance and operation of drainage facilities in5id^ the f^" r^ that have formally been accepted by the Administrator. The City will also maintain any chain link fence surrounding accepted drainage facilities if the fencing is required per subsection G of this section. All landscaped areas wooden.fencing, or fencing constructed fora purpose other 14 c_ stormwater draft code.doc 12127 than safety within the tract, must be maintained by the property owners/homeowners' association. The following language is required to be noted on the face of the plat. Tract is for stormwater / landscape purposes and is hereby conveyed to the subdivision home owners association (HOA) upon the recording of this plat. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract . An overlying easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the facilities contained therein. The homeowners association is ible for the maintenance of said tract excludinH said draina facilities. A stormwater easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton T_ conveying, over, under an across Tract or the purpose c. storing, managing and facilitating storm and surface water. The City of Renton is hereby granted the right to enter said stormwater easement for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, improving, and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein. Only the chain link fence (if required by subsection G of this section), flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance facilities will be considered for formal acceptance and maintenance by the City. Maintenance of all other improvements and landscaping in said stormwater tract shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Each lot owner within the plat shall have e uaq I and undivided interest in the maintenance of all other improvements constructed within Tract b. City Assumption of Maintenance Responsibility for Existing Facilities: The City of Renton may assume maintenance of privately maintained drainage facilities, including the perimeter fencing, after the expiration of the two (2) year maintenance period in connection with the subdivision of land if the following conditions have been met: i. All of the requirements of subsection E of this Section have been fully complied with; ii. The facilities have been inspected and any defects or repairs have been corrected and approved by the Department prior to the end of the two (z) year maintenance period; 15 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 iii. All necessary easements entitling the City to properly maintain the facility have been conveyed to the City; iv. The facility is constructed on a plat with public streets and located on tracts or easements dedicated to the City, and v. It is recommended by the Administrator and concurred in by the City Council that said assumption of maintenance would be in the best interests of the City. c. Facilities not Eligible for Transfer of Maintenance Responsibility: A drainage facility which does not meet the criteria of this subsection shall remain the responsibility of the applicant required to construct the facility and persons holding title to the property for which the facility was required. 2. Drainage Facilities Not Accepted by the City for Maintenance: a. The person or persons holding title to the property and the applicant required to construct a drainage facility shall remain responsible for the facility's continual performance, operation and maintenance, including the perimeter fencing, in accordance with the standards and requirements per subsection C of this Section and remain responsible for any liability as a result of these duties. This responsibility includes maintenance of a drainage facility which is: i. Under a two (2) year maintenance bond period; ii. Serving a private road; iii. Located within and serving only one single family residential lot; iv. Located within and serving a multi -family, commercial site, industrial or mixed use property site; v. Not otherwise accepted by the City for maintenance. b. A declaration of covenant as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual shall be recorded. The restrictions set forth in such covenant shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for notice to the persons holding title to the property of a City determination that maintenance and/or repairs are necessary to the facility and a reasonable time limit in which such work is to be completed. 16 c- stormwaW draft code doe 12127 i_ In the event that the titleholders do not effect such maintenance and/or repairs, the City may perform such work upon due notice. The titleholders are required to reimburse the City for any such work. The restrictions set forth in such covenant shall be included in any instrument of conveyance of the subject property and shall be recorded with the King County Records Division. ii. The City may enforce the restrictions set forth in the declaration of covenant provided in the Surface Water Design Manual. 3. Separate Conveyance System Required for Off Site Drainage: r'...,,..,r,anee systep^-s City.to be maintanned @Rd operated by the City must be !Gcated in a drainage easeH;ent, Offsite areas that naturally drain onto the project site must be intercepted at the natural drainage course within the project site and conveyed in a separate conveyance system and must bypass onsite stormwater facilities. Separate conveyance systems that intercept offsite runoff and are located on private property must be located in a drainage easement that may be dedicated to the City if the City deems it appropriate depending on the upstream tributary area. 4. Other Cases: Where not specifically defined in this subsection, the responsibility for performance, operation and maintenance of drainage facilities and conveyance systems shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12-12- 2011) N.L. RETROACTIVITY RELATING TO CITY MAINTENANCE OF SUBDIVISION FACILITIES: If any person constructing drainage facilities pursuant to this Section and/or receiving approval of drainage plans prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section reassesses the facilities and/or plans so constructed and/or approved and demonstrates, to the Administrator's satisfaction, total compliance with the requirements of this Section, the City may, after inspection, approval and acknowledgment of the proper posting of the required bonds as specified in subsection M of this Section, assume maintenance of the facilities. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) OA4. ADJUSTMENT: 1. An adjustment to the requirements contained in this Section or other requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual may be proposed. The resulting development shall be subject to all of the remaining terms and conditions of this section and the adjustment shall: a. Produce a compensating or comparable result in the public interest; and 17 c: stormwater draft code doe 12127 b. Meet the objectives contained in this Section of safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability based upon sound engineering judgment. 2. Requests for adjustments that may conflict with the requirements of any other City departments shall require review and concurrence with that department. 3. A request for an adjustment shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant may appeal an adjustment decision by following the appeal procedures as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual per RMC 4-8-110. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) PN. VARIANCE: 1. If complying with subsection E2 of this Section will deny all reasonable use of a property, a variance to the requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual may be requested from the Community and Economic Development Administrator or designee in accordance with the variance process defined in the Surface Water Design Manual and RMC 4-9-250, 2. A request for a variance shall be processed in accordance with RMC 4-9-250. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) Q. SEVERABILITY: If any provision, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Section or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remaining portions of this Section and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) RR. VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION AND PENALTIES: A violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall be a civil infraction upon the first offense pursuant to RMC 1-3-2. See also RMC 4-6-110. Amend RMC section 4-4-040, FENCES AND HEDGES, to read as follows: A. PURPOSE: These regulations are intended to regulate the material and height of fences and hedges, particularly in front yards and in yards abutting public rights-of-way, in order to promote traffic and 18 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 public safety and to maintain aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods. The following regulations are intended to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. These regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere which tall fences along public rights-of-way can create. B. APPLICABILITY: The provisions and conditions of this Section regulating height are not applicable to fences or barriers required by State or City law or by the zoRk— this Code to surround and enclose public safety installations, school grounds, public playgrounds, storm drainage facilities, private or public swimming pools and similar installations and improvements. Fences and hedges within the urban separator overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay regulations (see RMC 4-3-_11 J. (Ord. 5132, 4�-2005) Amend existing code section RMC 4-4-070BI b, Landscaping, Applicability to read as follows: b. All new buildings, and new surfacewater facilities; Insert a new code section ahead of existing section RMC 4-4-070F8 and renumber existing section F8 to F9 and add a heading for this relocated section as follows: RMC 4-4-070F: S. Storm Drainage Facilities: The -perimeter of all new flow control and/or water quality treatment stormwater facilities shall be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of this Section, the 2009 KCSWDM, and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM (on file with the Renton City Clerk's Office) unless otherwise determined through the site plan review or subdivision review process. 99. Urban Separator Properties: Properties within urban separators are subject to landscaping requirements of RMC 4-3-110E in addition to the requirements of this section. Amend RMC Section 4-4-070H, Landscaping, Description of required landscaping types, by adding a new section 6 to read as follows: 6. Storm Drainage Facility Landscaping: } „es are prohibited on any berm serving a a Trees are Prohibited on Berms: Tie,,,,,,., drainage -related function however, groundcover is required and subject to Cit review/approval. 19 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 b)! Additional Locations where Trees and Shrubs are Prohibited: 1) within the inside of the fenced area; and 2) within 10 feet of any manmade drainage structure (i.e. catch basins, ditches, pipes, vaults, etc.). c) Perimeter Landscaping Required: Minimum 15 -foot wide landscaping strip on the outside of the fence unless otherwise determined through the site plan review or subdivision review r)rocess. d) Type of Plantings Required: Plantings shall be consistent with the KCSWDM and this section. Additionallv, trees must be spaced as determined by the Department of Communitv and Economic Development. e) Conflicts: In the event of a conflict between this section and the KCSWDM, the landscaping provisions of this Section shall prevail. See also, pales 5-1 and 5-2 of the Cit of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Amend pages 5-1 and 5-2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual to add the following text relating to fencing and side slopes: 5.3.1.1 Design Criteria, Side Slopes: Replace paragraphs 1-4 with the following: 1_ Side slopes (interior and exterior) shall not be steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. 2. Pond walls maybe vertical retaining walls, provided: (a) they are constructed of reinforced concrete per Section 5.3.3 (p. 5-35); (b) a fence is provided along the top of the wall; (c) at least 25% of the pond perimeter will be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 3N: 1V; and (d) the design plan is stamped by a licensed structural civil enElneer. 5.3.1.1 Design Criteria, Fencing: Replace paragraphs 1 and 2 with the following: All ponds and other similar facilities, as determined by the City Development Services Division, shall be fenced. On stormwater facilities„ to be, maintained by the City, a fence shall be placed at the top the berm with the maintenance access road in the inside of the fence; or 5 feet minimum from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road allowing proper maintenance of the facility. 20 c. stormwater draft code,doc 12127 Fence material shall be six foot hi h black or.,green. bonded vinyl chain link. Cedar or other fencing materials may installed only if owned and maintained by a private property owner or Home Owner's Association (HOA). Language assigning maintenance responsibility of the fence will be placed in the final plat. 5.3.1.1 Landscaping: Replace introductory paragraph with the following: Landscaping is not optional; it is required on all stormwater/land-sca ping tracts. Landscaping is required in those areas of the tract that will not impact the functionality or maintenance of the drainage facilities. For stormwater ponds to be maintained b the Cit no landscaping shall be planted inside the fence. Landscaping inside the fence is allowed for starm water facilities to be privately maintained provided that the landscaping complies with the requirements of RMC 4-4-47nF8, Storm Drainage Facilities. 5.3.1.1 Landscaping: Add to bullet #2 the following: If Stormwater pond is City maintained, then landscaping is prohibited in the inside slope of the pond and trees are prohibited on.any drainage -related berms. No lands.capi.ngjs allowed inside the facility fencing. 5.3.1.1 Signage: Add the following text to this section: The fence gate must be posted with a 12 inch „by„18 inch "No Trespassing” sign, unless otherwise approved by the City. Amend the "Reference" section at the end of the "City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual" to replace form Number 1, "Maintenance and Defect Agreement" with the following updated form: 21 c. storrnwata draft code.doc 12/27 City of Renton Page 1 of 4 MAINTENANCE AND DEFECT AGREEMENT Applicant's Name and Address (Two Years) For public roads, drainage facilities and other public improvements Agreement Number Project Number and Name Guarantee Amount Site Location/Section Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on Page Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. 1„ Z. This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 20_._ J between the City of Renton, hereinafter called the CITY, and the above named APPLICANT, hereinafter called APPLICANT. Basis for AGREEMENT: WHEREAS the undersigned APPLICANT has constructed public roads and/or drainage facilities and other public improvements to be deeded to the City in connection with the above -referenced project; and WHEREAS the APPLICANT has agreed to secure the successful maintenance and operation of said improvements for the referenced projects pursuant to RMC 4-6-030 and RMC 9-10-5. NOW THEREFORE, the APPLICANT hereby agrees and binds itself and its legal representatives, successors, and assigns as follows: Terms of the AGREEMENT: 1. The improvements constructed by the APPLICANT or his representative shall successfully operate and shall remain free of defects in design, workmanship, materials, and design for a period of two years from the date of satisfactory completion of the improvements or final plat approval, whichever is later. As used in 22 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 this AGREEMENT, the term "defects" includes but is not limited to, damage resulting from construction activities and/or use.during the two year period. 2. The APPLICANT is responsible for maintenance of the public road, drainage facilities and other public improvements, including the roadway surface for the two year period from the date of satisfactory construction approval or final plat approval, whichever is later. City of Renton Page 2 of 4 Agreement Number Project Number and Name 3. In the event of any failure of the improvements to satisfactorily operate or in the event of a defect in design, workmanship or materials, the APPLICANT shall promptly and adequately repair and/or correct the failure or defect. 4. The CITY will perform maintenance inspections during the two year period. 5. During the two year period upon notification by the CITY, the APPLICANT shall correct and/or make repairs to the right-of-way improvements within the time period specified by the CITY when defects in the design, workmanship, or materials occur. 6. In the event the CITY determines that repairs must be performed immediately to prevent risk to person(s) and property, the CITY may make necessary repairs and the costs of those repairs shall be paid by the APPLICANT upon demand. 7. The APPLICANT shall pay all required fees in accordance with Renton Municipal Code. 8. At the end of the two year period, the APPLICANT shall clean the drainage facilities prior to the CITY's final inspection. 9. If, at the conclusion of the two year period, the City of Renton, at its sole discretion, determines that the improvements are not adequately maintained, the APPLICANT shall perform prompt maintenance to the CITY's satisfaction. In the event this maintenance is not performed within the time period specified by the CITY, the CITY will invoke the enforcement processes found in RMC Chapter 1-3. 10. Any failure by the APPLICANT to comply with the terms of this AGREEMENT in a timely manner shall constitute default. Any action or inaction by the City of Renton following any default in any term or condition of this AGREEMENT shall not be deemed to waive any rights of the City of Renton pursuant to this AGREEMENT. 11. The APPLICANT shall indemnify and hold the CITY and its agents, employees and/or officers harmless from and shall ate -defend at its own expense all claims, damages, suits at law or equity, actions, penalties, losses, or costs of whatsoever kind or nature, brought against the CITY for negligence arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the execution of this AGREEMENT and/or the APPLICANT's performance or failure 23 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 to perform any aspect of the AGREEMENT. Provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from concurrent negligence of the APPLICANT and the CITY, its agents, employees and/or officers, this provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the APPLICANT, and provided further,. that nothing herein shall require the APPLICANT to hold harmless or defend the CITY from any claim arising from the sole negligence of the CITY's agents, employees and/or officers. 12. In the event that any party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree that any such action or proceeding shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in Icing County, Washington. 13. The Applicant is granted the right to access City right-of-way, tracts and easements dedicated to the City for the purpose of performing work required by this Maintenance and Defect Agreement until the agreement is released. City of Renton Page 3of4 Agreement Number Project Number and Name Release Requirements: This AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be released until all terms of this AGREEMENT have been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Renton. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written. APPLICANT By Title Date Received for City of Renton By Date IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed this _ day of 20 24 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 Notary Seal must be within INDIVIDUAL FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING ) 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) My appointment expires: Dated: City of Renton Page 3of4 Agreement Number Project Number and Name Notary Seal must be REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT 25 c, stormwater draft code -doe 12127 within box STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the and of to be free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) My appointment expires: Dated: Notary Seal must be CORPORATE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT within box STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of personally appeared 20 , before me to me known to be of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and each on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) My appointment expires: Dated: 9/4/2012 26 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 EXHIBIT 25 cac b o � m w � � C a N O U M (D I lo! m U € 3a.t Q [L m @ — -- Z p Z V C m @ FT. L E N 7 W 2 m E L w C L 3 m U Lu m SJ i m S Q m C n H D m N U L - y CL w m � - L @ U) � h l U � V m m Q N_ O t @ F d 0 T C 67 0 O t3U C .G o � Gvi H � C c n d' o � _ m L- -0 - r O m U- CO v U z 1 G N m �I CD r � i r ri � i EXHIBIT 26 COMMUNITY & r(itAi ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Proiect subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SFPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: Transportation Concurrency Tes -lave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 2014 D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the DepartmenL The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required. Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concunency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI -65 of the Comprehensive Pian states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS -tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. t EXHIBIT 27 Deni5Law - Ci of, EXHIBIT 28 Mayor =-. 1 .�.. 5� r;. Community & Economic Development Department May 22, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent,AdrninMrator Eloise Stachowiak 6614 5E 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 . SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge; LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Ms..Stachowiak: Thank you for your comment letter. Your letter has been included in the official file for consideration by the. decision maker. You have been added as a party of record for this project. A hearing has been scheduled for June-24th-at 5:00 arra, you may wish'to attend and tesitfy. The hearing will be on the 7th floor, of City Flail in the Council Chambers. Please contact me at (425) 430-6598 orjdiag@re'ntonwagov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jill Ding Senior.Planner Renton City"Hall 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. rentonwa.gov EXHIBIT 29 April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall. 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for roe to becorue educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves roe with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not mi -line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this requests and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of out comm=iry. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5's Place/ 156` AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from rhis project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely linpact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. .For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Re nested The issues for which. I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Trarxsportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TLA) prepared by Traffex (Exbibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TLA. submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: 'The scope of this analysis is based irpon the p",6minary plat site plan and the City of Renton .Policy Guidelines for Traffic 1mpaaAnalysis forATew Development". By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. PeA Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, mi addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: `The Trak Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service (LOS) rniew of the sgrrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity... " This report goes on to conclude that: "...the surrounding intersections vvuld continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Senice (LDS) raTith the exception of the southbound appmach to the 150 Avenue SEI SE 142' Place intersection. " Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156'/ 142"d Place intersection_ They did not In fact, the 156' Ave SE/ 142"d intersection is the ONLY exit intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5's Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M_ Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17'"), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156d' at SE 5"' Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include as analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the EAC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March. 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff ate not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156d`, but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "...irrzpose left turn rrsitictions at that intersection. "(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation. Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"/ 142 nd intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156"=/ SE 5t' PL intersection, a (i other intersections to the north along 156' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156"', the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by t -be study. In their Threshold Deterunination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts, by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise requited street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: 'Ti is not antidpated that the proposed prial ngnifican'tly adversey irrtpact (sick the City of lZenton's street systerjz subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the con rtmaian of code required frontage improvements. " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TLA- and the proposed mitigatioo_ A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program revcals that the deficiencies of the 156 `/ 142"' intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under Slate law (RCW 58.1.7 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156"/ 142,d or other intersections inhere a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which. I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances_ As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "eumntih assessing afy improvements curt warranted (if any)...': This confirms Haat work is on-going at this time (April 15�) to both evaluate and rnitigate the proposed project - 4 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse e:avitonmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. sandll Weir Front: sty Lee Sent; Tuesday, April 15, 201411.14 AM TW CityCVk Re[wrds C1cr Jan tllian;1'8i cling,, Nell Ff. Watts: Jennifer T_ Hertnirq Rohini Nair Subject: RF_ New Public Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) AtbameOW TrampoConcPoitcy14O415.pdf Seer attached Pies that are related docurnierttation an the City process for c rwutj�ency, standards and pmc%s relating to Renton Cade. Section "-f170, i believe this is the inforrnah6n Mr. Paulsen is seeking -The information, a5 extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen bowthe City administers a mW i modal test. Renton rrgde Sert on 4-5-070 nafes tbat transpooation cuncurrency can he a combinafi an of improvements or strategies in place at tine time of buitding permit issuance, or within a reasonshle ameruot of time after building issuatnce. per 4-6-070 A.1, or a f#narodal Gdrtimi u*nI is Placed. A finandal ov,mrnifiment cart be the traffic rrritigation fees paid 1cw the nese development and is genera3Y used by the City for im provernents thrrnugt out. the City, Ovr Transyort4on Division is tine techracai review authority and is curren ty assessing arty imiprovaments are watrarrted (if ariy) (ord. 5675, 12-3-20241 The Transportation Division has evrently providedsome direction as to an initial responso With the s'iatement, 'Within the Chy of Rentm the steep topography between Maple Valley FGghkvay and the upper plateaus (and on to Cetnetery Road) makes it in fe mble to provide additional accew WMening W5 (which the $tate is pursuing ) to provide more traffic CapadfY could attract some traffre raow using 156 th 5E t4 access Cemetery Road." Thanks. -Steve Lam, PE, M5, CESCL City of Rentort Dev. Engineering Manager 425,430,7299 I rn.w v Concern #G Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation. concerns I have raised heteiu, miste resented the actual o ottunities for public en ement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April. 22°'d, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed_ (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application... ") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"d, and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by cornbini mg their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to xeview these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above conce3ns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, including at the anznediaEely adjacent intersection of SE 5"' Place and 156 ' Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156' • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to iafon=g the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforxxung to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, 6( Ro aul fi 6617 SE 5t' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 I, List of Exhibits: Exhibit A --- SEPA Determination. Comment Letter Exhibit B — Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C — Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D -- Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E — Notice of Application and Imposed Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated 7 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED —Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SEAT via Electronic ]Dail to Avoid Delay @ J'dingaxentonwa.,gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project 4LUA14-000241, ECF, PR My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. 1 would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5'11 Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peale period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142°d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 15e and 142"d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a -m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3 -way stop at 142nd; and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3 -way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3 -way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156—h even more difficult. EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 155th between SE 5th Place and the proj ed by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project_ to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health sdety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156`/ 142,d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand tuna (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156`h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142°a intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection aligiunent at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signa]ization. (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5"' Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the night time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 EXiDIBIT A Rear Yard Designations Virith respect to proposed Iot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north, As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot 94. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 241' deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determinationrp for to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M -DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide coratnent prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who continents before April 22"a, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such, a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22°a to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. EXTi IBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at Ro erAPaulsen cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 u THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CIN OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3& St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by WAr N�fTJfW�'.3-T 7-�4AF�r� �XFE/�T5' 11410 NE 1241' St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.43 11 December 27, 2013 NORTHWEST.TIAFFIEXPERTS 11a10rE12alhst#�wA.sM/�f tow. -425.3224118 9121.522-4311 rra December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW HoldiTs, LLC. 9675 SE 36 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 1560' Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect t0156th Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curr, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156th Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ride A.Ift, TRIP GENERA TION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units In the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 7 23 25% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 20 11 31 63% 37% A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generatbon. for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site -generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational Opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156u'Ave. SE SE 142nd Pl. Page 2 Minor Arterial Residential Access The Enclave at Bridle Ride rraffty. 156'h Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 1561h Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" Pl_ has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156" Ave. SEISE 142" d Pl. is an all- way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156" Ave SE or SE 142nd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC COMMONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156th Ave. SE and the 15& Ave SEISE 142nd St, intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was perfon-ned on 156th Ave SEISE 142ndPl, intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) Is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 'I shows calculated level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation_ At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge�� TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E E Signalized < 10• >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 Stop Sign Control <1 >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 . >35 and X50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 1560' Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft. from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle T approArnately 250 ft north of the 156h Ave. SEISE 142"d Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MYTIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be:removed with this development resulting in.a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this developrnOnt are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips pet unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 dally trips X $75 }ler daily trip): SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave- at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic Impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including -curb, gutter and sidewalk -for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the.approximately $21,52STMnsportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton.. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us viae -mail at vince(D-nwtraffex.coni ar larrY(d)_nwtraffex.corh. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx * Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach S13 southbound approach Page 6 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT .2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access ! 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 156'' Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142"' PI. N13 (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) * Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach S13 southbound approach Page 6 ! f x1'aIpRTHYt'E57 � 7,�:9F`F1�' EXPE'FtTs i The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Vicinity Map Figure I *f Nt3.4Th'tY�87' i{dA. x ICE Pf,EN r9 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Rentor Site Plan N � Figure 2 Nzwnywzgr rRAF-.-IC EXpEr�TS i 1 � Y Future Project Existing without Project Traffic N Access! 156th avp S Access/ 155th Ave 155th Ave/ SE 142. PI N Acces51 755th ave S Accessl 156th Ave Wn M 04 ca r- 329, 106 t CD ro 156th Ave1 SE 142 P1 ess/ 156th ave S Aamss7 156th Avp 156th Ave/ -SE142 P The Enclave at Brldie Ridge - City of Renton PRS Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future with Project N Access/ 193th avp S Access/ 756th Ave r-- 03 M m � 332, 1as�� 3 C'> to 156th AveJ SE 142 Pt Figure 4 TECHNICAL APPENDIX pmwcd Tot: Tr affex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phare 5253) 926 -GMB FA7l: (255) 92Z�721t E- iL- Teent@TC 21rwt . t1'HF/f3t3E Inlmeectlan: ES6ttiAtrSE35Ela3adlY p;hefCounk rlter13717.'20t3 113atltlwn= Rearm, Wu6;fts o Chetbrd Oy: less Yana Frau Horth an (5 9) Fmm Sot147 oh (N8) Rgtn Eint on rR81 From West on (M) kltelvat laterad 156th Mt SE Mlh Xo,&E 0 SE 1.42ad PI Total .Fading at r F i 5 R T L 5 R T 4 S -R T 4 S R a;IST ,2 -. 0r' -IL-.:. 46' .0 "=32 It 9_, ..;_ 0-. �r� �., Ar8 +63 4:30 P L o 0 172 l 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 7e 0 ?7 309 0 5.130 F 0 0 19 179 2 22 19 0 0 0 n 0 0 10 a 70 326 .S.ii"R 1, •0'.' IS'=f46 1 ^BS .77._. ?,=_0 ":'p.'' 0 '• =' 0 .0." -'0.. *70' 330!" I 0 30 148 0 1 9 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 1 a 297 18 19" 0 .0 L : 0 �;: -U -_4) , :'43 . ..-0_'; "'29 - _ -339.-' 6.4)6P 0 0 ?4 iqa 2 18 14 0 0 0 0 0 t '74 0 17 391 .4 • 0 ' �0 0 -0 'Fi.-. . 9 -..D .:"+ '. -D - . =' e . ..,U :.0 :-.d. 0 rf D .._ �.;-�;_. b;j9P 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 P -0 ..,:0.:.. -0 . -'f! 0 'o'-` 4 =.; 0 ,.._0�; 0 _ .-.:.r 0 r.0 , it.a -. ,0 - TOO P a a -0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 a 0 0 0 0 0 Taal 1 Sdnev 1,2J. 0 157 1224 6 179 117 0 0 0 0. 0 I CE 0 303 3497 - - PO¢r.' A15fPM - 16 ' ISIM _ 7ow1 9 0 d9 653 4 93 63 0 0 0 0 .0 0 309 0 100J 1287 Apmadt 723 15S 0 409 1287 %HV 12% 2.66 nr¢ his 1.0% PF3Y 0.93 156f11 Ave SE 1095 7"'-3 37Y 0 Illu SE 142nd P1 655 58 I = 0 Ped 7-1 t'cdl 0 It 131rl 00 1136 304 409 4;t9P61 ai S:IfP6t IaR tea' Y 5 1; W Pcd= 92 fi} 1380 ED PI1F Pak.Elwr VDIu wo, {EEpSS 0 1311.: 0 PELF ` TIV JHCt3 I---I-� 0 165 1ss Chcrl: t9 ah a'a nk MCC 0 .LLY Im 1397 A'8 ?G".; aPT05 __ 0 323 Ooh 1367 SEI 1 w,' NT US XOP£nS 0 is6IhAve SE TtnL 493 107; NT OT �I �T-.•��.�_.___. 0 EII eSu Fs rw S .W wTw t T•r mm Q M01 IRTee* -_� ( 0 W02 trr 1 1 0 INT 02 — ...._ _-_—,, SFZ [)tilts' 0 5-8 n IS+ 0- t5+ K7 31 0 rM 12 r j p WF 04 M05 _. __ - 0 8 ISI 0 M 06-""`k�fS-ltllf} � 9-10 SP=. Nota RIF 07 Felting qul—e kd S8 -a1 marl dtcrc vim I I p _ 5.9 IS+sigudep m li g gage a Tar at I wuld sce Nr 10 t O Itf:1T 7 l�r� _ 10 0 VT 9 d pp d n d 9 YRA13184M Co Existing PM Peak 3. SE 142nd P1 & 156th Ave SE 12126/2013 12", 7Jh t Lf Vd' R k - L % j Yti f r,� 7 �� q -] NIR 7,,, s, S:u � ,�i�.rr �._c� :.'R �l..f�.a,.*.�:V�SeG:�' w�.�dEV�'�i'7�:,ik ,t��'?.��.: Volume vphj 309 100 92 63 68 655 Faaklotrr factor `_ 093 Q 93 — _ 93 093 tl 33 Q3 Hourly flow rate (vph) 332 106 99 66 73 704 Volume 7ota1 l} 440 167 777 �fcilUrriE Lett'�vPh�.., • `362 �� °. D Vdt me Right {vphj 108 0 7m s 003li2 Departure Heaaway {s1 6 2 6.6 5.2 Degree FJFirai�anz x :'; a,75 ; 30-- 2" c�pa��ty iv�n�) sit 526 579 Cor�trcf?elays: 258 1424 Fy�proach Delay s) 25,6 124 94.6 „ _ _pProachS _ ... Way HCM Level of Service F l�i�rsec3lon_C�paeity'�1Jir�xa#�on;_ _. _ _a :y 85]96 aCli Level of Ser�rice _. , =-_ `''E._ Ana lysis (minj 15 77 Baseiin9 Synchro 7 - depart Page 1 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12!2612013 } Lane Corifigurabons �` _ � �,. Stop : Stop _ Stag - VOfume (vph) 328 106 98 67 72 695 �?eak l#o�C:�acTpr _ :: , ... 4 93 •.:"093 - fl 93 .fl �J3 693 - 6;93 _ ._ :_: __ . , - HDI ffow rate �vph) 353 114, 105 72 77 747 NOW In Vofume Total (c?N 467_'__177_._ 825 plramg keit (v�� _ 353'. =_3D5 U Volume Rfght(vphj t14 0 747 r 012 A 51 r� Qepariure Headway (s) 6.2 fi 7 5.3 fa�reEt U6G�a6ori, 0 317_ Capaaiy (vehlh) 571 518 665 - ltproach Delay is} 29.8 129 1332 1, lipmM HCM Level d Service F - Analysis Period (min)_- 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Futum With Project 3: SE 742nd P! & 156th Ave SE 1212612013 ---* -V Lane Configurations - Sign Gdnal: Stop top SmA ,. Volume (ugh 332 106 98 ,S 69 73 697 _. - Hourlyilow rate (vph) 387 114 105 74 78 749 IBIS 1�13 Volume Total (voh) 471 180 826 8 .. _... _ ..... , .... Volume Right (vph) 114 0 .. 749 _...._ _ -.. _. tfailt psi = U 63 _. _ 12 0 5i = _ , . _ _ _ .. _ _•. Departure Headway (s) 6.2 _ 6.7 5 4 _ _ Degree 1�5f[Zattor� x `:, '0 61 ` 033 = _ C,apac ity (�ehlh) 571 616 662 — Garitrgl relay%) 30 7 13.0 ..... Approach Delay {s) 30 7 13 0 1371 _ A : roacfa i QS .. . --- p - ;- g HCM Level of Service F interseat[on Capacity'Llhlizatron `° ..' fou 90.8Jo L bevel tService , , --.-• --- :E -----:_ . - Analysis Period (rrnn) 45 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12120013 4r4__ t J* 1* 1 Lane Conflgur ql ` y 41lume (t?gtiih 2 .17 Sign Control Stag Free Free Peak Hour Factor 4.930.93 0-� 3 0.93 0,93 0.93 .. 3, — Pedestrians -- V4WMngSpeed (ffts) Right tum flare (veh) diaripie . _►Jone '.:. _ _ _, .. None - - Median storage vehj pX platoon unblocked vCi, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblRocked A 9099 192 194 IC, 2 slags (s) p0 queue free % 89 99 89 cell csPai+j':= 256 85.5 1392.. -- .:. _- Volume Left 2 0 8 �IoiumeRirthf 4 _; 3 = D — c5H481 - 1700 1392 ,Ntie to apaclty Queue Length 85th (itJ 1 0 p _ Gontral Qelay (s}:126 00 J 1 _ Lane LOS B A _ _ APrnaefl (afay$)- Approach LOS 6 Average Way 0.2 �p�er�eghbnMC�p,�erly.'�Uti'lizatron -. "_..__ _ � _ - _ {Clt.level of �eri+rce Analysis Penad (MITI) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Flepod Page 2 Future With Project 7, South Site Access & 15M Ave SE 12126013 i- t 10. 14- Lane Gqnrqurqqns Volum Luft 76 7, 71" Sign Control Stop, Free Free .......... . . 7' c8H 585 1700 Peak Hour FaGtOr 0.93 0.93 63 0.93 U3 .0,93 T 0 0 -58 PadeWans 7 Lane Lbs B A broach oil Walking Speed (ft/s) Approach LOS Right turn flare (veh) 0.2 Average Delay A� —9nN % , �edlan storage veh) UP p7 , platoon unbloc�ed VC Iq 1jM rig vCI, stage I conf vol w -77 vcu: unblocked vol 1033 192 .191 po queue free % 100 99 99 3 1393 aasarins Synchro 7 - Fle.pwt Page 3 Volum Luft I 4" .......... . . 7' c8H 585 1700 1393 Volume to , AGVL.� V 7� Queue Length 95th (ft) T 0 0 PP 7 Lane Lbs B A broach oil Approach LOS 0.2 Average Delay t_eve1ai ervice.- aasarins Synchro 7 - Fle.pwt Page 3 EXHIBIT C +,� * POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ,U7 FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is requked when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 - 9.00) or PM (3:00 -6:00) peals periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a .tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, ANI peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site -generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format. The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined_ Site Generated Traffic Assignment: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site -generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM -PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area. 1 EXHIBIT C Existixa and Pro ected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi -phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site -generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary, the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage, these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will theca make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/12/2008 H:\Division.s\Develop.seriPlan.revlTIA GUIDELINES1GUDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYS IS 2008,doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EX> iIBIT D - r �,�o� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEEUNG DATE. March 31, 201.4 Project Name: The Enclave.at Bridle Ridge Project Number. WA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager: Jill Ding, Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156`h Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 3e Street, Suite 1.05, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: - 140381-56 th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 ProjectSurnmary; Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public Street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parce151473059057 and 1.423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet.of parcel 1423059057 being, rcmoved from the propcsad subdivision. The site i5 currently developed with two single family residences and.a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059457. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site: Exist Bldg. Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area &otprintj: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 SF 7-otol Building Area GSF: NZA STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Cohmittee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). Project Location Map ERC Report 14-MO241. docx City of Renton Department of Community & Ecanamic Developrnen t Eavironmenta! Review Committee Repan THE Eitr1AVEATBRrDLE RID5E LUA14-=241, 6rf, PP Report of March 31, 2414 Page 2 of 11 I PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND I The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences. The project site is located within the R-4 (residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The surrounding properties to the north, south, and east of the project site are also zoned R-4. The properties to the west of the {project site are located outside the City limits in King County_ A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat..An existing 1,700 square toot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel, The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future, separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.80 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication). The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots, the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and B). Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention. -Tract B would be located at the northwest comer of the project site and is a 2 -foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new "looped" public street (Roads A and B) with two access points off of 156n' Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156th Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter, 5 -foot sidewalks, and an 8 -foot planting strip_ A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials, which identified 303 existing significant trees_ of the 303 existing significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees. There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained; however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention_ Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW irk compliance with RCW 43.210.240, the following environmental (5EPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. FRC Report 14-000241docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENC[AVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE [uA14-=241, ECF, PP Report of Error! Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; howeverthe easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Pian Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February 5, 2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letterfrom David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) Exhibit 13 Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable imparts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences_ Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented during construction ERCReport 14-=24Ldocx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THEENCL VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February S, 2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study, the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of field grass, trees, and blackberries. The Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) map identifies Aldetwood series soils across the entire project site. Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff. They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits (TP -1 through TP -6) were excavated across the project site. Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade_ The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits (TP -1, TP -3, and TP -6) at depths ranging from 2-3 feet. According to the submitted geotechnical study (Exhibit 7) groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material; therefore seepage Should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring, and early summer months. The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore _groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, foundations, seismic design, slab -on -grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backfill, and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content, the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall he required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red -osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present_ The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERC Report I4-000241.doex Gty of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENC AVEAT EWDLE RIDGE 1UA14-CM24 , ECS PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 7 of 11 improvements including paving, curb and gutter, 5 -foot sidewalks, and an 8 -foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line_ However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) (Exhibit 10) was submitted with the application materials. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips_ Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles enteringthe site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 1.42"d Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates thatthe future condition of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142n" Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development_ The report concludes (Exhibit 10) that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date_ Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12) citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"1 Place intersection. The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus; N/A 7. Fre & Police ERC Report 14-00024Ldooc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development E_nvronmenral Review Cammittee Report THEF1VaAVEAriwjoLrERiDGE 1i1A14-000241 ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page g of 11 impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers- Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant" v' Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055. South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock {9:00} a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days_ Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report 14-00UI41.docx 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed-to support a30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water. 1. Water service will be provided Water District'90. 2. A water availability certificate from.Water District ##90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer. 1: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave 5E near the intersection with SE 144th Street and ext6ending the sewer main into, the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave 5E up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 15e Ave SE up to the north property-line, 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main-in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. , System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the neva domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance'of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District, Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stabs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. Surface water. 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in"the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the Cit}rs flow control map, this site falls within the flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates ERC Report 14-WO241.dOc K Ciiy of Renton Dzparbmnt of Gamrnunity & Economic Devefcpment En&onmental Review Committee Report THE ENC[AW AT BRIDLE RX -GE WA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of March. 31, 2014 Page 10 of 11 for the forested condition extending from 50°10 of the.2 year up to the S0 year flow_ The engineer has designed a combined detention and wtetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow.control BMPs }mill be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till,. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the High rnoisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the siirn.mer months_ 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are ,payable priorto issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00_ 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwrater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee 'rate is $1,.430.22 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application. will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis elated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traf iix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips., Weekday pear hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection, of 156 Ave SE/SE.142 Place was done to determine what)-. if any impacts the, a3nticipated,new.'peak flour AM and PM trips created by this development would have Ort an .operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is - controlled by a. stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1.,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a: later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending -'is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access_ The.cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the Cites complete street standards,the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53 -foot Wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8 -foot planter strip and a .5 -foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road %rill be marked No Parking_ As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. if in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public. street onto 156th Ave SE; the City traffic :operations may impose left turn. restrictiona at that intersection_ 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements .along, the project side in 156 ' Ave.SE shall include 22 fleet of paving from the centerline, gutter; a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8 - foot planter strip and a 5 -foot roadway per City c6de.4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet.of right of way dedication will. be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench, restoration will comply with the city's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. ERC Report 14-OD0241.docx Gty of Renton oepartment of Community & Economic Beveloprrment Environmental Review Committee Repot THF ENCLAVE AT SRIME RIUGF LUA14 OW241, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 11 of 11 5. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. I All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required_ 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report 14-=241 door EXHIBIT 1 iHF F'Yf'y L Pa 7���(y[•Fr� L T TMT:1 L-,11 r Ni/l\ L Pa EXHIBIT 2 11-ff ENCLAW IL 14 ' i� o L�' r I �-.2/i1,S 1 S I •• l t`� I ;,3�1 of �i {wy. k�l jl � p 4 '. S � ` �a', � � � � 1 1�1 � 1jic I ''jC� i 2� F i S Int-.��j �ktiFtt++l'' � • ; P Y� 1 , 11 1 I 1 - �- � i k¢ •. � ' `--qtr . '.: �a. 1' -� -`--� �-}--- _ �b �a i a 1 Y i Yt U Q it S .4 '` '�r I � • `;� A I 4w 1:: • : 1 .-[lu :' � � '�w^r{ »{.r _ t • 6 1 l - � .• rJ—L—i I y>•'' ;-__-y��lL�r v`� 4y��,,�A± '� .i I Y�.s ,4'r]H ' 1 R 717'7 k :•e `I� T�1�• 1 I .S tf'-q✓.tl`�f�-. 11 ,7Y;'e. i .�V ' .ell y 1.• Ia i}ti �j -. 4a�1'1 _ ••---/ 1 � � �Y 1- r+ 1. � [ 1=rq - •-'--•i . ' y � ---� • •,1• -: �a•'l sKi ��. _moi^ :'•�: +ti y : r •�: •{�' r' i rk� �� -Y•EI .Z��._ 1 ••4 ,';S Y. • FF 11 4' '. S� F �/'+�^ �y '� :'_K-•• li. w ! ��..--< <�-(f'l) �� �• J• r ` li Y 1'}`' �_'�; Yom.- :` _ J t�•J;�a..ar..._.i_ ��r 8� nr �LS'�• '",u a `_ - �_ �• 1 �1 Y rf � ' -y` ed ��i .d1� A d - • d� F �2 1•d Iaa :'�� 1� ���,�i` d i r- ' ;�� � •�aslil-�� i rC�' •R Z CJ yA} ra an�n 1i�, L =L�- -r �'_j __' '`.�5 I _-yam ! _____ C +1--. ___� 1 -7� *:'J 4�• - jiU(h ilk . � - •� f''*-' �`� �' j st ,. :,..,per � b'. on f L �. � t q `seeq gtgcaitss =1 , h 00 1UIIi1 1111E i!1 , { -t 000 ... 18•,11d16l11p1p h EHTM 3 THE ENCLAVE .�....r...._..__ EXHIBIT 4 THE ENCU .._..�'.Y..�'_� EXHIBIT 5 THE ENCLAVE EXHIBIT 6 Greenforest Incorporateu j Consulting Arborist 2/18/2014 RECEIVED FEB 27 2014 Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC ClTv 0" PENTON 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 P[ANNTNG D;vtgfq,N Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from DR Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week -and inspected the trees indicated on -the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were . evaluated. 'A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree `ss predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average d6pline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree -free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed roatcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found moth signs and symptoms of arrnillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 A -J% T 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 V- �. St en H. 4�� S Geologist R. CAA , t Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED C ES-3220 FEB 2 7 2014 'CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PiArvNAG D3VOON 1805 - 136 ' Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone; 425.149-4704 . Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Moldings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98044 SEB 2 7 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City..ofRenton SWC.lob#13-187 C17Y01IZE%iT N PL"INNNG DIVI:�tOFV 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of aqy jurisdictional wetlan&, streams and buffers on or within 200° of the proposed "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (91423059023 & 91)-2), located on the east side of 15e Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity -Afa EXHIBIT" 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156`h Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No; Oumo-A p-lkant PNW Holdings LLC. 9575 SE 36th Stree :Suite i05. FEg 2 7 Z04 Mercor• Island, WA 98040 Repoit,Freparedby - -MT4N - �wrrr�rrv� D. R. STRONG'Consultirlg Engineers, Inc. 620 7`'' Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 8273063 Report Issue Date Feb ruary:49,-2014 02014 D_ R STRONG CanWflr)g Engineers Inc. Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3e St-, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by _ NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124" St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 88034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425,522.4311 December 27, 2013 /?ECEI VED FEB 2 7 2014 cIr;� 4'ENTpN p�NlvOFt`VG ),V�SJON EXHIBIT 11 - David Michalski • s 6525 se 5'' pl Renton, Wa 98059 i March 21, 2014 Jill Ding, .Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-00OZ41/ECF/I'D. I live off of SF5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 15e Ave 5e. Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River tl�e _,,. ,_ � ___� traffic an 155"' ave se is unbearable. Com ing.out of any of the side streets off 15e ave sewis sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hili slow traffic down, there is a huge backlog of vehicles and thls causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156th. I feel that an,imrnediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? VC[ r Sincerely,'AR ` 4 David Michalski r OF eFAfr Email: dcmichal(a)msn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 EXHIBIT' 12 March 22, 7-014 Ms. Till Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ssENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ ydingarentonwo-Rov Re. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-004241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA, determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 7-2" d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 56' Place. 1 would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5" Place in light of the accident history of the intersect -ion as well as the Level of Service associated with A -M. Peak period trips northbound on 156x' Ave_ This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142'a intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156" and 142nd that the project wont make it noticeably worse_ While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156"i north of this intersection. . Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5t" Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139d' Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3 -way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156" north of the 3 -way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3 -way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. The addition ofANY new trips to SE 156'' between SE 5'h Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed_ To allow neaith, sazety and wMare for the existing residents who access 156" from SE 5- Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also ver + concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access struts to the plat, and the existing 156 / 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy t -dffre back-up that routinely occurs on 156'' during the afternoon commute fours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 15el 142' intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156''/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Server Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes - particularly for those furthest east on SE 5a` Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents ithas annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accomrnoda a future waste water access to the news er d as art project - While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project_ Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot 94, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final deterntinafion of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, l call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 20 deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22"d public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M -DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who continents before April 22"d, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22°d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the pKocedural integrity of this application by re -posting the continent period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination.. If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel flee to contact me at Ro2erAPaulsenjZ4cs.com. Sincerely, Sent,Rectrontcally WrthoulSignature toAvoidDelay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDP of Notice of Application city Of,-, NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NOWSIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS -M) A h4asterAppilcatiort has been filed and accepted -with the Depariment of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Division of the city of Renton- The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OFAPPLICATJON, March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER; 6A14-OW241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECTDEsCuPMON: Proposed subdivision of a 8:8 acre project site located witfun the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) ,oning designation_ The proposal would result In the creation of 3t lots and 2 tracts (TraUs A and 8) and a new publlc street The proposed lots would range in size From 8,050 square feet to 12,565' square feet Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 155th Avenue SE. A -lot line adjustment (LUA14-W0250) is proposed behveen tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 14M59057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site - PROJECT LOCATION: 141338156' Ave SE PIRMONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-5fGNIF1CANCE, MITIGATED (DNS -Mi: As Ow -Lead Agency, the City of Renton has deterMlrted that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result frorii the proposed project Therefore, as permitted under the $CW 43-2]C-116, rhe City of Renton is using lite Optional DNS -M processto give rrotim that a DNS - M is Ukely to be issued. Continent periods for the project and the proposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Nterminaiion of Non7Sgni5cance- Mitigated (DNS -M). A 14 -day appeal period will fogovi the Issuance of the DNS -M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION, March 10, 2014 APPUCANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON, Justin tapers(PNWHoldln&,LLC (9675�5E36u'StmetSuite IDS, Mercer Oland, WA 48040/ EML-iustln@amedcanciassichomettxom PermitsfReview Requested; Envircridlental (SEPA) Review, Prelimjnary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required:. Construdio6e Buliding, Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report, Geut'echnital Report, Traffic Study location where appliQtlon may be reviewed Department of Cominunity & U6onomlc Development (CED) -- Planning Division, Mkth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grayly Way, Renton WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING; Public hearing is tentatively scheduled' o`r Aanf 2Z 21714 before the Renton HearrnR Examiner in Renton Cound Cha`mbei'at lo= AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady, Way, If you would fli to to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, corilplete this form and return to; City of Rentrin, CER- Planning Division 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WAS8057. Hameinie no-- The Enclave at Bridle Rfdge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME; MAILING ADDRESS: t ltyf Sia tr/Zip; TELEPHONE NO.: � M, �()f ty ti tf �- 1CQNSfSTENCy OVEEVIEW, Zonipgf l and iise The subjed rate is desfgn?L-d RIWdcntra1 Caw Dtt s I:V (COMP -RCD) on the Gty Gf Beaton Comprehedsfve taad Use Map and R4, on the City`s Zonir� Map Environmental Documents tho Evaluate The Proposed Prc)ect., Environrnentat (SEPA) CHecUist` Development Regulations tjr: i.FarProject 1<gtfgatlon:. The preject wilf be subject to the tity+s SEPA ordinance; FIrAC 472-110 Residential 0evr'IoP.ment, and other appticabte codes and regulations as appropriatt. Proposed Miergabon Measures:', The following Mitlgation 'MeastM wifl ;i(:e.ly ba Imposed an the proposed project These recbmmen3ed°f,�Itlgation Measures addrrss pro;eci impacts not [overed l;y eAsUjig redes and reguEations as cited above, t Project coilstructlon shall he required to comply rslth the 5trbM;ttfdgeole4hr FWI report. x-Prpjest cogstrucdon shall be requl[ed to comply with Phe submlttrd traffic study, cc, raments an the aliave applicationrnust be subrniCed in writing to All Ding, Senior. Planner, CE -0- Planning- Dfvfsfon, 1t)S5 South C-"dy Way, Renton WA 98057, by S;Do Phi on March 24,1014-Th1s root er Is assn to s ativeiy scheduled fora public hearing on :Apo'! 22,2U14, atlt7:tkT AM Looncil Charcl7crs Seventh Floor, Renton City flail, 1455 South Grady Way, Renton, tf you are interested in attending rhe hearin& please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled'?[ [4E) 430.6575. V comments cannot be submitted in %wiling by the date indcated abr6ve, you may. still appear. -at the hearing; and present your comments on 6e proposal before the Hearing E.xmrniner. Ef yap :hava questlQns about,} is proposal, orbe made a party of +-ecoid and rereive additional information by rhaif, please cuntactthe project.manager, Anane v.�ho submis wditen c tmrnients vniI,autgmaticalfy become a party n€ reMrd and Wilt benvt$1ed Dfarry decision on this prajert CONTACT PERSON. .fill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (42S) 430-5538; Ernl: IdingPrentoli t?v PLEASE INCLUDE -THE RRoJECr NUMBERWHEN cAlilNG F69 PROPER FILE IDENTlFFCAT ON If you vFn6;d like to be made a part' of record. -to mcelue further information on this propoacd project, tortiplete this fain and reru. n to. Gty of. Renton, CEG -- Planning Dfv1siary 1055 So. Grady Way,�Re.ntuN WA 58457, Name/FlUe No --'fie E:rclaie at 3ridie.Radge/LUA14-0W24L ECF; PP NAPAF; MAILING ADURES5. GityJStat��ip: TF_LEpH0NE NC):, EXHIBIT E City of r NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) A idlaster Application has been filed and accepted with the Depaitm'eht of Community & Economic Development (CED)— Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals, DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER; LUA14-0OD241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Hidge PROJE&OESCRIPTION: Proposed ,subdivision of a 8-8 acre project site located within the R-4 {Res;dentiat4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. 'Etre pioposal would result in zbe creation of 39 iats and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) orad a new public.street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,565 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 155th Avenue .Stn. A lot line adjustment (LtIA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059657 and 142305912Z which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059657 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 1-56' Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS -r0)!- As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed projem Therefore, as permitted under the RCN! 43.210.110; the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS�M process to give notice that a DNS - M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the pmposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period. There will'be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determine Lion of Non-Significance- Mitlgated (DNS -M). A 14 -day appeal period will followthe issuance arthe DNS -M. PERMIT APPLICATI ON DATE. (NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSONi Parmlts/Review Requested; Other Permits which May required, Requested Studies: , _ _. Location where application may February Z7, 2014 March 10, 2014 Justin Lagers( PNW Holdings, LLC /9675 SE 36`' Street Suite 1f)5, Mercer Island, WA 9$040 / EMC; just ric ameelcanclasslchommcom Environmental (SEPA) Review, Prellminary Plat Review Construction, Building, Fire Drafnage,Report, C,eotechnrcal Report, Traffic 51 t[dy be reviewed: OepartMent of.Corr nwnity & Ecenomit I3evelopment (CED) — Planning Division; Slxttl Floor Renton City 1-1411,.1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9B05i PUBLIC.HEMI_NG: Pu6fic irearim.Is tentatively scheduled fnrArsril X& 2014 before the Renton Hearin a er in Renton Council Cham of 3.0:i)b.AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. if you would like to be made. a party of record to receive further Informatlon on this proposed project, complete this form and retum.to: GtyofRenton; CED —PimningOidision,1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA98057. Name/Ffte No.: Ttie Enclave at. Bridle Ridge WA14-000241; ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELFPHDNE NO,: Clty/Stata/zlp: ` City of ri CO NSISCFNCY OVERVIMP.. . Zoning/Land Use: The subject sttt Is designated Aesidentlal low Density (COMP=RLD) on the City of Rentan Comp'rehensrve t.and Use Map and R4 on the Guy's Zoning Map. . Environmental koaaments that Evaluate the Proposed Project; Er ironnapritar (5EPA) Cheddist Development Regulatlons Used For Project Mitigation; The projectwill be subject to the City's SEPA ,ordinance, RVIC 44-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regutstia.ns as `,appropriate Proposed Mitlzatfoh Measures: The following mitigation -Measures. will Mi ely be imposed on: the -proposed project" these recommended Mitigation iM1easures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above, Project construction shall he required to cgmply with the submitted geatechaitof report; Prtrject construction sholf he required to comply with the submitted trujjec study. Comments an the above! application must be subinitted fn writinO to 1111 Ding, Senior Planner,. CEb -Planning Division, 1055 South 6radyWay, Renton, W.A 98457, by 5:00 PM on March 24, 201A. Thls matter is also tentatively schedured for a public hearing on.Aprir 22, 2014, At. 1Q G0 AK La:tncd Chambers, Seventh Roar, Renton City Hal(, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, If you are interested in attending the hearing, please Contact the Plantging Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at. {425} 43G•6578, 1f comments cannot be sAmitted rn writing by the date indicated above,, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on'the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a parry of record and receive additional information by mail, please Contact the project manager. Anyone who submits, written comments will automatically become a party of record andwill be notified dfany decision on this project. CONTACT PERSOM Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Erbil: Ldingerentonwa.gov PLEASE.INCLUDE THE PROIECF'NUMBER 11 HEN CALuNG FOIR.PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION it you would like to be tirade a paity of record to receive further informatioo n n this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, GED -'Planning 13105lon, 1055 so. 6cady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle-Ridge/LUA74r000Z41, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRM: TELEPHONE NO-' - City/Stete/zIp: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: - May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary platapplication and issued a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNS -M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study. prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 201.4). The Di S M was published: ort�Ap�idA,".2 4. with an appeal perk5d that ended on 2014_ A request for reconsideration ofthe SEPA determination was received"on-April-17; 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC_ Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS -M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item 41 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156 Avenue SE/SE Sm Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. After conducting the additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h:lcedlplanningleurrent plamnin&rgi ctsll4-000241 ji11\= reconsideration recommendation memo.dot.docx Environmental Review Committee Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156`' Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 150 Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. _ Z. The submitted T_IA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 156th = ; T -. - A�e'ri`ue 5/SE 142 Sfreet �nte�sectiori; it did nat include a LOS anaysis; far the 1561h AvenueSE/SE 5th Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item ## 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5/a increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development"_ The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required_ However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. According to the addendum the LOS for the 15e Avenue SE/SE 51h Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:kedlptanaing\cuiT nt plawinglprojects114-000241jifllerc reconsideration remmmenda#ion memo.dotdocx. Environmental Review C,omm-ittee Page 3 of 4 May I9, 2014 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed -subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing_ In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142n5 Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the - existing DShf M'with on'ehew mitigation measure as follows:.. - - - - "- 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to,the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the IS6th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SP 147_n5 Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Bearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. h:lcedlpfanninglcurrent planniag1projo=%14.000241_jiillere reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx Environmental Review Committee Page 4 of 4 May 19, 20I4 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: hAmAphming'=cat planninglprmjwtsll 4-000241-j iMcrc reconsideration recommendation-memo.datdocx /)/'-/ � V Greggzimrn , Administrator Mark Peterson, Administrator Public Worksartment t Date Fire & Emergen Services Date "Chip"Vincent, Terry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E. Administrator Community Services Department nate Department of Community & Date Economic Development hAmAphming'=cat planninglprmjwtsll 4-000241-j iMcrc reconsideration recommendation-memo.datdocx April 29, 2414 Mr. Justin Lagers .PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36�' St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 IV,r7rgrNWC-,-r 7,VA- rM— E-XF1-1 11410 NE'124th SI. #59 i�ilit d. WA.c Phabe:425,�.&413a Fa'44,52R. Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton_ The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: _ • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142" Pl. SEISE 156 ' intersection currently operates at an overall LOS 1= and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAR HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were Taken at the SE 5"n PV15e Ave SE and 142" d PI. SEISE 156' intersection on Tuesday 4122/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM_ The counts are attached in the technical appendix - Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 7 ...__....... .. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M- 0 R A. N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation Dperations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142" Place at 156a' Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142"a, Place and 158t' Avenue Southeast as req uesfed by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne{@rr�ail_corn , Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider fnr a flew signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southa .t 142"a Place and 15V' Avenue Southeast far Signa! warrants accardingto Section 4C ofthe Manual of Utriform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location Deets Warrant 1, interruption ofContinuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volurnes-for Four Hours. Please find-att-ached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Vnifarm Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C4 from the Manual of Uniforrn TrokCentrol Devices and -a copy of the Signal Warr -ant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.7OD9, there have been five recorded accidents on 1561' Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the othertWo involved vehicles fun off the road to avoid hittirig a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142a Place and 156th Avenue SouAeast The other four accidents occurred at least•two blocks away from the intersection ih question. Please find attached the laws enforcement reports of the five accidents.. Et �d visigns� rarspar tat�operatia�runjt�m�tnm9645aAoc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M- Q a A N D U Ni DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Tran$portation Dperations SUBJECT, Proposed Signal, Southeast 142°a Place at 156'h Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142M. Place and 156th Avenue 'Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of ctnbayne@grMail.com? . Recosnmendatian: { We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156' Avenue Southeast for signal warrants accordingto Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, interruption of Continuous Traffic for Fight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find -attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 frons the Manual of Vniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4CL4 frrorn the Manual aj Uniform Traffic Control Devices and -acopyof the Signal Warrant Analysis. - This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since, 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 150' Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehides run off the road to avoid bitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156' Avenue Southeast_ The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in' question. Please firtid attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.. h.\Twisians\tra rt5por.tat\ciperatio\ron`tom\tom9645a.dx M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUB1E_CT: Traffic Concurrency Test fur The Endave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge prefiminary plat consists of 31 single family lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.1) as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic . concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-"74.D, which is listed for reference: Transportation Concurrency Test -The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 2014 D. CONCURRENCY RE VIEW PROCESS - 1. Tess Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. Z Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurreney€est the projectappfieatiori shall be denied by the decision makes-wfth-tha=aufhdrityta - approve the accompanying development activity permit application - The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page X1-55 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS -tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. FY14TRTT 11 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANiviimu uivi�oEviv AFFIDAVIT OF.SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22 day of May, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA reconsideration /determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Applicant Sally Lou Nipert Owner G. Richard Ouimet Owner See attached Parties of Record See attached Agencies i . (Signature of Sender): S STATE OF WASHINGTON SS wQ r� �� 'Q� ///• • COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina MiranteNA%,,�"0v��.NCO r signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for b►a7�9n ,.�soses mentioned in the instrument. op Dated: bl Notary (Print):�n My appointment expires: Ai The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, PP, ECF ry Public in and for the State of Washington LUQ F . 00241 THE ENCLAVE AT BRID i-; )GE OWNER/APPLICANT/PARTIES OF RECORD M.A. Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI Wade Willoughby 6608 5E 5th PI 6525 SE 5TH PI 6512 SE 5th Pi Renton, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulson Richard Ouimet PNW Holdings LLC 6617 SE 5th PI 2923 Maltby Rd 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 14004 156th Ave SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 SE 5th PE Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 —172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer IVIS. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Jack Pace 35030 SE Douglas 5t. #210 Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Snoqualmie, WA 98065 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98056 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Kathy Johnson, Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt 355 110th Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Mailstop EST 11W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 981D4-3856 Bellevue, WA 98004 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.sov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: se acenter dnr.wa. ov template - affidavit of service by mailing Denis Law City 01 ,. _ EXHIBIT 32 N. Mayor _ � te I i J Community.& Economic Development -Department May 22, 2014 C.E:"Chip"Vincent,Administrator CRY OF RENTON Roger Paulsen th MAY 12 2 014 6617 SE 5 Place Renton, WA 98059 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: Enclave at Bridle. Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-000241; PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request'for Reconsideration, the..City conducted an independent study of the 15.6'" Avenue SE/SE 14.2 Place intersection. The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d; Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City"has added and is,prioritizingthe-installation of.a traffic signal at.this location to its. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although .it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated'throu'gh the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridgepreliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at -the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142d Place intersection; the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC).has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share -for the installation of.the.traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It isnot anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would.6ccur as a part of this project, butwould occur at a later date as additional funding becomes available: If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, C.E. "Chip„ Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc. ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin Lagers, Applicant Sally Lou Niper, Owner G. Richard Ouimet, Owner. Parties of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way . Renton; Washington 98057. rentonwa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M, O R A N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes; Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156t� Avenue "Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmba-yne2gmail.com? :Recommendation, We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background - We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manua! of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C=4 from the Manua! of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2409, there have been five recorded accidents on 155th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer: Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156t�' Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h:\division.s\tra nspor.tat\o peratio\ron\tom�torn9645a.doc Page 438 2009 Edition �( Standard: , D The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the , :following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day; da p8 � � fh A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist oh. tri the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist oil: the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches; respectively, to the intersection, Si In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours, ^^ �1 Option::,; 05 if the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if e ar the intersection ties within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, t(he .� R "' f traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. . _a.f Guidance. ae The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is riot 3 � & satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alterrnatrl es .- drat could cause less delay and ir2c01lve12ie17ce to traffic has failed to solve the traffic proGlenrs.' p3 Standard:v� 'ri or The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; acid: , B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on -1 the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. a, These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition, however, `he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Table 4C-1- Warrant f, Eight -Hoar Vehicular Volume Condition A --Minimum Vehicular Volume Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicles per hour on higher -volume traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 565'° 100%' 1 1 0 500 401) 350 nLB6 .150 t20 X05 84 :- 2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 156 120 105 84 2�q� mora, 2 amore xr: 600 48Q 420 335; 200 160 _ S4p : � 112 1 2 or more 500 466 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition $—interruDtion of Continunim Traffic Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street {total of both approaches) ' Vehicles per hour on higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street } pp%■ gQa/,b Ipso 5$%� 100%' 80%r 70%- 56-m 1 75h 600525 420. - s 2 or more 1 960 720 630 1 504 75 6D 53 42 2 or more j - 2 or mare 4pD 720 ` £3t7, 504 10Q 80 70 - 56 . 1 2 or more 750 500 525 420 100 BO 70 56 Basic minimum hourly volume " used for combination of Cendtions A and 3 after adequate trial of other remedial measures May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of fess than 10,000 May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a papulation of less than 10,000 Sect. 4C.02 Dtc, Page 440 so(] 400 MINOR STREET Soo HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE I I ,1 LANE & i LANE 2009 Edition 300 400 500 600 700 8110 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 5400 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume [ora minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (74% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPEG ON MAJOR STREET) 400 300 MINOR STREET HIGHER- 200 VOLUME APPROACH - VPH 100 scot. 40.04 �2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE II '1 LANE & 1 LANE 80' 60' 200 300 400 500 640 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LAN 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE ,1 LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET ----TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ---- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 150 vph applies as the tower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4, Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESSTHAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET 900 HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES -- 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE i1 LANE & 1 LANE 100" 75` 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) `Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with tura or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the louder threshold volume for a mirror -street approach with one lane. `cmv�•7 �Iq>�J Pape 441 350` 700' Sect. 4C.04 600 Soo MINOR STREET 400 HIGHER - VOLUME 300 APPROACH - VPH 200 100 4 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LAN 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE ,1 LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET ----TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ---- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 150 vph applies as the tower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4, Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESSTHAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET 900 HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES -- 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE i1 LANE & 1 LANE 100" 75` 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) `Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with tura or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the louder threshold volume for a mirror -street approach with one lane. `cmv�•7 �Iq>�J Pape 441 350` 700' Sect. 4C.04 Signal Priority Ratings: A = Number of correctible accidents in a 12 month period AR = Accident Rating = 100 ! 5 x A Vm = Average of the 8 highest hours of main main street volume in vehlhr (total both directions) Vs = Average of the 8 highest hours of side street volume in vehlhr (total both directions) Note: right turns on red andlor free right turns are subtracted from the side street volumes. K = reduction factor = (0.97 In (Vm 1 Vs)) - 0.32 Cv = Capacity constant Note: When the 85th percentile speed of main street is >40 MPH, MUTCD volume warrants are reduced therefore, reduce Cv so that Cv = 0.49 x Cv Number of Lanes Main Side Street Street Cv 1 1 750 2+ 1 900 2+ 2+ 1200 1 2+ 1000 VR = Vehicular Volume Rating = (Vm x Vs) I (K x Cv) Pm = Average of the 8 highest hours of main street pedestrian in ped/hr (total both directions) W m = width of main street in feet Cp = pedestrian constant= 78000 PR = Pedestrian Volume Rating = Vm x Pm x Wm 1 Cp Total Rating = AR + VR + PR Intersection A ::Ali: Vm Vs::.::; :':: Cv :-:-:::SIR:;:=:': Pm W m ::=PR : :3:otsl SW 41 st ST1Oakesdale AV SW 5 1:00: 615 407 ::::;fl8::: 900 :;3481;1:0:: 0 56 :;0:017: ;:35. S 4th STlWi[[iams AVS 0 :....: 442 357 ;:;=¢;.i1; ` 10130 :;1008::47: 12 43 :;2; NE 44th STI105 NB Ramps 3 ::5p:: 539 476 ::::-0.2b:;: 900 =142,4:4. 0.5 40 SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 :: A: 783 306 ::=Q:.�9`= 1200 :X37.54: 0.5 51 :b:�6:::::45$ S 7th ST[Talbot RD S 0.3 ::::# := 990 315 :?::79.' 900 ::438:x:8::: 9 74 :046:::::::4:53;. NE 12th ST/Union AV NE 0 ::: R:: 449 220 :; 0:37:-:: 750 ::354 fl6::: 6.25 45 .:'1:82:; .::355, SE 31st St/Benson RD S 2 ::AQ: 1221 270 :: t_14=: 1100 ::;2fr2=0:4> 0.33 51 <0:26: ':302`,: NE 4th ST/Hoquiam AV NE 2 :::417: 1899 153 ::2:12:-: 588 =:232:7:4:: 0 62 ::O:aO':.::273: S 55th ST/Talbot RD S 3 :::BO.7 898 174 =:: t 27:;: 750 :`1:Cr3:80:: 0.37 36 ::t7:: 5:::?2 :-: N 44th Si11-405 SB Ramps 3 ::fi0.: 460 179 1000 i382E2: 0.17 56 .. 0130;::..9.8`• Nil 12th ST/ iWand AV NE 6 ::1;24 5421 120 ,:A' -),4::,j 900 5 38 SE 142nd PL1156th AV SE 0 0 9761 167 ?::3;-.': 750 0 39 S Eagle Ridge DRfBenson RD S 3 11481 93 ::2;12:: 539 ::::93: ::; 0 39 °°1 ;00:= :::1'3:¢:- N Landing LN/Garden AV N 0 ::::ti: 504 158 ` :i3_B t:?: 750 ;::7:137:-: 16 41 : 4::' ::A36`:` NE Sunset BL/Hoquaim AV NE 2 7-4B 838 69.5 ::::2:10 '.: 368 :::: 5.85 ::: 1 37 S Carr RDIMill AV S 1 :TCF 1887 44.5 :: 1::;: 441 ::::57:4-4`::: 1 49 NE 4th STIBremerton AV NE 2 ::40; 2035 20 :�}::6.:.: 441 ::::2::1;6;:;: 4 56 SW 34th ST/Lind AV Sw 2 ;:40, 1161 49 :: :7a;':: 1200 ::::17;-24 °:: 0 58 NE 21st STIDuva[I AV NE 1 :::24; 1310 37 :::}. 441 .:::3.©0 :: 0.5 53 NE 12th ST/Duvall AV NE 1 :::2p`: 994 37 ::2;x$7;.:: 441 ::2 ;Qg.:: 7 51 S 26th STIBenson RD S 0 R7: 1008 27 :::3 9`=:: 368 :::;2 ;: `::: 15 47 NE 6th ST[Duvall AV NE 0 :'`'[ :: 949 38 `2: E3 > 441 •:?29::1:8:`> 2 58 NE 10th ST/Duvall AV Ni= 0 :-i-O::]458 48 ::=:1:87; :' 447 6.38 58 NE 4th ST/Queen AV NE 0 :::V;' 1641 16 .417::] 441 14:27::: 0.16 66 pone done done done done done done TOM 9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142nd Place/156`" Avenue Southeast WARRANT 1 Meets warrant — volumes meet Condition 6 for eight hours. WARRANT 2 Meets warrant — four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-1 for seven hours. WARRANT 3 noes not meet — this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. WARRANT 4 Does not meet —the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. WARRANT 5 Does not meet —this is not a school crossing. WARRANT 6 Does not meet — there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. WARRANT 7 Does not meet --there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. WARRANT 8 Does not meet — We classify 156th Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142nd Place as a residential street. WARRANT 9 Does not meet --This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. M TOM$b20W IV - (3) [d EEL `1Ln 4 LO CD q N r Q] ' d tf] f� Cb [Y) N r00 tD fit] [� CJ a ' ; �f CD I� N . tf) CA ; a7 t`b N;Crl:Od,M.a:c7 r 00;T• � ti.00r �! �'N N d i Q,(i} M �-r TN��riva:d u�',03�r Mrn€c�c�icr�_tiC0ra:o CfJ _ c7 N N d' C4 O lfj r u� m . N € I` O) ; O . CSS ' Lt) L[� ', Lf} : ld] t` O � (1! C7 N 101 : til : 'Et Cr} ', N r < " ._ ♦ j gym; ooCO03a3 ul` CDU3ps cDr`M°r30t- '�O N L)05 N_ nW ; ; (0 63 IT N -,t dd "40 C0*?0 CNfl Nr tNOa~ N_ _... r W dp t1D N O 03; N (- CD co LO co C} w ; us M 1 ON M r CAN C? O O UC) N p N N I- (Y) P; O r N [11 N Cti! iV N O N MCA CD + ul N r or a 00 ? VM (Y) Co O d N: r r O N 4 M N N ° `M tYZ i(] CCV,N m Z �' N tNNr:NNN M c'') C'� co CA 1"!V--: d :� wt- Wim f/J M ' 00 N C� M OD N I` r� tD N � a t` CD : Lf3 crl v) a ' 00 r - 00 � ', r � �f [� f� D� CO ~ ' � ' r 0) c CO OD CD Q? : r O CA QN CO tti 00 �C] tp ; N . d M D0 (D I` ' t- ' C.3 N cD ? M ' N r 0 u3 v ; lf] CO ; f+3 ; c p l- r 1 Cfl tt] - r N'r r r't- r:r-'r:r:r r t--,M:N cT N V- c*) Cy _- ........... C!i€ 0 p O,O C0 O''p C]:p,p a O C7;O O O C] a O:O O 4 O O Q; � z'C7,0,0 a p 0 a C] G7,0 r,Cy:C),� Ln (p,I�;Cp �.O' CD ;O CA n cV c4 , r:r!r r"'r.r s-I,e- IND its N'N,N of 2 O; �o.aoaaaoo:aaoapoa:oaCA Q 4 C? p'C?'O O O ?O O O O O CA OTA CD a o a'O O ,'Q p cy0 Q F ■- : N ps mr I CD :1� 00 C3) : O r N t� f i ; CD ; i� C0 : O : Q r ' C11' 11 IV - (3) [d EEL EXHIBIT 33 Angelea Wickstrom From: Terrence J. Flatley Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:13 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Jill, I concur with the arborist report. It's unfortunate that the trees in this area cannot remain in their natural state and development occur beyond them. From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:54 PM To: Terrence J. Flatley Subject: FW: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Hi Terry, Were you able to go out and look at the trees for this project? Thanks! Jill From: Justin Lagers [mai Ito: Justin(abamericanclassichomes.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:27 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 We never heard back after Terry's visit? What were his findings? On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jill Ding {JDinrentonwa. ov> wrote: Thank you Terry! Please let me know if you need anything from me before visiting the site. Justin, please make sure the gate is open so Terry has access to the site. "Thanks! Jill I From: Terrence J. Flatley Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 1:21 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: 'Justin Lagers' Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Hi, I can schedule this for Tuesday, April 15"' at I p.m. From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 6:52 AM To: Terrence J. Flatley Cc: 'Justin Lagers' Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Hi Terry, I was hoping you could review the Arborist Report and Tree Cutting plan that was submitted with a plat that I am reviewing. In particular, the City is interested in retaining as many trees along the east property line as possible. Several of these trees have been identified as diseased, dangerous, or dead in the submitted arborist report. I have attached a copy of the arborist report and tree cutting plan, I've also highlighted the trees in the report and on the tree cutting plan that are of particular interest for possible retention. The developer of the plat has requested that we contact him before you go out to the site as the property owner likes to be informed when people come to the site, also the site is fenced and he needs to open the gate. Let me know if you need anything else for your review. Email is the best way to contact me as I primarily work from home, however I am in the office on Thursdays from 10 am- 2 pm. Thank you! Jill Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Econornic Develoment City of Renton idinygrentonwa. gov Justin Lagers American Classic Homes, LLC Uiwoor of I xic4 Aryuisilion & n::+dopmcw tiC�i7 SF "ot]I tiIIccI S;IItt IJP ierrcr 11ant,_ %%,A I)SO40 lElicc. UPo-jhS-i I47 'ustin'�americanclassichomes.com w-,vw amcricanclassichomes corn W 03 w Z w U k Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 811 Utilities Underground Location Center (ID,MT,ND,OR,WA) OV WAt CQ `fes 0 1104 45232 IVAb D.R. STRONG CONSUL TING ENGINEERS ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 620 7TH A VENUE, KIRKLAND, WA 98033 0 425.827 3063 F 425.827 2423 NO. SE 1 4 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, Wo M. THEENCLA VE A T BRIDL E RIDGE REVISION BY I DATE SURVEYED: .siS DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN: YLP CHECKED: AP P R APPROVED: " Lit TREE REPLACEMENT CAL COLA TIONS TREES 5417, 5014, 6178, 6180 AND 6240 WERE REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TOTAL TREE INCHES REMOVED: 90 REQUIRED REPLACEMENT INCHES • 90 REPLACEMENT TREES WILL CONSIST OF MINIMUM 2" CALIPER TREES. 45 TOTAL ® THUJA PLICA TA WESTERN RED CEDAR 5 PSEUDO TSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR 40 REPLACEMENT TREES TO BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT/HOME CONSTRUCTION SCALE: VERTICAL: NAVD 1988 AS NOTED HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 AR CITY OE RENTON ONE INCH ■..w AT FULL SCALE Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. IF NOT ONE INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY PECEIVED JUL 1 8 2016 CITY OF aErvroN PLANNING DIVISION NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 1 INCH = 40 FT. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN U14005368 DATE: 07.14.16 FIELDBOOK: PAGE: DRS PROJECT N0. 13717 IAI-ININININIAIA v n 0- :z N \N 1r) EF) C) N Ld z LLJ LLJ U 0 ry 0- Ow"A 111CA: r1,01 LLj (.D 0 ry LLI Ld LLJ SE 1 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 2J N, RANGE 5 Ej W*M* 14 X� "1 9 THE ENCLA VE A T BRIDL E RIDGE 9, N' ("I F If Y T F'A"' IN .......... 0, 9* 77IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� f . ........ . vX 'j N 35q, Oq 88 *174 "W 70. 00 98Aj - '�. "I ".. 'I C ��' 70. Y%� IF[) I UU 12 13 T — R iSI n 18"Cmp ?'4 'j: i j D E, F 1"R CB I 11! 1 m IS" 1 c m P r 7 5: 1A . ...... .. . /i F? *10i ....w /Ymm' R K E I/ ...... z XIV t'i 0 T *I I Pvj c tI5 U G, 'I A'S: 'N. I0 [k] E F I ... . .......... PROJEC T CON TA C TS. o 1., 3t APPLICANT OWNER ................ PNW HOLDINGS, LLC ........................................... 75 SE 36TH STREET, SUITE 105 7 ....... 96 .................................................It MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON 98040 (206) 588-1147 .................................................. 7 JUSTIN LAGERS .................................................. CON TA C T. 2 .................... ..................... 566 S. F. q,986 S. F. N89 *J 1 '4 0�!W 5.50' 8,190CS. 190 S. F.' OI ...................... ....................... 620 77H AVENUE ..................................... ............. KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 9803J -J063 .TRACT "B" OPEN SPA CE ..................................... ............ (425) 827 1.92 MAHER A. joUDI,. P.E. CONTACT ... ..... .. . ......................... ........................ MAHER.LIOUDI@DRSTRONG.COM 490 S.F L .. . .. . ........ 16 ...... ...... 5 2 1, 68 01 N88*18"10" % 0 0 ...................................... 6 170. 00' .................................................. KIRKLAND WASHINGTON 98033 ............ 620 77H A VENUE 7 2,46.'10, w + 237,38 6. 8,34 .................................................. (425) 827-J06J . ................................................ ST CONTACT EPHEN SCHREI, P. L. S CN 00 .................................................. 26.5' .24 10-1 STEVE. SCHRE1@0RS` TRONG. COM -7 OP F? 00: 11+00 Woo R,, DA li+00 14+ 101.3 9 SHEET INDEX 26.5 CI 1 OF 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP C2 2 OF 10 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 64.53' C3 i OF 10 TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN 70.00 ING PLAN C5 5 OF 10 CONCEPTUAL ROADS AND GRAD 72 70.00 i o' 70.00 C4 4 OF 10 TREE TA BL E JO' FRON T " YARO. 2, 0 S. F. C6 6 OF 10 DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN SE TBA C K (TYP.)' 8,06 C7 7 OF 10 GENERALIZED UTILITIES PLAN C8 8 OF 10 ROAD PROFILE AND CROSS -SECTION -DETAIL F C9 9 OF 10 ROAD PROFILE AND CROSS-SECTION DETAIL 20' SIDE YA RD r STREET SETBACK CIO 10 OF 10 ROAD PROFILES LLj ypj.' L L 1 1 OF5 LANDSCAPE PLAN . . . . .......... . ... . 02' + 31 30 L2 2 OF 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN to LJ 3 OF 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 9,5J9 S. F. 8,050 S.F. L4 4 OF5 LANDSCAPE PLAN 16 8,050 S.F. 8,050 S. F. L5 5 OF5 ANDSCAPE PLAN 68 26" S. F NI 1 OF 1 SETBACK (TYP. NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP 5� SIDE YARD 1.8.0,52 L L L L TC 1 1 OF 1 PRELIA41NARY TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN . ... .. .. ...... 82.50 70- 7— 00 70.00 Q 70.00 L 75. 25' REAR YA RD 50 Oj_ 2.42" SE TBA CK (TYP.).. L . ...... ... 'o LLJ + ��'052 S. F. PAR F L I CEL 21 22 9, 264- S.F. PARCEL B ,Y, OF REM, 8,050 S. F. 56 s. F LOT LINE ADJUST4fE4T 8,681 S. F. 9,5JJ S. F RECORDING\NUMBE? L RECORDS OF KING U- I' 8,050 S. F 8'0 .5. DED11�4,T RECORDED UNDER .4 60' ?Ow1 L - ----- L 70.00 70. 00' F 22 zo. 00 75.56, 17 _e046 64.50 PARCEL B J wo T LO 1+00 KING�ICOL J2+00 3J+0O 11VTY + 1 34+00 17 TESTAMEN TAR YDI VISION J5+60 -NO. L08M0034, 4 2 12.51 REC. NO. 2008 26.5' .0 000 62.03 IL DO In -4 70. 75.00 60-45 ............. INI i" i i 8P 0,52 S. F' 'Ald ­­ '� 111. .1 -.1 ..5 Q) A .4 Al '�:.7,7.7 SD EASEMENT 7 19". PARCEL KEY MAP SCALE: 1 INCH 150 FT. A S. F 4 . L ... . ...... L 8,050 S. F. 5 18 9,251 . . . ......... I.A `�� 1 0) ':.. I ILd 8,625 S. F Q h, j 14 ...... .... 8,398 S. L0 F 26.5' 1 26.5 9,266 S.F. I + A LE�GAL DE5KRETION. PA RCEL A: ? T A, PARCEL B CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMEN RECORDED P, 12' 1 051 S. F. I 1� UNDER RECORDING NUMBER -------- RECORDS OF KING COUN TY, WA. Q) .......... .. Q _j _j N _j L PA RCEL B. LOT 8 OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED f 48' wo( . ............ AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY, + 70.00�' WASHINGTON. 80-00, A 6 "41 70. 00' L 755-00 7.3 oi j .11 � �:_.: �' " �.' I f j 340.57 82.54' BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST .q ' 71 QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M., KING 1,3 32 �v COUNTY WASHINGTON. 14 JIL s F LESS NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 440 FEET 'A IMA 1".. -4 A 70 r N� 71 yt; A 10, 4 79 S.F. ICT 'A"r 12 A, '11ii 13, + v . ......... .... ...... Is., IP S TORM DRA INA GE A SEMENT 32,174 S. F. u. 15' SID EA �j! 97 N F 0, 5'N 04 nwr%l i.v W1 ES 53 2 _1,X.97 742 "W 624.12 m N882 L. _j It, , ?� -1 ::: j I I i X (4j SE IJ2ND S T SE IJ4TH ST SE IJ5TH ST LAMPLEWOOD PARK SE IJ6TH ST 7 OPROJECT SITE ........... ............... SE 142ND S T K SE 144TH ST RON REGIS PARK SE 14'9 TH S T 00 SE JONES RD CEDAR RhER PARK VICINI TY MAP 1 1500 PROJEC T INFORMA TION: P%J (D F�Z-F H TOTAL EXISTING SITE AREA: J83,126 S.F (8.795 ACRES) TOTAL PROJECT AREA: 390,841 S.F. (8.972 ACRES) SITE ADDRESS. 140,38 156TH AVENUE SE REN TON, WA SHING TON TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 142JO5-9023, -9057, & -9122 PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS. EXISTINGIPROPOSED ZONING. R4 DENSITY PROPOSEDIPERMITTED: 4.4514.49 TRA C T "A TORM DRA INA GE TRA C T 32.174 S -F (0.739 ACRFS) LAND IN CRITICAL AREAS. LAND IN CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERS. LAND IN PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREETS. Si"' R tvi El SEWER DISTRICT - WA TER DISTRICT - SCHOOL DISTRICT. 12 13 T — R iSI n 18"Cmp ?'4 'j: i j D E, F 1"R CB I 11! 1 m IS" 1 c m P r 7 5: 1A . ...... .. . /i F? *10i ....w /Ymm' R K E I/ ...... z XIV t'i 0 T *I I Pvj c tI5 U G, 'I A'S: 'N. I0 [k] E F I ... . .......... PROJEC T CON TA C TS. o 1., 3t APPLICANT OWNER ................ PNW HOLDINGS, LLC ........................................... 75 SE 36TH STREET, SUITE 105 7 ....... 96 .................................................It MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON 98040 (206) 588-1147 .................................................. 7 JUSTIN LAGERS .................................................. CON TA C T. 2 .................... ..................... 566 S. F. q,986 S. F. N89 *J 1 '4 0�!W 5.50' 8,190CS. 190 S. F.' OI ...................... ....................... 620 77H AVENUE ..................................... ............. KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 9803J -J063 .TRACT "B" OPEN SPA CE ..................................... ............ (425) 827 1.92 MAHER A. joUDI,. P.E. CONTACT ... ..... .. . ......................... ........................ MAHER.LIOUDI@DRSTRONG.COM 490 S.F L .. . .. . ........ 16 ...... ...... 5 2 1, 68 01 N88*18"10" % 0 0 ...................................... 6 170. 00' .................................................. KIRKLAND WASHINGTON 98033 ............ 620 77H A VENUE 7 2,46.'10, w + 237,38 6. 8,34 .................................................. (425) 827-J06J . ................................................ ST CONTACT EPHEN SCHREI, P. L. S CN 00 .................................................. 26.5' .24 10-1 STEVE. SCHRE1@0RS` TRONG. COM -7 OP F? 00: 11+00 Woo R,, DA li+00 14+ 101.3 9 SHEET INDEX 26.5 CI 1 OF 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP C2 2 OF 10 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 64.53' C3 i OF 10 TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN 70.00 ING PLAN C5 5 OF 10 CONCEPTUAL ROADS AND GRAD 72 70.00 i o' 70.00 C4 4 OF 10 TREE TA BL E JO' FRON T " YARO. 2, 0 S. F. C6 6 OF 10 DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN SE TBA C K (TYP.)' 8,06 C7 7 OF 10 GENERALIZED UTILITIES PLAN C8 8 OF 10 ROAD PROFILE AND CROSS -SECTION -DETAIL F C9 9 OF 10 ROAD PROFILE AND CROSS-SECTION DETAIL 20' SIDE YA RD r STREET SETBACK CIO 10 OF 10 ROAD PROFILES LLj ypj.' L L 1 1 OF5 LANDSCAPE PLAN . . . . .......... . ... . 02' + 31 30 L2 2 OF 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN to LJ 3 OF 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 9,5J9 S. F. 8,050 S.F. L4 4 OF5 LANDSCAPE PLAN 16 8,050 S.F. 8,050 S. F. L5 5 OF5 ANDSCAPE PLAN 68 26" S. F NI 1 OF 1 SETBACK (TYP. NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP 5� SIDE YARD 1.8.0,52 L L L L TC 1 1 OF 1 PRELIA41NARY TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN . ... .. .. ...... 82.50 70- 7— 00 70.00 Q 70.00 L 75. 25' REAR YA RD 50 Oj_ 2.42" SE TBA CK (TYP.).. L . ...... ... 'o LLJ + ��'052 S. F. PAR F L I CEL 21 22 9, 264- S.F. PARCEL B ,Y, OF REM, 8,050 S. F. 56 s. F LOT LINE ADJUST4fE4T 8,681 S. F. 9,5JJ S. F RECORDING\NUMBE? L RECORDS OF KING U- I' 8,050 S. F 8'0 .5. DED11�4,T RECORDED UNDER .4 60' ?Ow1 L - ----- L 70.00 70. 00' F 22 zo. 00 75.56, 17 _e046 64.50 PARCEL B J wo T LO 1+00 KING�ICOL J2+00 3J+0O 11VTY + 1 34+00 17 TESTAMEN TAR YDI VISION J5+60 -NO. L08M0034, 4 2 12.51 REC. NO. 2008 26.5' .0 000 62.03 IL DO In -4 70. 75.00 60-45 ............. INI i" i i 8P 0,52 S. F' 'Ald ­­ '� 111. .1 -.1 ..5 Q) A .4 Al '�:.7,7.7 SD EASEMENT 7 19". PARCEL KEY MAP SCALE: 1 INCH 150 FT. A S. F 4 . L ... . ...... L 8,050 S. F. 5 18 9,251 . . . ......... I.A `�� 1 0) ':.. I ILd 8,625 S. F Q h, j 14 ...... .... 8,398 S. L0 F 26.5' 1 26.5 9,266 S.F. I + A LE�GAL DE5KRETION. PA RCEL A: ? T A, PARCEL B CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMEN RECORDED P, 12' 1 051 S. F. I 1� UNDER RECORDING NUMBER -------- RECORDS OF KING COUN TY, WA. Q) .......... .. Q _j _j N _j L PA RCEL B. LOT 8 OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED f 48' wo( . ............ AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY, + 70.00�' WASHINGTON. 80-00, A 6 "41 70. 00' L 755-00 7.3 oi j .11 � �:_.: �' " �.' I f j 340.57 82.54' BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST .q ' 71 QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W M., KING 1,3 32 �v COUNTY WASHINGTON. 14 JIL s F LESS NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 440 FEET 'A IMA 1".. -4 A 70 r N� 71 yt; A 10, 4 79 S.F. ICT 'A"r 12 A, '11ii 13, + v . ......... .... ...... Is., IP S TORM DRA INA GE A SEMENT 32,174 S. F. u. 15' SID EA �j! 97 N F 0, 5'N 04 nwr%l i.v W1 ES 53 2 _1,X.97 742 "W 624.12 m N882 L. _j It, , ?� -1 ::: j I I i X (4j SE IJ2ND S T SE IJ4TH ST SE IJ5TH ST LAMPLEWOOD PARK SE IJ6TH ST 7 OPROJECT SITE ........... ............... SE 142ND S T K SE 144TH ST RON REGIS PARK SE 14'9 TH S T 00 SE JONES RD CEDAR RhER PARK VICINI TY MAP 1 1500 PROJEC T INFORMA TION: P%J (D F�Z-F H TOTAL EXISTING SITE AREA: J83,126 S.F (8.795 ACRES) TOTAL PROJECT AREA: 390,841 S.F. (8.972 ACRES) SITE ADDRESS. 140,38 156TH AVENUE SE REN TON, WA SHING TON TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 142JO5-9023, -9057, & -9122 PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS. EXISTINGIPROPOSED ZONING. R4 DENSITY PROPOSEDIPERMITTED: 4.4514.49 TRA C T "A TORM DRA INA GE TRA C T 32.174 S -F (0.739 ACRFS) LAND IN CRITICAL AREAS. LAND IN CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERS. LAND IN PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREETS. LAND IN PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS. SEWER DISTRICT - WA TER DISTRICT - SCHOOL DISTRICT. 0 S. F. 0 SF 79,419 S.F. (1.823 ACRES) 0 S. F. CITY OF REN TON WATER DISTRICT 90 REN TON iff40J + FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED 0 FOUND CORNER A40NUMENT AS AS NOTED. ClD ROCKERY STREET LIGHT WA TER VAL VE [11 WATER METER CATCH BASIN SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DECIDUOUS TREE EVERGREEN TREE, F=FIR, C=CEDAR VBF VERTICAL BOARD FENCE H WF HOG WIRE FENCE !R- SOIL BORING, RN HA -2 - &�. L\ &x A% EDGE OF PA VEMEN T N C:) F:;ZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII`F U a T 7. GRAPHIC SCALE LP �:II RA4j ��,',:TEMPORAR Y Tq,�14 LZ 0 20 40 80 FE N I,"" Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 811 Utilities Underground Location Center (ID,MT,ND,0R,WA) A. !�o :W:A87� 45232 10NA1, HOJ,DINGS LLC D.R. STRONG F7., CONSUL TING ENGINEERS ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS W� X '.I 775 620 7TH AVENUE, KIRKLAND, WA 98033 0 425.827.3063 F 425.827.2423 AMUUNL) LA.5t-WIN I % 1 INCH 40 FT. SVRVEYED: SCALE: sis DESIGNED: AS NOTED YLP DRAWN: QHH ONE INCH CHECKED. AT FULL MAJ IF NOT ONE INCH NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR APPROVED: SCALE ACCORDINGLY VERTICAL: NAVID 1988 HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 41,106 CITY OF RENTON Plan nii ng/Building/Pu blic Works Dept. NOTE FOR L1."fq'vE"11_D%T1F1CAT10N OF SUR VEY ON THE TOPOGRAPHY AND BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY BY D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE R11UG"E.,17-1 PRELIMINARY PLAT FEB 27 PRF1 IMINARY P1 AT P1 AN CITY OF Rr.Ny(), III PLANNINC, DIViSION DRS PROJECT NO. 13117 DATE: 02.26.14 FIELIDBOM PAGE: DMWING NO: C1 u1ii: 1 10 Al-ININININIAIA X X x X x TRANSFORMER N. ELECT CABINET S. Op^ 1 2 3 SE 1/4 SECTION 74, TOWNSHIP 23' N, RANGE 5 E .1 Wo M. THE ENCLA VE A T BRIDL E RIDGE 4 5 6 , WILLIAM'S SUNNY SLOPES f I I 1 OL. 73, PG. 73 CONC. WALL IS SHED EAVE IS ON R i FOUND TYP 0.2'S. OF ' 'f12 FENCE IS SHED E VE IS ( ) FEN E CORNER IS FENCE IS 0j LF,2'E, x 0.3'N, OF .3'W. OF 1,0'S. OF R.M45W FE1. OF SHED CORNER IS 0.1 N. OF R PROP CORNER FENCE CORNER IS 0.4'N: OF FENCE IS CARPORT EAVEFOUND 1-1 2" IP 0.1 N. x 0.5'W. OF PROP CORNER ° ryw ,� 5'CLFDF X 5 CLF `" 0.€9 S. OF N8 ` 7. M1.2'N. OF 0.1'S. x 0.0'E. 30'ONL S=398.01= � °14"D � �- A213.73' 5'CLF � OF PROP CORNER ONC N=397.42 SHED 5 "WDF FENCE CORNER IS cw » 16 » -- FENCE CORNER I S ` �� � �`� `.,,� �" `� �, �� 15'rD ".o w �- "� (� „p ` ° 'S..`WI F �" r . w r r 0.2 S. OF r48 Ir 36 i�0 „ 8 D == 6 r 14 F Q/ ON �- Uy `.v o .2 "F 10 r.12» D„"I'D »p O , „ II " 40 F D » r 04010 D °. 48 F I' FENCE IS ( HOUSE 20"F . „ `�" '-' 1 8. 8'L? 8 ° 0.7'W. OF F„ 8 D 17F rSD6 ` W LQ" z2„F ` �' x W »p 4PVC r. �„f„F .1 M EGD „ FENCE COR. 0.1'W. OF T STAND PIPE ..16 8 p „ 10 Q "NO PARKING" , FOUND TYP 0.2'E. OF `22_'F �• 18"F` , c� 0 "p ° ° ,;� 0 D pip 8`'p, ° "24 F • 216E z "STOP AHEAD" WIRES DOWN N. TRANSFORMER S. ELECT CABINET S. OP -- (T � '1 „p )01 °- WIF�._ --- 4'UGDF-t{ 26 F„ `, ° ` 10„F 6 D 1'F� ;10 F �� „ �D; p.,,o FENCE IS f 1 ` 1 ¢ "p °,°� .A N88'17'43"W 41 p, 0 �--' ; ---�-- D , 6» 16 D r „ 18 F B..F 7.1 W. OF R ,# -6 D.12"F° 8==dry r\ y ;---. ,o 8,ap C), „ p r 10» 6 A8D y 8F ` r 1 2"D ,�9�.88'18�► � `, \ 24 D „ � '� »�Ir� � ° 8" 1 I , 6 ` " r (� "Q 16 F 20"F . ° `. /� 1�, r 24F� rr r X10 SD 2$D 8, �' �� _ 20"F` », a"F r� °� `� FOUND (TYP} » 8„p r , 12"D r �6 F „ r 44'F °' ,12„ �,q0 �� . AT PROP CORNER �3rS„F16 r 1+ M �26„F ` 22,,,E ,` `, ¢»F� w - /1 1 M _ ~, 15„ » 10"D 6 p 1 (iQ „D'� d ; F - �. t 4 ui �'' p"F r' 4`� 6 D b , „F , FENCE CORNER IS w - °� 24 W18�' 6 F „ , `27� „r='D „p „ OF R 16F. �2F 6F 36F 34F L »� _ r� 28"F j8"D »� 0»F ��, 20"F � � � r 14=� "F O��6 „ �} 4 � rr °� "F . �� �� �r `� s,.p °.� �p F,p 18"D ° F 412 r t, o r „ 18 =1F 18 F . e 8' » 11 8F z N �s.Hb M m p � �, 24 r „ 1 F 1 =F „�`a » 16'; �'p) A 1 6" 34 "F 0 26 "F 39 i N a 8 F0 8 F 24 F 6 6 D04 , »` , ti 8 i8"F 12" "F 127,2270 1i� �► „ 1 r 1 1 O F „ F 1$>>F `} -6. F 12"p „ o f U_ 30 F "8 F 12 F „ r 8 =_ 28 F „ 4 26 "F "¢ "F » ` `� F ,l „ f ° �� 32 F .� I 16 F 1 F`� 1 F8 0 i 388 , . 1 "F ]0„F 24„ , N, r 4'"F_ " M.. 18 F 26 F 1 F 1 'F " 28"F , 24'Ft 1 10"F ti r r r WDF END » 'ti 6 F 3 „F `� 4*20»F Y1"F cc r ' PARCEL, A �12 D r r ` ` M � 1 0.5E OF , � x-08 .� vw w., w.. 34 F co r �`� 20 F ° ' r 4, �` r `\.56 "F 28 "F, S` F 36"F 'IF -- I i PARCEL,13 CITY OF REN TO `, `, `' A' , 22 .386-_Y.___� _ rLOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1¢„F16, ! 22 F � r S ' 16='D RECOF PED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER - �`A ' , '0 1 ----, 'IF F r RECORDS OF KING`' COUNTY, WA. , ti 1 I 4, ti ,,: �• 24" o- 12"PVC 4"F cp I I 5-382.98 �. r '` �Olt.!,„` r 1 22F "NO PARKING" o ¥ F " - 6 M rr r �� t 26 "F o 12 PVC 1,4=382'74 1S,¢»FL to 34 t LJ '- 1 p� PARCEL B° __ ° ` 1 f r .. _ ■ F FENCE IS 16"D ,� `.# � ,� 14" " ,.. 8„p (2)8=,p 0.2'W. OF R 0 VERIZON All CABINET 1 ° LOT B 6"F m "° KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY \DIVISION 26'�F 22" '1 'F "25 MPH'' -- `, � ., N0. L08�100�34, �� r .» �� 10„F "� { 3 � „ ---� OP .... r > REC. NO. 26080812900004 t' "F 8„F 8�F WOOD DEBRIS ��� w 22" 12 F „ 0 -In 12"CONC S=379. 4 r #�` SHEDra r° , ' `8,►F „� 2 A 6"CPP SSE=378.67 �_ .M.N., a 28" ,s .� .� 22 F FENCE IS r .. �6„F e r� �. � `� � m.... -14"F 0.1'E. OF C B T-- r� r ., 12"'F e . _ .• q 36"F 18 ==F- ` ,,, 4 "F o X 16 2F 10 F` RIM=378.6 1 '� 3'WDF bgry p h.,.. `� -18$OF WOOD r n . 18"CMP N=375. 1 Iy v.. \,24' DEBRIS „ 15 F 18"CMP SE=375.64 147E _ �. _ 10 ,18 F0 8 F _� "TO 169" Y, r (236#,F8 a . 2 F r , ,DEER X -I I 42„F � HOUSE � �1 � .... .uM W.".� a � �� ,. '�. � ` -...� °``� �. `���, FENCE IS MC IMTIRE HOMESITES "25 M H" '= 10 ,12"14,"D ' 34 F 6 F- M 0.1'W. OF R VOL. 58, PG. 82, CB T-1 a- � �� 24'F � � ..�. t ..`• �: � M . REC. NO. 4807436 RiM-37 .49 ` 24"F �„ `� ° r n r 6"F _ w ` 24 F,a 34 F r a'F 48 F GARAGE WOOD r r ` r 12"CONC N=3 3.449E„ DEBRIS w " �r 28"F w 24"F oil 18"CMP NW= 73.14 »F) 30 F „ 18"CMP S=373.14 \\ � � "F.,. r �. , w _ .� �. �..� Z �FF , �. � °� ,, ��, a � rr `` ; `' �- � `r „ I�„ r 1 F STOP 16 E >6 � HORSE 'S �40 F 32„F " WATER B OW OFF r, 30 F �. y . F r 1r ,, 1S F 6 F - TRAILER ,rr WF n,.4 20 F 18-0 » 24 F �' r 24 F OVER AD ST P LIGHTS 2 F 6='p T (2)8 ,1D D 34 2.4"F f f e I .32'F CONC R MARKE 40"F 8'F f WELL/PUMP/SHED ' _ . " �� .- f FOUND CONCRETE MO MENT � �`�w(D,36-O0.. �... 1©F 2 1 WITH PUNCHED 3/8" 8R SS PLUG, Q �, O 181"F 10 F „ ��,� ]0"D- ' _ f D12 36 Dry �, �,t ,15'FDOWN 1.2 IN MON ENT CASE� -o�„14 F 36 D � ravlFOUND (TYP) 0.3 N. x 0,1 E.� � , � � � D ,FENCE IS 0.5'N'. OFR o OF PROP CORNER @20"D 12 Fr ,20" I r ' D.0 WIRES DOWN N. N88'27'42"W fi �� ' ' 5'WDF i i ,' 22"F 24"F }f 1 f ELECT CABINET N. 24.12 „ I2F 20F » 30 F 12"F 8"F D F 2"F OP 107F FENCE IS FENCE IS Q OP 12"CONC N=371.67 0.3'N. OF 0.3'N. OFR FOUND (TYP) 0.1'W. O,o j CB T-1 OF PROP CORNER ~_ RIM=372.91 12"CONC E=370.21 p�AC r 18 CMP N=370.01 �Z�D STOP N 18"CMP S=370.01 P TELE. COMM. o SE o 01 • CABINENT z • WIRES DOWN E. °- _ TRANSFORMER W. ' o ,1 I MA TCHLINE, SEE RIGHT Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 811 Utilities Underground Location Center UD,MT,ND,QR,WA) A. J0 � 0 WASk�.�^.�j f, f � R 45232 jONAi, REVISION SURVEYED: Osis DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN: QHH CHECKED: BY DATE AP P R APPROVE SCALE: AS NOTED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT ONE INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY LEGEND: FOUND MONUMENT AS NO TED Q FOUND CORNER MONUMENT AS AS NOTED. C�D ROCKERY �-- STREET LIGHT m WA TER VAL VE ® WATER METER ® CATCH BASIN SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DECIDUOUS TREE EVERGREEN TREE, F=FIR, C=CEDAR VBF VERTICAL BOARD FENCE HWF HOG WIRE FENCE !R- SOIL BORING, RN HA -2 EDGE OF PA VEMEN T MA TCHLINE, SEE LEFT ,1 ,1 � � f � I i SDCB RIM=371.38 18"CMP E,S=367.30 SDCB RIM=373.56 It 10 SDCB RIM=370.44 �_18"RCMP N=367.71 18".CMP E=357.68 18"CMP:W.=367 64 . T 1AI - , I SE .1 43RD,S'TTREET �t NF, • II 5 1 i � 5 18 CMP N= 366.37 18"CMP S=366.35 } t ' � 1 A/1 1 f f f SS ,� ' SDCB RIM=370.38 RIM=369.51 POWER �, �� W/ 24" CMP STAND PIPE VAULT 12"RCP E=N/A s _ 18"CMP SE= 364.11 18"CMP W=364.07 SSMH1 SE 144TH STREET RIM=369.39 8"N,NW=355.89 2"CTR CHANNEL=355.29 FOUND 4"x4" CONCRETE MONUM 12"E (IN) WITH PUNCHED 2" BRASS DISK, 12"S (OUT) STAMPED "LS 38892" DOWN 0.7' IN MONUMENT CASE VERTICAL: NAVD 1988 HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 CITY OF RENTON rrr� Planning/Building/Public Warks Dept, LEGAL DESCRIP TION: PARCEL A: PARCEL B CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ---------- RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER ------- RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA. PARCEL B. LOT B OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY WASHINGTON: LESS NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 440 FEET. SUR V/EYOR'S NO TES: 1. ALL TITLE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ORDER NO. 4220-2173612 DATED OCTOBER 30, 2013. IN PREPARING THIS MAP, D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC HAS CONDUCTED NO INDEPENDENT TITLE SEARCH NOR IS D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. AWARE OF ANY TITLE ISSUES AFFECTING THE SURVEYED PROPERTY OTHER THAN .THOSE SHOWN ON THE MAP AND DISCLOSED BY REFERENCED FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT. D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. HAS RELIED WHOLLY ON FIRST AMERICAN TT TLE COMPANY REPRESEN TA TIONS OF THE TITLE'S CONDI TION TO PREPARE THIS SURVEY AND THEREFORE D.R. STRONG CONSUL TING ENGINEERS INC. QUALIFIES THE MAP'S ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS TO THAT EXTENT. 2. THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS VISIBLE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT CONDI TIONS EXISTING ON JANUARY 31, 2014, ALL SURVEY CONTROL INDICATED AS "FOUND" WAS RECOVERED FOR THIS PROJECT IN JANUARY, 2014. J. PROPERTY AREA = 383,126.± SQUARE FEET (8.7954± ACRES). 4. ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET. 5. THIS IS A FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY. A LEICA FIVE SECOND COMBINED ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION WAS USED TO MEASURE THE ANGULAR AND DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE CONTROLLING MONUMEN TA TION AS SHOWN. CLOSURE RATIOS OF THE TRAVERSE MET .OR EXCEEDED THOSE SPECIFIED IN WAC 332-130-090. ALL MEASURING INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT ARE MAINTAINED IN ADJUSTMENT ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 6. UTILITIES OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST ON THIS SITE. ONLY THOSE UTILITIES WITH EVIDENCE OF THEIR INSTALLATION VISIBLE AT GROUND SURFACE ARE SHOWN HEREON. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY UNDERGROUND CONNECTIONS ARE SHOWN AS STRAIGHT LINES BETWEEN SURFACE UTILITY LOCATIONS BUT MAY CONTAIN BENDS OR CURVES NOT SHOWN, SOME UNDERGROUND L OCA TIONS SHOWN HEREON MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM PUBLIC RECORDS D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF PUBLIC RECORDS. REFERENCES: 1. KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO. L08M0034, RECORDED AUGUST UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20080812900004. 2. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN VOLUME 105 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 3, UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9508099008, VER TI CAL DA TUM: NA VO 88 PER CITY OF RENTON VERTICAL CONTROL BENCHMARK.- RK.• 1. CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT NO. 2127, CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH PUNCHED 1-1/2" BRASS DISK, DOWN 0.7' IN MONUMENT CASE AT THE INTERSECTION OF SE 142ND STREET AND 148TH PLACE SE. ELEVATION = 363.697 FEET. (PUBLISHED ELEVATION = 110.855 METERS) 2. CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT NO. 2103: PUNCHED BRASS PLUG SET IN CONCRETE FLUSH WITH ROAD SURFACE AT THE INTERSECTION OF SE. 128TH STREET AND 156TH AVENUE SE. AKA THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 14-23-5, ELEVATION = 547.94 FEET. J. Cl TY OF REN TON CONTROL POINT NO. 1909: CONCRETE MONUMENT WI TH TACK IN LEAD PLUG A T THE IN TERSEC TION OF SE. 139TH ST. AND 156TH AVENUE SE., ELEVATION = 372.34 FEET. HORIZON TA DA TUM: NAD 1983/91 PER CITY OF RENTON MONUMENTS. BASIS OF BEARINGS: N88'37'40 "W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14-2J-5 PER KING COUNTY SURVEY CONTROL POINTS 3763 AND 3764. TITLE RESTRICTIONS: 1. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO FACILITY CHARGES, IF ANY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOOK --UP, OR CONNECTION CHARGES AND LATECOMER CHARGES FOR SEWER, WATER AND PUBLIC FACILITIES OF CITY OF RENTON AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20091105000541. 2. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL OFFERS OF DEDICATION, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, FENCE LINE/BOUNDARY. DISCREPANCIES, NOTES AND/OR PROVISIONS SHOWN OR DISCLOSED BY SHORT PLAT OR PLAT OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DI VISION NO. L08M0034 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20080812900004. NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 25 50 100 1 INCH = 50 FT. NOTE FOR CERTIFICATION OF SURI/EY INFORMATION THE TOPOGRAPHY AND BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY BY D.R. STRONG CONSUL 7ING ENGINEERS. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RID ,�� ozzs.i< PRELIMINARY PLAT RCFIX U=�)^EL°a°°^ PAGE - TOPOGRAPHY MAP FEB � � a',�DRAWING NO. citvo�,eN;c,S:cz PIANNIN6 UiVI51UI�'l sx E.. z OF: 10 DRS PROJECT N0. 13117 A - NIN N NIAIA SE 1 4 . ........ .. 3 w /3 r. r, +„ � THE xI'L "A."): I(` N= X,....., F L Ld Q 0 z C) F- L O n Llj m SECTION 14., TOWNSHIP 23 N, NCLA VE A/ BRI, REVISION RANGE 5 SURVEYED: sis DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN: WHH CHECKED: MAJ BY DATE AP P R APPROVE" E, W.M. 'IDG 24 225 6226 RCITY OE RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. TREE RETENTION CAL CULA TIONS TO TA TREES ON SI TE: 303 DEAD, DISEASED OR DANGEROUS TREES: 57 TREES IN RIGHT—OF—WAY- 46 TREES IN PRI VA TE ACCESS EA SEMEN TS/TRAC TS: 0 TREES IN CRITICAL AREAS AND BUFFERS: 0 NET TREES. • 200 TREES TO BE RETAINED, REQUIRED: (200 X 0.3) = 60 TREES TO BE RETAINED, PROPOSED: 35 REQUIRED REPLACEMENT INCHES 300 REPLACEMENT TREES WILL CONSIST OF MINIMUM 2" CALIPER TREES. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS TESC LEGEND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS &HIGH VISIBILITY PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION FENCE TREES TO 8E REMOVED TREES TO BE SAVED =='Y DEAD, DISEASED OR DANGEROUS TREES: (PER ARBORIST REPORT) NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 1 INCH = 40 FT. DATE: THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE R,--'.ID"�P 02.26.14 PRELIMINARY P ( _ j j� FIE`DBOOK: i_._ � L 0 14 PAGE: TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PL DRAWING NO: CIT '` f ; TON C3 PLANN1 �}~ I1[ �� 1� ���+ SHEET: OF - 3 10 DRS PROJECT N0. 13117 IAI-ININININIAIA .I ..t k..�x._ 1 �_ l i e RCITY OE RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. TREE RETENTION CAL CULA TIONS TO TA TREES ON SI TE: 303 DEAD, DISEASED OR DANGEROUS TREES: 57 TREES IN RIGHT—OF—WAY- 46 TREES IN PRI VA TE ACCESS EA SEMEN TS/TRAC TS: 0 TREES IN CRITICAL AREAS AND BUFFERS: 0 NET TREES. • 200 TREES TO BE RETAINED, REQUIRED: (200 X 0.3) = 60 TREES TO BE RETAINED, PROPOSED: 35 REQUIRED REPLACEMENT INCHES 300 REPLACEMENT TREES WILL CONSIST OF MINIMUM 2" CALIPER TREES. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS TESC LEGEND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS &HIGH VISIBILITY PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION FENCE TREES TO 8E REMOVED TREES TO BE SAVED =='Y DEAD, DISEASED OR DANGEROUS TREES: (PER ARBORIST REPORT) NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 1 INCH = 40 FT. DATE: THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE R,--'.ID"�P 02.26.14 PRELIMINARY P ( _ j j� FIE`DBOOK: i_._ � L 0 14 PAGE: TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PL DRAWING NO: CIT '` f ; TON C3 PLANN1 �}~ I1[ �� 1� ���+ SHEET: OF - 3 10 DRS PROJECT N0. 13117 IAI-ININININIAIA .I ..t k..�x._ 1 �_ l n W Q z 3 U ti W W I 0 Vl 0 rn Q 4 N 0 N tai z LU 019" On: �0 Fag X x x Lij 0 0 Li -i 0 Q� m Ld Ld Lij Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 811 Utilities Underground Location Center (lD,MT,ND,0R,WA) A. J, I wash 45232 t IONAL MY SE N SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 Ej W.M. 1110 0# A ilk "ABINE" J �%fil R E S n�, tt�4 T,10 PAR,K: r I 1 -- SE 114 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 Ej W.M. 1110 0# A HL L1vL;LA VL A LfKIL)LL KILIUL tr),34-1, 41 0 C L -3 .... . .......... . . . . . . .. .... .. ...... . .... < C A 4R Vw N,98,7743., Ni 0' Iq .. ........ '12 ,T .... ...... .... C . ..... N ER 1 6 $7, Z --7 j 7, F ".0 F . 8 Op H'i. yp YJ 2 3. 12,566 S.F. - "W 5.50 '986 S.F. N89 '31 '4 61', 81190 SF 1.,4 11. 0 '4129. 0 N Of' -G 418 0 J� j FG 8190 S.F. FG� 00 % N "., E 7.. xz "n 7 17 0, 4 J 9 z x I A �hl, 1Z N88'1 0 8 110 "If 246.101 7 F. 346 S." FG 415. 0 r10 00 n wKD ID .. .... ........ - : , I , , . 1�,. .1 1 1 1 - . 1. .. , :. �� � I.... - . .......... . — : n - I � I .. - I . 1. . 1, "I 171..� W.: ca w 0. TW j86. 0 '4;' 6.. i W` 382. 0 7N, T m 380. 0 9 08 0 qw L �! �E as j .... .. . .......... . 1110 0# A ca w 0. TW j86. 0 '4;' 6.. i W` 382. 0 7N, T m 380. 0 9 08 0 qw L �! �E as j .... .. . .......... . ilk "ABINE" J �%fil R E S n�, tt�4 HOLDINGS LLC N J t I j .0D 4—m• rn D.R. STRONG CONSUL TING ENGINEERS ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 620 7TH AVENUE, KIRKLAND, WA 98033 0 425.827, 3063 F425.827,2423 NO. REVISION SURVEYED: sis DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN; QHH CHECKED; MAJ BY DATE APPR APPROVED: MAJ S CALE: AS NOTED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT ONE INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY VERTICAL,, NAVD 1988 HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 •. CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. CUT VOLUME (CU. YDS.) 4,495 FILL VOL UME (CU. YDS.) 36,888 uLa TIONS NET VOLUME (CU. YDS.) 32, 393 FILL *THESE VOLUME CALCULATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD USE THEIR OWN CALCULATIONS FOR CONSTRUC77ON PURPOSES. SITE A REA - 383,127 S.F. (8.795 ACRES) AREA OF WORK. J90,841 S.F. (8.972 ACRES) 1. ALL SURPLUS SOILS SHALL BE EXPORTED TO AN APPROVED DROP OFF SITE. 2. FILL NEEDED IN EXCESS OF ONSITE SOIL SHALL BE IMPORTED FROM AN APPROVED SOURCE AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 215 50 100 I INCH = 50 FT. DATE: THE ENCLAVE AkT BRIDLE RIDMCEIVEE 02-26-14 PRELIMINARY PLATFIELDBOOK: FEB 2 7 2014 PAGE; CONCEPTUAL ROAD. AND GRADING PLAN DRAWING NO. CITY OF RENTOP; C5 PLANNING DIVISION SHEET- OF: 5 10 DRS PROJECT NO. 13117 AI—ININININIAIA x x x —i 0 cl� m Q - Ln -t Q) Q C3 C3 I-) N CA Z LLJ -i LL Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 811 Utilities Underground Location Center (ID,MT,ND,OR,WA) X M L ! %A[ hK X M L ! %A[ tX A. JOWAs Al 46232 -w virlirw wiww F"! 2 C 'j X n P, S� E j R SE 1 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 2J N, RANGE 5 E 14 W. M. THE ENCLA LEA1 BRIDLE., RIDGE fL'' "J: N --A V� I j i C) i S F- f,'-" ................ .... .... ... ... -17, C T 011 IkK -k E N ;T 5, "T START UPSTREAM C) 0, BYPASS, --l" N3, €.. f II '� ' ` � �° � a'�t, � f # � � �°" � ` , 3 � . s'n 4.�...f'.. \ '�N.) 4 00' F. L f A', F n J'4 Ns W ki"Ii: r ..... .......... ....... ....... I CD R, wm .................. y 4 .......... .. ........ ............ 26 x ........... g:: 6 f" .............. f J 'A".. .. ..... . . .... .. ...... 4 Al A. fu 4 5 k YZ �"/l qu, . . . . . . . .. . . . . "g:4 4 'q 'i:�;Ii 4. i% . j.-- �. ;;: ............ n a ........ . :1 Pl' g: ................ . zjl�l'gg.p ... ......... ";g J1 a M HOLDINGS LLC D.R. STRONG .CONSUL TING ENGINEE145 ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 620 7TH AVENUE, KIRKLAND, WA 98033 0 425,827,3063 F 425.627.2423 SURVEYED: sis DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN: QHH CHECKED: NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR APPROVED: I I I hw SCALE: AS NOTED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT ONE INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY VERTICAL: NAVD 1988 HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 TEN TION SUMMARY SHEET ... CITY OFT RE�JTON Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 1 1 �m =Omni 1 INCH = 40 FT. DATE: THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RI-�)LGEEO\/Ep 02-26.14 PRELIMINARY PLAT FIELDBOOK: DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN FDRAWING NO: CITY OF RENTON C6 PLANNING DIVISION -SHEET: OF: 1 6 10 DRS PROJECT NO. 13117 LAI—ININININIAIA M L ! %A[ 3. . j . . . . . . . . . . . • .... ...... I V A B A. JOWAs Al 46232 -w virlirw wiww F"! 2 C 'j X n P, S� E j R SE 1 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 2J N, RANGE 5 E 14 W. M. THE ENCLA LEA1 BRIDLE., RIDGE fL'' "J: N --A V� I j i C) i S F- f,'-" ................ .... .... ... ... -17, C T 011 IkK -k E N ;T 5, "T START UPSTREAM C) 0, BYPASS, --l" N3, €.. f II '� ' ` � �° � a'�t, � f # � � �°" � ` , 3 � . s'n 4.�...f'.. \ '�N.) 4 00' F. L f A', F n J'4 Ns W ki"Ii: r ..... .......... ....... ....... I CD R, wm .................. y 4 .......... .. ........ ............ 26 x ........... g:: 6 f" .............. f J 'A".. .. ..... . . .... .. ...... 4 Al A. fu 4 5 k YZ �"/l qu, . . . . . . . .. . . . . "g:4 4 'q 'i:�;Ii 4. i% . j.-- �. ;;: ............ n a ........ . :1 Pl' g: ................ . zjl�l'gg.p ... ......... ";g J1 a M HOLDINGS LLC D.R. STRONG .CONSUL TING ENGINEE145 ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 620 7TH AVENUE, KIRKLAND, WA 98033 0 425,827,3063 F 425.627.2423 SURVEYED: sis DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN: QHH CHECKED: NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR APPROVED: I I I hw SCALE: AS NOTED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT ONE INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY VERTICAL: NAVD 1988 HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 TEN TION SUMMARY SHEET ... CITY OFT RE�JTON Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 1 1 �m =Omni 1 INCH = 40 FT. DATE: THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RI-�)LGEEO\/Ep 02-26.14 PRELIMINARY PLAT FIELDBOOK: DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN FDRAWING NO: CITY OF RENTON C6 PLANNING DIVISION -SHEET: OF: 1 6 10 DRS PROJECT NO. 13117 LAI—ININININIAIA X xx LLJ Li < 0 0 0 LEGEND ■ mm' TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN ... .. .... ....... . JQ TYPE 2 CATCH BASIN .. ... . ....... .... .. . SEWER MANHOLE WA TER TEE -Q 2 )1k FIRE HYDRANT N WATER METER H GA TE- VALVE W4 TER BEND 5 4j x E. z GR 2' 0) 'I 853Clvff" N I Z�' W A "I"EI 2) V) bey 3; M A -j. b, El' EN 1" f Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 811 Utilities Underground Location Center (lD,MT,ND,0R,WA) MA TCHLINE., SEE RIGHT � o AsH � 4,, 45232 IONAL rip SE 1/4 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 2J N., RANGE 5 E W.M. A V Cff THE ENCLA I/EA T BR/DLE R/DGS SURVEYED: sis DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN: QHH CHECKED: r NO, REVISION BY DATE APPR 777ROVED: SCALE: AS NOTED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT ONE INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY VERTICAL- NAVO 1988 HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 r MA TCHLW vi'j I � �— J� 5 S ""r. Z la -. CITY O F PENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. SEE LEFT .. ............. . .............. vl E 2 1:.110t A tvl P E '[--i1:3) D \.% (""'. _7' 1� 1' 1,1 7 I M J '2- j SE 143RD ST . .............. vl E • A tvl P E '[--i1:3) D \.% (""'. _7' 1� 1' 1,1 • J b 5" 7r, �7 W/ 24" M F' S"'A 11 1 E SE 143RD ST SE 144TH ST . .............. vl E • A tvl P E '[--i1:3) D \.% (""'. _7' 1� 1' 1,1 • W/ 24" M F' S"'A 11 1 E 2 N SE 144TH ST NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 1 1 -- -- NE11011 1 INCH = 40 FT. UAIr: THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RID�"E��EI�E[) 02.26.14 PRELIMINARY PLAT"E`°B°°":FED 2 7 2014 PAGE: GENERALIZED UTILITIES PLAN DRAWING NO: CITY OF RENT01. C7 PLANNING DIVISION [ SHEET: OF: 7 10 DRS PROJECT NO. 13117 LAI-ININININIAIA . .............. vl E A tvl P E '[--i1:3) D \.% (""'. _7' 1� 1' 1,1 NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 1 1 -- -- NE11011 1 INCH = 40 FT. UAIr: THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RID�"E��EI�E[) 02.26.14 PRELIMINARY PLAT"E`°B°°":FED 2 7 2014 PAGE: GENERALIZED UTILITIES PLAN DRAWING NO: CITY OF RENT01. C7 PLANNING DIVISION [ SHEET: OF: 7 10 DRS PROJECT NO. 13117 LAI-ININININIAIA W Q Z Q - Q �r 0 N U W O rz 0- 0- Q - 4Q W Q z U W O CL A" t3- 0 N b� 3 r\ CL I CL 0 rn a O r In O N 6i M Q Z w J II i MONUMM SIGN, P�51GN fo P� PMplmWn I OCM RP,16AVON MMP, PNNP MONUMM 516N •. R IN $ �- CQ .............. w........wT.kw„ rk, ®� .1 MONUMM 516N, P�51GN -�- fo P� pMpl'm Nin Op 9 "7 N ? ♦ i e 'XUgi, $ w 42N a i I • IP I< I T T PLAN STAPLE /-TREE LREINFORCED RUBBER HOSE OR VINYL W/16 GA. WIRE TIES h OR APPROVED EQUAL DETAIl. 2" MAX- PRUNE DISEASED AND BROKEN BRANCHES SPECIFIED TREE STAKE(S) HOSE & WIRE TIES. INSTALL "TREE BOOT" OR SEE DETAIL ABOVE "ARBORGARD" IN LAWN AREAS. REMOVE BINDING TWINE & TOP 1/.3 OF BURLAP. PLANT TREE 1 "-2" HIGHER N THAN IN NURSERY 2" SETTLED DEPTH WITH SPECIFIED MULCH r WATERING BASIN FERTILIZER TABLETS (4-21 GRAM -20-10--5) t `° Orli D EC OR OR TO S P NT RO T DEFLECTOR FOR TREES-- �' ,; W N 5FL[ANpgCAp� �TR4r OR WIlnIN AD ACENT TO SIDEWALKS is 5$b ,3 r2r;f 5"OF PAV ME AN TIL ES SPECIFIED PLANTING SOIL-� -� x x_ ;� ' . SCARIFY PLANTING PIT SIDES AND BOTTOM { ca ' UNDISTURBED GROUND;* 'F 6" DEEP, FIRM, NATIVE . 5 SOIL MOUND 12 MIN. FOR WOOD•;.:'` \g STAKES & 18" FOR REBAR, 2x ROOTBALL WIDTH IN HEAVY SOILS, AUGER 8"x6' DEEP HOLE (OR THROUGH HARDPAN) FILL WITH CRUSHED ROCK. VERIFY GOOD DRAINAGE PRIOR TO PLANTING. NOTE: DO NOT PIERCE TREE ROOTBALL WITH TREE STAKES DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING 8c STAKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE WRINF OF PMMP TP,,r�, fYMCA. FINISH GRADE 18" MIN. r% - _ f"1 rN t-% -V P'1 A 1 I % A 11 r% _r 1 1 STAPLE /-TREE -REINFORCED RUBBER HOSE OR VINYL W/16 GA. WIRE TIES OR APPROVED EQUAL DETAIL PRUNE DISEASED AND BROKEN BRANCHES HOSE AND WIRE TIES, SEE DETAIL ABOVE SPECIFIED TREE STAKE(S) REMOVE BINDING MATERIAL AND TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP WATERING BASIN NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL fr -STATE OF WASHINGTO LAN V��E�DCT JEFF M. VAR -LEY CERTIFICATE No: 774 IN $ �- CQ ®� .... Ilk � n ti z, t; A�Y t t a 18" MIN. r% - _ f"1 rN t-% -V P'1 A 1 I % A 11 r% _r 1 1 STAPLE /-TREE -REINFORCED RUBBER HOSE OR VINYL W/16 GA. WIRE TIES OR APPROVED EQUAL DETAIL PRUNE DISEASED AND BROKEN BRANCHES HOSE AND WIRE TIES, SEE DETAIL ABOVE SPECIFIED TREE STAKE(S) REMOVE BINDING MATERIAL AND TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP WATERING BASIN NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL fr -STATE OF WASHINGTO LAN V��E�DCT JEFF M. VAR -LEY CERTIFICATE No: 774 SCARIFY PIT SIDES AND BOTTOM FIRM NATIVE SOIL MOUND V CONIFERUOUS TREE PLANTING & STAKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PLANT 1 " HIGI IN NURSERY FINISH GRADE 'RUNE DISEASED AND 3ROKEN BRANCHES REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP t" SETTLED DEPTH OF O SPECIFIED MULCH S =ERTILIZER TABLETS/SPECS SPECIFIED AMENDED BACKFILL ?OMPACT AND WATER THOROUGHLY _IRM NATIVE SOIL MOUND \ \ \ SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE Nop"'TH JOB NUMBER: DRAWING NAME: DESIGNER: JMV �EuEhj SING BY: JMV DAT : 02-24-14 FEB 2 7 Z SCALE: AS SHOWN CITY OF EN JUR�ISDICTION: RENTON ro DivIs ON 5H��f I of 5 0 40 80 160 5c&� i11 = 4o' -o'' 5H��f 51Z� 2204 . rn F ...... ......._.. ._ ,._ _.. __,_-:_....... _. e_. r.._..._,.. -.. ...:.... k�1... .. I e.:.,.. ..: _r.. -. . .. r:e.:.:.: i. .1rs RN.:�. x,.Yl _4.k.a.. IN $ �- CQ ®� .... SCARIFY PIT SIDES AND BOTTOM FIRM NATIVE SOIL MOUND V CONIFERUOUS TREE PLANTING & STAKING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PLANT 1 " HIGI IN NURSERY FINISH GRADE 'RUNE DISEASED AND 3ROKEN BRANCHES REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP t" SETTLED DEPTH OF O SPECIFIED MULCH S =ERTILIZER TABLETS/SPECS SPECIFIED AMENDED BACKFILL ?OMPACT AND WATER THOROUGHLY _IRM NATIVE SOIL MOUND \ \ \ SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE Nop"'TH JOB NUMBER: DRAWING NAME: DESIGNER: JMV �EuEhj SING BY: JMV DAT : 02-24-14 FEB 2 7 Z SCALE: AS SHOWN CITY OF EN JUR�ISDICTION: RENTON ro DivIs ON 5H��f I of 5 0 40 80 160 5c&� i11 = 4o' -o'' 5H��f 51Z� 2204 . rn F ...... ......._.. ._ ,._ _.. __,_-:_....... _. e_. r.._..._,.. -.. ...:.... k�1... .. I e.:.,.. ..: _r.. -. . .. r:e.:.:.: i. .1rs RN.:�. x,.Yl _4.k.a.. _� _ -� --s -�-- -' ., ... - .-<i- 3'raz�.xa-^-'csweu��.?Frw Fs.=�k.��s�t.r�a -�,.� �7r. . �.�ia-�aarYbevBFS. +s r. x.�, _ ,rr.. ,, s, kr: i ..lr eAi... [-ns.n <�.h s��]&e r5. . . izs.I A :1 je 292 .......... . ......... »..»,,,»,,,,»>, ,.�.,.rn.nn»,n.»,,...,,n:, .»w�,.,».».Yn»,,,.9»",nwn,�»,,.°rs,,,,..,�.�..»»..,,.�.ua�w»a»,>r�..,.»..:,rx».w».,,».»+.»„-�...,.a�.,.�..�w,�, ,»n„�,a,�»,»»»»�,�.,»w �.,�,_,.�,�,�„n,. ,rp��+n nn».�,.mw.»�.�w,», ., / � �� �'� ` � .. . ..... . ............ J X 0 0- ,m�: �� <� �» �A � � yF :.. Ai n t� '��F ,3r +'*',. a � -'` a w ,. m n..w, � n w n»° „ »,.w , M� �»'�,,».»M »9 W` "A I•�:>»nx w»A,». �.,� �` V) 48 �.i ,�4 »:,a �w , .0 2 6' F 0 v� � /J A 1J IN, A Lli /U `_w\ �i ar......y.,�. N 8 J_ C3 \1 8 1 go,.,,, S. F. 986 S.F. 8':,,:l,,90 \J % STATE OF WASHINGTON, v - w ����i» n ,» ..».{.�.».,.�r',r,� »„» n t:v io x✓_ w ,:„`;"�'”3�flF—n , ��� !. I �d tq 5 y§ k x ..., w- <:.,, » <.» 1`MF' >.'d J ,sr3.°.'a_}"<,' sFfJ�, '' — 0°rv'.d+'F` .!:3i.»Pt r Cnn_ .. tY',:.r. �J —�°,.F.�,`', ' caa.'`>"^, '° •� ,.:t+.>A•*l.w,#'��. E '.•»• ,'R°" ''` •:t� FFtF Ai F�- `. —F t - `'A_ J•,` F -", »—s,f4<.ar/.ef! x,!y/� ..... . . ...... E D 6`'.✓'''�•r ad ri- �(�:/ •`F•,.:/,!�d/A>/• • ' /t' c: �^�9 '.:- 'hF ! �. ;r/t�",'''!',°»F"r- 4� ,'�''{dpI '°�.f!'„^'�✓,F r}•fF,'�,'r,sr�/' ,f+F`/ f s °•fr4' '',�+••:''f.'al.!sf-'/ 9s�I�:'F;,"vf'�' „rw ', .»..,,,,. «x. »•rs, w.»..»., :rs,n. »» a. � #A ' �./ F`�✓9'rv " ?" i' LAND H ECT 0' WIDTH LANP5CAM PUFF�P\, fO M IN5TAIW Af fft Of HOW JEFF M. VAR EY CERTIFICATE No. 774 CON5TUCTION �'� up X� QN, �, �' � 'w . ...... ... ir v OR, 17-1-7-7 7 7 7/7 ;77 7 '"7 - 777/— ,aa7 0F 7, 7, v- 77 -77, 77, 64, 'fik nrs' .„ x '•` F ,F;?<tz FiP F�mdf ji � � ���ks• ui�'F.}fr�€„.1�- »w.a .v»itu.,.s,�. »� w+�i„:. •?,S]Fr(Enrnt •r�w/ rs,n:v•,w.,w,x d . . a,.w' ,»» w.», ,,».,. �`...-:F,. at..v+.�.»3d„w,'3>+dw'.'F.'r'..-,«x,„»:»-„{�..s-s°.,x.,,:,wa,�:�»«•?,nr:* <»t.'a_ ' »s' ,x�->„”w,�n »ta.r l»«'r,ua,.'»FF�}ikS<” -.•.,s e_irwxs9`ri ” :.y�rn, . ,:;.»i:<- 'wi,:'sNaw"s »s`a »'ra. ,» ,r ». :”.+f .n3w.] v.a»,... $;n0..»,.'.�e »ww" »'»+-d .,,nav;°n.'a�.om +J ..i .wd�-:':,:,nv., •.»rw✓.,�},"n:.„-},n,»d�!tid,�,.. i na o',- -.w.o,n°}" .l.�fnw'`'Zrf,a1.r'•<ad>,r •'`' ftna.�F,s',<,€»..'S, +'t �;• aJ,fi,-w�Fn''g.'"�_'aB y-1.`..rv»_:,E P..�,4,�,.,,'3 y,V�3 '.. a; >r.o-+7w',4,fofi°»'„'S r—°Fs°,-�a,'+`wt>, F• �'' k?�.FnY. Y ;w „ F_.�:�Md.dn`�d#.� ,»E.'f!F.•r.Ca./{f/ +N,-�, s'»�at.< Vy.».tfid,,�`,Y,"�f .f+.FVy,F F,•`vr�«r ' .' Fg,s,»l"f{n''-»'��'� wtW,fF�.,, -,n , _ r'..�,t,,n�" ✓.FF.l�»n'�,w.. .J/,.^�,A�.'.' .”. .a, .�fpv1,._»..fo-F- na�»,rlF' F , X�l /0 s.A,>°,,`e;`�e.•¢� , °'' e \', �:- . a"� .:°/c`,.�fiu4t, ' {tA.f' . '`a' ,. ta`�.a3'acl.•�atF' .3:av•.�.a i,1',j.� ...,n»xte.n,,. nw nu.nr,,,rn...,wu.wwm....»,w»�,a+a,,-,n-w„X•6m»:4.,.n ,..»w:::,».,,,n,. ,.,x.+.wy',,R-.;>n'rs.,',tin'nF.w�.mN»' .:+u.+'a.an''w.r'.:/, ,'n.,r.»;.o,` ,»....9'.'.,°u,.,�,aF .x,'u.d,.i ��a- .`: ,. .,.' .,f 5�s3..t:.,�°:F.,=n'`,„:".;,;`a..,»="}"tp,:,»d�?.� ,�°«/v•w. 'ra�^,`a£`o-"i,,d# a ,-. f a.°J'.a° n v. '",ty �,b»''ma�vd c'y'.3o®',>#_t�,F® .»*,+a!Fr'i� —.7 S, ...... ..... ........ ........ . . . . . . . . . . . -4- . . ........ ',L� ,9.�'o ,,u ' .' ,t✓u.'„ur,u�,..»da.�.'a��'S.r• 3�,9„v' .�,.'� ds,.3t a ,+:.`'�,>.'.'.,1: .�n+,,"'uu,Ew». �.„»w»...h,». u,uab� � °:„,F '�,rarG`,” nt'1”',aF,3','tPa. ...„,3' .fi.C5.atd/na��la'�.s..a.fi. , ,°"r',+:. va *,>ad`r#' +`y°'�:` �.tF. •Y' ''o�9p,v��+`Yv>n",'�.G�+, °�y ' s' cCo/,� fi"f9,-Sr.i39,k„,v ,,��,Fay'� . ............ ;K' 9 All, W `�."�,'>�' '. :/''y'2r,f.'r,tf? '`! E /`,• f//,t+: ��F .r•`,'`;,,�.�. �h”.'b.�. , > .',�''`a"'b. ., "_`.�s�. 4;�.. . ... ....... 7s 77 7 % -XA 4/z N Cf '4" 'u r � F .�.'r' a .`d'at°;'' .; dfs �n 4 .�,. . �:S.,1��, »,.,».,»v...w ,,'f,,.,.n,,»..vn'',�.,. ,wwn,.o-.»R.u.��.,.,� qi F\F\ Frw U 40 1 t F'�t{`.`feyFFF• bt�' �` d ' ''`.f r ` I arr,��♦n �fL''.„ �:�Fra,.+�'''�', ,,�''�..s,''-... `�t�{�� v 08 le l�.?'- '�F �r<!vr QA A < J_ -T % 8 > x '1., 0" ✓ 'T pp 0 4 . ...... . EEE _79 7 t 0� Al X" 1 31 8050 A* 8 050 S. F, 8) 050 S.F. 9� 5,39 S. F. S. F 2 8; 68i3 S. F, N ---- --- 9 168 S. F. 3 a Nry 41, 0' WIPTH MP5CAP N _U TO P� IN5M��P Af Mr OF 4\ q HOW COWMCION Cf T 7 .7 . AA ---------- 7:77— . n.,...,. .... .. . ...... N N T 20 % VVI yN w #w,, q,#'na 9 26- 4, S.F I cj) 05, 0 S.F. 8 050 S. F. ___101 WIPTH 8 050 -S.F. LANP5CAff PUFffP\, TO 8 6 8 3 S :F. 95,33, S. F. IN5T&�F[2 AT fft OF HOMF COWP\UCTION L _j L 1s v-Wvar. 5H T ___2 NOpTN L' 7: V. ��'i C-1 SCW.� 111 ::-_- 20'-O" 0 sH��r size 22x3a'"" pow - EE v � zz , /.I. SCW.� 111 ::-_- 20'-O" 0 sH��r size 22x3a'"" v � � O �� v S �� z � �v JOB NUMBER: DRAWING NAME: DESIGNER: AV DRAFTING BY: imv DATE: 02-24-14 SCALE: AS SHOWN WKSPIROO: RENTON. 7 2014 RENTOly '5mr-�T � Of 5 V i } - .: ,.. .,:. .-.i,i.. ..5<. -.C:"=} ., .:t;:p.. .,c, i..1 .... •F. a„a ,�:'i.� .+y.. ''$Y :tea t' ��. B'- .i T.d tP.. � SCH�bU�� POTAHICA!, NAME COMMON NAME QUAWITY 51ZF P\,FMAP\K5 Acer plat, x trun. 'Norwegian 5un5et'* fed Maple 9 211 cal dull and Matchinq Cercidiphqlum japonicum K95ura 24 211 cal dull and Matchinq Pqru5 call erpna ' Charrrlcleer' *- Flowerinq pear 3Q 211 cal dull and Matchinq P5eujot5uqa menzies0-- Pouqla5 fir 211 caliper dull and Matching thuja plicata*_ Western ped Cedar 211 caliper dull and Matching Acer circinatum� Vine Maple 0 211 caliper dull and Matchinq Betula jacquemont!*- Himalaqan Birch 0 211 caliper dull and Matching Acer Freemani 'Autumn Plaze'*- Maple 0 211 caliper dull and Marching Framnu5 sp, 'Autumn Applause' Ash 0 211 caliper dull and Marching 1 50 replacement trees provided x 211 cal / tree - 300 total inches provided SHKUP5 and b�UUNP CUV�F\ GS �uon�mus sp, 'Gold 5po�' � Cr Carex �es�acea� �-- renni5etum aloe, Tittle f �H Vacciniurn ovarum*-- (�— Lavandula sp,� (EU—Fuommu5 fortunei 'emerald 6aietq'� �uonqmu5 fortunei Tmerald n Gold' *- NO Nand ina dome5tica 'Fire paauifolium* �-- Myrica californica*- (D-- Azalea sp, 'Nino Crim5on'*- idotrichon sempervirens� M15canthU5 sinensis Fuongmus Oranqo 5odqe Dwarf Ft Grass Evergreen Huckleberrq averder Non MU5 FuonqmU5 Heavenlq Pamboo P\ockro5e Oregon Grape Pacific Wax Mqrtle fiverqreen Azalea Clue oat Grass Maiden Grass Vriuja occidental is ' 5marg d' emerald Green Arborvitae ,•' -$4• ' Asa; : ;>,.:ir+ ;� �;, 507o F'Mediterranean White'Heathor �07o Arcto5taphqllo5 uva-ur5i� Kinnikinnik Plant in group ing5 of I 5 or more W w W W W W W w W W �AWN W W W W W W W W W W Considered drought tolerant in pacific Northwest once established 9 52 I� 30 46 O 39 57 5�I 27 25 21 66 121 30 min. 24'' ht gal gal 2 dal 2 gal 2 gal 2 gal 5 gal 2 dal 2 gal 2 gal Z gal 2 gal 5 gal 6''7 ht dull and Matching dull and Matching Full and Matchinq Full and Matching Full and Matchinq dull and Matching Full and Matchinq Full and Matching dull and Matching zo �I I E o0- i } - .: ,.. .,:. .-.i,i.. ..5<. -.C:"=} ., .:t;:p.. .,c, i..1 .... •F. a„a ,�:'i.� .+y.. ''$Y :tea t' ��. B'- .i T.d tP.. � SCH�bU�� POTAHICA!, NAME COMMON NAME QUAWITY 51ZF P\,FMAP\K5 Acer plat, x trun. 'Norwegian 5un5et'* fed Maple 9 211 cal dull and Matchinq Cercidiphqlum japonicum K95ura 24 211 cal dull and Matchinq Pqru5 call erpna ' Charrrlcleer' *- Flowerinq pear 3Q 211 cal dull and Matchinq P5eujot5uqa menzies0-- Pouqla5 fir 211 caliper dull and Matching thuja plicata*_ Western ped Cedar 211 caliper dull and Matching Acer circinatum� Vine Maple 0 211 caliper dull and Matchinq Betula jacquemont!*- Himalaqan Birch 0 211 caliper dull and Matching Acer Freemani 'Autumn Plaze'*- Maple 0 211 caliper dull and Marching Framnu5 sp, 'Autumn Applause' Ash 0 211 caliper dull and Marching 1 50 replacement trees provided x 211 cal / tree - 300 total inches provided SHKUP5 and b�UUNP CUV�F\ GS �uon�mus sp, 'Gold 5po�' � Cr Carex �es�acea� �-- renni5etum aloe, Tittle f �H Vacciniurn ovarum*-- (�— Lavandula sp,� (EU—Fuommu5 fortunei 'emerald 6aietq'� �uonqmu5 fortunei Tmerald n Gold' *- NO Nand ina dome5tica 'Fire paauifolium* �-- Myrica californica*- (D-- Azalea sp, 'Nino Crim5on'*- idotrichon sempervirens� M15canthU5 sinensis Fuongmus Oranqo 5odqe Dwarf Ft Grass Evergreen Huckleberrq averder Non MU5 FuonqmU5 Heavenlq Pamboo P\ockro5e Oregon Grape Pacific Wax Mqrtle fiverqreen Azalea Clue oat Grass Maiden Grass Vriuja occidental is ' 5marg d' emerald Green Arborvitae ,•' -$4• ' Asa; : ;>,.:ir+ ;� �;, 507o F'Mediterranean White'Heathor �07o Arcto5taphqllo5 uva-ur5i� Kinnikinnik Plant in group ing5 of I 5 or more W w W W W W W w W W �AWN W W W W W W W W W W Considered drought tolerant in pacific Northwest once established 9 52 I� 30 46 O 39 57 5�I 27 25 21 66 121 30 min. 24'' ht gal gal 2 dal 2 gal 2 gal 2 gal 5 gal 2 dal 2 gal 2 gal Z gal 2 gal 5 gal 6''7 ht qai 411 pot Full and Matching dull and Matching dull and Matching dull and Matching Full and Matching Full and Matching dull and Matching dull and Matching Full and Matchinq Full and Matching Full and Matchinq dull and Matching Full and Matchinq Full and Matching dull and Matching dull /Compact / Plant 24'' on center dull /Compact / Plant 24'' on center LANP5Cff� NOt5 1 . CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FAMILIARIZING THEMSELVES WITH ALL OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO STARTING LANDSCAPE WORK. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE CAUTION WHILE EXCAVATING TO AVOID DISTURBING ANY UTILITIES ENCOUNTERED. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROMPTLY ADVISE OWNER OF ANY DISTURBED UTILITIES. LOCATION SERVICE PHONE 1-800-424-5555 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND WATER ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR 1 YEAR OR UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPUTING SPECIFIC QUANTITIES OF GROUND COVERS AND PLANT MATERIALS UTILIZING ON—CENTER SPACING FOR PLANTS AS STATED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND MINIMUM PLANTING DISTANCES AS SPECIFIED BELOW IN THESE NOTES. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE QUANTITIES OF PLANTS THAT ARE REPRESENTED BY SYMBOLS ON THE DRAWINGS. 6. SUBGRADE IS TO BE WITHIN 1/10" OF ONE FOOT AS PROVIDED BY OTHERS. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO BE CLEARED OF ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND ROCKS AND STICKS LARGER THAN 2" DIAMETER. 7. NEW BED /,REAS, AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 2" DEPTH ORGANIC MATERIAL CULTIVATED INTO THE TOP 6' OF SOIL. SOIL SHALL HAVE AN ORGANIC CONTENT OF FIVE PERCENT OR MORE TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES AS SHOWN IN A SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS. THE SOIL ANALYSIS SHALL INCLUDE: A. DETERMINATION OF SOIL TEXTURE, INDICATING PERCENTAGE OF ORGANIC MATTER, B. AN APPROXIMATION OF SOIL INFILTRATION RATE, AND C. MEASURE Ph VALUE. 8. ALL BEDS TO RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 2" FINE FIR BARK OR SIMILAR APPROVED MULCH. 9. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FERTILIZED WITH AGRO TRANSPLANT FERTILIZER 4-2-2 PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 10. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO ANLA STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK, LATEST EDITION. ANY REPLACEMENTS MADE AT ONCE. A. GENERAL: ALL PLANT MATERIAL FURNISHED SHALL BE HEALTHY REPRESENTATIVES, TYPICAL OF THEIR SPECIES OF VARIETY AND SHALL HAVE A NORMAL GROWTH HABIT. THEY SHALL BE FULL, WELL BRANCHED, WELL PROPORTIONED, AND HAVE A VIGOROUS, WELL DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEM. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE HARDY UNDER CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE LOCALITY OF THE PROJECT, B. TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVER: QUANTITIES, SPECIES, AND VARIETIES, SIZES AND CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN. PLANTS TO BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, WELL FOLIATED WHEN IN LEAF, FREE OF DISEASE, INJURY, INSECTS, DECAY, HARMFUL DEFECTS, AND ALL WEEDS. NO SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL MADE WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 12. WHERE CONFLICTS BETWEEN STREET LIGHTS AND STREET TREES OCCUR, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE STREET TREES. NOP'TH STATE OF WASHINGTO LAN D��EAtH� CT JEFF M. VARLEY CERTIFICATE No. 774 �A JOB NUMBER: DRAWING NAME: DESIGNER: AV DRAFTING BY: AV DATE: 02-24-14 SCALE: AS SHOWN RECJ,�j,j�ISDICTION: RENTON 4. 1L_1V _D FEB 2 7 20 11 0 20 40 (8'aY 0 " [IFN I � SCALA. I -- 20'-01' 5H��f 51Z� 220n'""'r'���1Tf 4 of 5 M� W zo o0- V) LLJ LLJ w Q z STATE OF WASHINGTO LAN D��EAtH� CT JEFF M. VARLEY CERTIFICATE No. 774 �A JOB NUMBER: DRAWING NAME: DESIGNER: AV DRAFTING BY: AV DATE: 02-24-14 SCALE: AS SHOWN RECJ,�j,j�ISDICTION: RENTON 4. 1L_1V _D FEB 2 7 20 11 0 20 40 (8'aY 0 " [IFN I � SCALA. I -- 20'-01' 5H��f 51Z� 220n'""'r'���1Tf 4 of 5 I STOpMWAtp FONP - 5CH MATIC 5FCfION -- NOpTN Nor fo 5c&� I ANP5CAPr 5rf o P00VY 5rr CIM 5rf w r• z a U w 0 Pt STATE OF WASHINGTO LAND HFECT JEFF M. VAR -LEY CERTIFICATE No. 774 @ a 4 y L 1 a � � m a z 5-,r0r\MW.. Al" p PONP - 5CHFMAfIC 5 CfION - A5T NoIr fo 5c&� No PI, v JOB NUMBER: DRAWING NAME: FEBNt:UEj\/Ej_D,RAFTlNG BY: 2 7 2014 DATE: SCALE: Cg'jy O� ���To� JURISDICTION: N 0 20 40 80 5c&e III -- 20'-01' 5HF�f 51ZF 2204 JMV JMV 02-24-14 AS SHOWN RENTON 5H�Ff 5 of 5 W Q z U W O CY n F- V) n n 0, un 0 0 NJ r 0 N N N 3 r z r -i r 0 CL n Erl/ �V _d / C 3 v n Y r r7 Y 0 N LL' W a z LU J Li a X". X X I X X L Ld Q CD z 0 U D i.:_ O n- Ld Ld r C) z LJ S F_ V„ In 0 Iri O CA N N Cn 3 .O r Irl 0- F_ I 0 Ul O n I/} FD S_ v L i N z Ld I ROAD WORK 4HEAD HUMAN to FLA GGER USE. EX. PAVED SHOULDER TO FORM A TEMPORARY LANE :R S CMt...., k...• ,: LQ vY� # , .3 �i f; PLACE 28” HIGH CONES SPACED EVERY 20' AND 2' A WAY FROM THE WORK AREA 2. TO ft F d.,.. . i £ ' tom ... �.# ,# ..?. ,, µ i'j 4 3 g y 3xtfvF i"'R gi,. 8.t -3.. ..3 t ::: FFr `' jsll 4 #'dO .:#�:.~Ni L. >, >', •� },TSB 42NO C�'BINEDN7' • ROAD WORK AHEAD Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig 811 Utilities Underground Location Center (ID,MT,ND,OR,WA) A. J wAsHr,1<311- R 45232 IONA SE 7/4 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, W*M*o - - - - - THE ENCLA VEA T BRIDLE RIDGE I EEND ROAD } k �'_ � . l z.t. l 0 0, HOLDINGS LLC D.R. STRONG CONSUL TING ENGINEERS ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 620 7TH AVENUE, KIRKLAND, WA 98033 0 425.827.3063 F 425.827.2423 Kel REVISION Q) W Y I O i: •. �... ...F - f•• c; "t; \ SURVEYED: SJS DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN: QHH i CHECKED: t BY DATE AP P R APPROVED: MAGI SCALE: AS NOTED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT ONE INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY VERTICAL: NAVD 1988 HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 NO TES: 1. FLOODLIGHTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO MARK FLAGGER STATIONS AT NIGHT 2. SIGN SEQUENCE IS THE SAME FOR BOTH DIRECTIONS OF TRAVEL. J. STEADY BURNING WARNING LIGHTS (TYPE C, MUTCD) SHOULD BE USED TO MARK CHANNELIZING DEVISES A T NIGHT AS NEEDED. 4. THE CON TRA C TOR SHALL GIVE 48 HOURS NO 77CE TO THE OWNERS OF PRI VA TE DRI VES BEFORE IN TERFERING WI TH THEM. 5. ACCESS FOR FIRE—FIGHTING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED A T ALL TIMES, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR DEVELOPER SHALL KEEP THE LOCAL FIRE PROTECTION AUTHORITIES INFORMED AT ALL TIMES OF THE LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND FIRE LANES. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE AUTHORITIES IN CHARGE OF ANY MUNICIPAL, PRIVATE, OR SCHOOL TRANSPORTA T70N SYSTEMS AT LEAST ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE OF ROAD CLOSURES THAT WILL FORCE A CHANGE IN THE REGULAR ROUTING OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT HIS WORK SO AS TO INTERFERE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE WITH PUBLIC TRAVEL AND SHALL, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN SUITABLE BRIDGES, DETOURS, OR OTHER TEMPORARY FACILI TIES FOR THE ACCOMMODA TION OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE TRAVEL, INCLUDING MAIL DELIVERY. 8. ROAD WA Y CROSSINGS SHALL BE MADE IN SUCH A WA Y THA T NO MORE THAN HALF OF THE ROADWAY IS CLOSED TO TRAFFIC AT ANY TIME EXCEPT WHEN SUITABLE DETOURS OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS AREA AGREED TO. 9. WORK SHALL NOT BE STARTED ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGH T-- OF— WA Y UNTIL CLEARANCE IS GIVEN TO THE CON TRA C TOR BY THE DISTRICT UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED IN WRITING B Y THE DISTRICT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT HIS WORKING HOURS TO THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES STANDARDS. 10. NO EXCA VA TION OF FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN THE RIGHT OF— WA Y. 11, STREET SWEEPERS SHALL BE EMPLOYED DAIL Y DURING EXCA VA TION TO REMOVE DIRT FROM THE RIGHT—OF— WA Y. 12. HOURS OF WORK: 7 A.M. TO 3 P.M. WEEKDA Y5 LEGEND: WORK AREA i I x i NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 310 60 120 I� 1 INCH = 60 FT. DATE: AT LE v CITY 0F THE ENCLAVE PRELIMI ARY BRIDATLRIP, ��--E1�1E�J 02.26.14 �= �T FIELD800K: � RENTON PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANFEe 2 7 204 "" PAGE: NoCITYPlanning/Building/Public Works Dept. ��,� Or- RENrO SHEET:TC1 PLANNING DIVISION T^1ov:1 i DRS PROJECT N0. 13117 Al- NIN N N A A .. .. ._. -, ,,. -... .., ,. .- ., ... .:. .- ,. �.'.. .. -r ;_u-. .. :-"� '..... iL... -'j• `<•. $'x' i.: P �, �a �s=:t. ..i -}.i Y: h.. ..... .. ...:,... r .. � .. ..-:- �. ., -, -. :. _-.........,. it .FA. .,.x.,��,r._na..,,x... ,%�.,....a; 9".-<ca1 .�..^�:, @: .':� ."fi�s$r. -�# "'i',� a::€�. .,4::. 5... �-I,...� are. i. .a...... ,��:r.._t#.a�, '�I$�i,�'r.:�d6�...��_'9..e• F �r c; "t; \ SURVEYED: SJS DESIGNED: YLP DRAWN: QHH i CHECKED: t BY DATE AP P R APPROVED: MAGI SCALE: AS NOTED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT ONE INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY VERTICAL: NAVD 1988 HORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991 NO TES: 1. FLOODLIGHTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO MARK FLAGGER STATIONS AT NIGHT 2. SIGN SEQUENCE IS THE SAME FOR BOTH DIRECTIONS OF TRAVEL. J. STEADY BURNING WARNING LIGHTS (TYPE C, MUTCD) SHOULD BE USED TO MARK CHANNELIZING DEVISES A T NIGHT AS NEEDED. 4. THE CON TRA C TOR SHALL GIVE 48 HOURS NO 77CE TO THE OWNERS OF PRI VA TE DRI VES BEFORE IN TERFERING WI TH THEM. 5. ACCESS FOR FIRE—FIGHTING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED A T ALL TIMES, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR DEVELOPER SHALL KEEP THE LOCAL FIRE PROTECTION AUTHORITIES INFORMED AT ALL TIMES OF THE LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND FIRE LANES. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE AUTHORITIES IN CHARGE OF ANY MUNICIPAL, PRIVATE, OR SCHOOL TRANSPORTA T70N SYSTEMS AT LEAST ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE OF ROAD CLOSURES THAT WILL FORCE A CHANGE IN THE REGULAR ROUTING OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT HIS WORK SO AS TO INTERFERE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE WITH PUBLIC TRAVEL AND SHALL, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN SUITABLE BRIDGES, DETOURS, OR OTHER TEMPORARY FACILI TIES FOR THE ACCOMMODA TION OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE TRAVEL, INCLUDING MAIL DELIVERY. 8. ROAD WA Y CROSSINGS SHALL BE MADE IN SUCH A WA Y THA T NO MORE THAN HALF OF THE ROADWAY IS CLOSED TO TRAFFIC AT ANY TIME EXCEPT WHEN SUITABLE DETOURS OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS AREA AGREED TO. 9. WORK SHALL NOT BE STARTED ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGH T-- OF— WA Y UNTIL CLEARANCE IS GIVEN TO THE CON TRA C TOR BY THE DISTRICT UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED IN WRITING B Y THE DISTRICT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT HIS WORKING HOURS TO THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES STANDARDS. 10. NO EXCA VA TION OF FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN THE RIGHT OF— WA Y. 11, STREET SWEEPERS SHALL BE EMPLOYED DAIL Y DURING EXCA VA TION TO REMOVE DIRT FROM THE RIGHT—OF— WA Y. 12. HOURS OF WORK: 7 A.M. TO 3 P.M. WEEKDA Y5 LEGEND: WORK AREA i I x i NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 310 60 120 I� 1 INCH = 60 FT. DATE: AT LE v CITY 0F THE ENCLAVE PRELIMI ARY BRIDATLRIP, ��--E1�1E�J 02.26.14 �= �T FIELD800K: � RENTON PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANFEe 2 7 204 "" PAGE: NoCITYPlanning/Building/Public Works Dept. ��,� Or- RENrO SHEET:TC1 PLANNING DIVISION T^1ov:1 i DRS PROJECT N0. 13117 Al- NIN N N A A .. .. ._. -, ,,. -... .., ,. .- ., ... .:. .- ,. �.'.. .. -r ;_u-. .. :-"� '..... iL... -'j• `<•. $'x' i.: P �, �a �s=:t. ..i -}.i Y: h.. ..... .. ...:,... r .. � .. ..-:- �. ., -, -. :. _-.........,. it .FA. .,.x.,��,r._na..,,x... ,%�.,....a; 9".-<ca1 .�..^�:, @: .':� ."fi�s$r. -�# "'i',� a::€�. .,4::. 5... �-I,...� are. i. .a...... ,��:r.._t#.a�, '�I$�i,�'r.:�d6�...��_'9..e•