No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA81-010THE TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS t 411111 ri iigr . I lit imp. Abli.z. L.,oking west on N.E. 4th from entry to Looking west on N.E. 4th from about center Y. thodist Chruch. Bank about 4' high of church property. Bank at small trees at sign. near road is about 8 feet high. NOT MICROFILM illi P Illi eking east from centerline Bronson Way kt N.E. 4th. Bank on right behind evergreen about 12 feet high. 7 l`t Q l O Z t Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the TERRACE June 1981 IVUCI..OF/L ifro OF R u 6$ © Z THE CITY OF RENTON z o 9A 09g7-60 SEP1 " P OF R4, b THE CITY OF RENTON U 4• 0 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 0 . BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT o 235- 2550 ixl 9 TFD SEPl O 1 June 5, 1981 D ar Recipient: RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE TERRACE - CONDOMINIUM PROJECT The attached draft document is submitted to you for your review pursuant to the City of Renton Environ- mental Ordinance and the State of Washington Environmenta Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43. 21C . Ap royal has been requested by the Homecraft Land Development Company to develop approximately 8 . 4 acres for multi-family residential use situated between N . F . Third Street and N . E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N. E. right-of-way and east of the Puget Power and Light transmission line right-of-way. Please direct your written response to the Planning De artment within thirty-five days, or by July 10, 1981, in accordance with local and state SEPA guidelines. If you have any further questions, please contact the Renton Planning Department at (206) 235-2550 . VT uly yo 0,4 1r David R. Clemens Acting Planniing Director DR :ms 1 At achment I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE TERRACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Prepared For The CITY OF RENTON RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON By STEPAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prepared in Compliance With The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Chapter 43 12C, Revised Code of Washington, as amended SEPA Guidelines, Effective January 16, 1976 Chapter 197-10, Washington Administration Code, as revised City 'of Renton Ordinance #3060 Date of _ssue. of Draft E: I.S. : JuneS, 1981 Date Comnents Due: JulytO 1981 Cost Per Copy: $5.0$ ' INTRODUCTION Action Sponsor: Homecraft Land& Development Company 320 Andov r Park East,, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 206) 575-4662 Proposed Action: The Action Sponsor has requested City of Renton approval to develop approximately 8.4 acres zoned R-4 for up to 280 units for multi-family residential use. Project Location: Between N.E. Third Street and N.E. Fourth Street west of the Edmonds Avenue N.E. right-of-way and east of the Puget Power. & Light transmission line right-of-way Lead Agency: City of Renton Responsible Official : Renton Environmental Review Committee Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 9:055 206) 235-2550 Planning Department Contact Person: David Clemens, Acting Planning Director 206) 235-2550 Authors 4nd Principal Contributors: Environmental Analysis and Documents Preparation: Stepan & Associates; Inc. 930 S. 336th Street, Suite A Federal Way, Was ington 98003 206) 682-4771 Con act Person: Steve R. Clark Traffic Analysis:. The Transpo Grou 23 148th Avenue S.E Bellevue, Washington 98007 Geotechnical Analysis: Earth Sciences Box 126 Hobart, Washington 98025 Location of Background Da.a: Stepan & Associates, Inc. Renton Planning Department Geotechnical Analysis Traffic Analysis Preliminary Hydrology Report Storm Water Facilities Design Calculations Licenses and Permits Required: Site plan approval , engineering planning/construction inspection approvals, water and sewer hookup permits, building and grading permits ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction i Recipients o the Document ' v I . Summary 1 A. Description of the Proposal 1 B. Impacts and Mitigating Measures 1 C. Alternatives Considered 9 . D. Unavoidable Environmental Impacts 10 II. Description of the Proposal 12 A. Name and Sponsor of the Project 12 B. Project Location 12 C. Acencies Involved 12 D. Project Phasing 12 E. Detailed Project Description 12 F. Major Physical and Engineering Aspects of the Proposal 20 G. Relationship to Existing Laws, Plans & Policies 20 III . Existing Environmental Conditions; Environmental p Impac s of the Proposed Action; Mitigating Measures; Unavoidable Adverse Impacts A. I dex of Elements ,of the Environment 22 B. P ysical Environment 24 C. H man Environment 43 IV. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 72 V. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 73 VI . Alter atives to the Proposal and Their Relative Envir nmental Impa ts ' 74 VII . Unavoidable Impacts 75 VIII. Impacts Determined Not to Be Adverse 77 Appendices: A. Legal Description 79. B. Soils Investigation Study 81 C. Traffic Analysis 89 Figures 1. Location Map 13 2. Vicinity/Circulation Map 14 3. Site Plan 15 4. Building Rendering 17 5. Proj e9t Phasing 19 6. Topography/Slope Analysis 25 iii r 1 7. Site Drainage Map. 31 8. Area Zoning 1 38 9. Comprehensive Plan Map 39 10. Existing Land Use Map 40 11. AAM District Boundaries 44 12. Circulation/Signalization 48 13. Community Facilities Map 59 14. Proposed Water System 65 15. Proposed Sewer System 66 Tables 1. Suspended Particulants 27 2. Air Quality Standards 28 3. Demographic Trepds 45 4. Comparative Summary of Levels of Service 52 5. Projected School Enrollment and Capacity 57 iv IIRECIPIENTS0THEDOCUMENT Federal Environ ental Protection Agency Dep rtment of Housing and Urban Development Dep rtment of Energy Arm Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Engineer Soils Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife State Gov rnor' s Office Office of_ Progrm Planning and Fiscal Management Dep rtment of Ecology De rtment of Fisheries Department of Game Dep rtment of Transportation Department of Social and Health Services Eco ogical Commission Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington Regional Metro - Water Quality Division Metro - Transit Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Pug t Sound Council of Governments Sea tle - King County Department of Public Health Local Go ernment Kin County Department of Budget & Program Development Kin County Commuter Pool City of Kent Ci ty of Tukwila City of Seattle. City of enton May r City Council Hearing Examiner' s Office Planning Commission: Public Works Department Parks and Recreation Department Pol ce Department Fir Department City Attorney SEP' Information Center V 1 Utilities/Services Renton Sc-h-o71- District #403 Puget Sound Power and Light Washington Natural Gas Company Pacific Northwest Bell Libraries Renton Public Library - Main Branch University of Washington Library, College of Architecture and Urban Planning King County Public Library System Newspapers Seattle Times Seattle Intel1igencer Daily Journal of Commerce Renton Record 1Chronicle Private Organizations and Others Seattle Audubon Society Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce Rainier Audubon Society Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association vi I . SUMMARY Preface Those mitigating measures proposed to be implemented by the Proponent are noted by an asterisk. A. Description of the ProposalPP The Proponent, Homecraft Land Development Company, is requesting site plan and building permit approval to construct 280 units on 8.4 acres of land situated between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street directly west of the r7ght-of-way of Edmonds Avenue N.E. in Renton, King County, Washington. The objective of the Proponent is to provide a medium density multiple family residential development that is consistent with local zoning regulations and comprehensive plans which responds to the market demand for moderately priced housing units. The project consists of 14 buildings, each containing 20 dwelling units, with 420 parking stalls proposed as well as landscaping and recreation facilities including a swimming pool and bath house, tot-lot, recreatonal building, half-court basketball area, open space area suitable for volleyball or other use and picnic tables, etc. interspersed throughout the recreation area. The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. The project is consistent with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive land use plan of the City of Renton. B. Impacts Mitigating Measures Physical Environment 1. Earth Impacts Movement and displacement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of soil during site preparation and builidng construction. Increased potentials, for soil erosion during construction grading. Mitigations a. All recommendation of the soils engineers will be followed. Refer to Appendix B) . b. A Temporary Erosion Control Plan will be implemented during construction, including the use of strawbale check dams and sedimentation ponds. i 1- i c. A permanent storm water control system will be installed in accordance with Renton requirements and standards. d. A landscape plan is proposed by the Proponent to provide additional on-site erosion control after construction. 2. Air Impacts it Over the short-term, suspended particulate levels will increase due to construction activities. Long-termi;impacts under "worse case" conditions due to the increase of 1550 vehicle trips per day resulting in increases in carbon monoxide levels. Mitigations a. Construction measures to control dust such as watering and reseeding of cleared areas, cleaningVand sweeping of streets. i 3. Water Impacts 1Increase surface water runoff. Increased potential for erosion and selection. Potential surface water quality impacts due to urban type pollutants. Minor modification of natural drainage pattern due to the installation of a stormwater system. I u Mitigations a. Storm water system will be designed to retain and release water runoff at predevelopment rates. b. Oil separators and sedimentation sumps will be installed to remove particulates and prevent entry into drainage courses. c. Implementation of a Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan during construction. d. Coordination of design of Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan and final storm water design with Renton. e. Implementation of a landscape plan to further reduce potential on-site erosion after construction. 4. Flora Impacts Grading on-site will remove existing limited amount of on-site vegetation. Existing flora will be replaced by landscaping which will introduce new species of flora common to urban development. 2- Mitigations a. Implementation of a landscaping plan. 5. Fauna Impacts Site preparation activities will disrupt existing limited habitat activities on-site. Mitigations Introduction of new species of flora within open space areas may s rve as future potential habitat or migration corridors. 6. N ise Impacts Short-term impacts from construction activities during site preparation and building phases. Long-term noise increases due to rdsidents and vehicles. Mitigations a. Restricted construction operations between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7. Light andgt Glare Impacts Increased amounts of light and glare from vehicle headlights and building lighting. Mitigations a. Supplemental vegetation to be introduced on-site. b. Street lighting to incorporate glare shields. 8. Land Use Impacts Change in the existing undeveloped status of the site to that of multiple-family residential use. Such use is compatable with zoning and comprehensive land use plans of Renton. 3- Mitigations a. Project construction to be completed in three phases. b. Conformancy with local plans and ordinances. 9. Natural Resources Impacts Consumption of natural resources for construction and maintenance of the project. Mitigations None HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population & Housing 2. Impacts Population will increase on-site up to between 560 to 708 persons. An increase of 280 multiple-family dwelling units with Renton will occur. Mitigations a. Construction of the project into three phases. b. Consistency with local population forecasts, plans and policies. 3. Economy Impacts Job opportunities in the construction industry. An increase in the Real Estate tax base of the City due to an increase of 280 dwelling units and contributing residents. Mitigations None 4. Transportation Impacts The project could at a "worse case" condition generate about 1550 vehicle trips per day. Increased demand for transit service and parking spaces. 4- Mitigations a. Maintenanceof two entrances to provide multiple resident and emergency access. b. Design an internal road loop system. c. Encourage transit use and car pooling. d. Homeowner Association sponsored transit/carpool information sessions. e. Coordination with METRO. f. Construct internal pedestrian lanes with the site. g. North side of the site along N.E. Fourth Street should match N.E. Fourth 'Street as it exists east of the site. h. Sidewalk to :be installed along N.E. 3rd Street property boundary. i . Prohibit parking and storage of recreational vehicles as part of proposal . 5. Public Services Fire Protection I pacts Fire protection and emergency aid needed for an additional 280 d ellint units. 1 Mitigations a. Conformancy :with UBC requirements. b. Installation of smoke detectors. c. AdAquate water supply to meet fire flow requirments. d. Coordination with Fire Department during the construction phase. P•lice Protection , Inpacts T e proposal would add 280 units and result in an increase of 560 r-sidents requiring police protection. 5- Mitigations • a. Internal security system. b. Participation by residents in a crime prevention program. c. Additional tax revenues offset service costs. School Facilities Impacts Potential generation of between 123 to 172 students. Mitigations None Park and Recreation Facilities Impacts Increase demand for park and recreation areas and facilities. Mitigations a. A variety of on-site recreational facilities such as a swimming pool , jacuzzi , half-court basketball area, tot-lot recreation building and open area would be provided by the Developer. Maintenance Impacts The City of Renton will be required to maintain water, sewer and external roadways and drainage facilities. Internal streets and areas and facilities will be initially maintained by the Developer and subsequently by a Homeowners' Association. Mitigation a. Maintenance of facilities by the Developer during the construction phase. 6- 6. Energy I actsDPP Tie proposal will require provision of electrical service on-site. i E timated connected load will be from 1800-2400 kilowatts per unit f a project total of 504,000 kilowatts per month. Mitigations a. Energy-conserving construction techniques and building materials. b. Energy conservation by residents. 7. U ilities P wer I pacts I creased demand for electrical energy. Mitigations a. Energy conserving building materials to be used. b. Practice ofenergy conservation by residents . c. Installation to be coordinated with Puget Power. d. Underground installation. Tlleephone Impacts There will be 280. dwelling units requiring two lines each. Mitigations a. Coordin tion with Bell Telephone Co. b. Installation f telephone electrical, o pho and a ect cal wires Wter Impacts There will be 280; dwelling units requiring two lines each. II 7- Mitigations a. Coordination with Bell Telephone Co. b. Installation of telephone and electrical wires underground. Water Impacts Increase water service demand. Mitigations a. Review of system design by City of Renton. b. Fire flow analysis by Fire Marshall . Sewer Impacts Increased volume of sewage with service to be extended from an 8" line situated in N.E. Fourth Street. Mitigations a. Coordination of design and installation with Renton. I I Storm Drainage Impacts Increased Surface Water Volume Mitigations a. Implementation of a Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan. b. Installation of a permanent storm water system designed in accor ance with Renton standards and requirements. Solid Waste Impacts Increased demand for solid waste disposal service. Mitigations a. Encouragement of recycling. 8- 8. A sthetics I pacts Change of site from undeveloped borrow pit to multiple-family r sidential . Mitigations a. Implementation of a landscaping plan and quality control of architecture and materials compatable with surrounding development. 9. R creation Impacts Increased demand for recreation and facilities. Mitigations a. Provision on-site by the proponent of a "mini-park" containing various amenities within one acre. 10. Archaeology Inpacts None Mitigations Future notificaton of potential discoveries. C. Alternatives Considered 1. No development The project site would remain undeveloped eliminating any potential impacts associated with the proposal . 2. Devielopment to Single-Family Density The project site would be developed into 42 lots for single-family residential dwellings. The impact of this alternative would be essentially the same as those of the proposal but to a lesser degree of physical .and human elements of the environment. The objective of the Proponent would not be achieved. 9- 3. Development to Maximum Density Under the provisions of the R-4 zoning classification, the site would be developed to a total of 588 units. The associated impacts on the physical and human environment would be greater than those incurred by the implementation of the proposed action. D. Unavoidable Environmental Impacts The following list of unavoidable environmental impacts denote actions which effect a change to the environment but which are not necessarily adverse. Earth Disruption, displacement, compaction of soils and increased potential for erosion. Air Increase in the amount of vehicular emissions. Water Increased volume of surface water runoff. Flora Removal of site vegetation. Fauna Disruptions to potential species of fauna during construction activities and due to removal of sparce flora. Noise Increases in noise levels due to long-term use by residents. Land Use Transformation of site from its undeveloped state to multiple- family uses, precluding over the long-term alternative uses of the site. Residential land use will be implemented in accordance with local zoning regulations and comprehensive plans. Natural Resources Consumption of resources and materials. 10- The Human Environment Population & Housing Increase on-site population of 560 residents and 280 dwelling units. The supply of affordable housing within the City will be increased. Economy The tax base of the City of Renton will be increased. Increased employment opportunities in the building industry. Transportation/Circulation Increased truck traffic during construction. Traffic volume increase under "worse case" condition of 1550 vehicles per day. Public Services Increased demand for all public services. Energy I Increased energy demand both in the short and long-term. Utilities Increase demand for utility service. Aesthetics Alteration of site appearance. III 11- I II . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Name and Sponsor of the Project The Proponent, Homecraft Land Development Company, Inc. , Tukwila, Washington, is requesting site plan and building permit approval for the development of The Terrace, a 280 unit multiple-family housing project. B. Project Location The site is located between N.E. Third and N.E. Fourth Streets directly east of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission line right-of-way and west of the unimproved right-of-way of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Appendix A describes the legal boundary of the site. (See Figures 1 & 2 - Site Location Map & Vicinity Map) C. City of Renton File Number SA-10481 D. Project Phasing The proposal will be implemented in three phases with total completion anticipated about 18 months after permit approval . Phase I is planned to cover the northeast quarter of the site and contain three residential buildings (See Figure 5) , and all recreation facilities. Phase; II is planned to cover the northwest quarter of the site and contains six buildings. Phase III is planned to cover the south half of the site and contain five buildings. About 90 days of site preparation will bye required for each of the three phases. Building construction will be conducted concurrently with site preparation to the extent sensible, and construction of each phase would require about four months. Phase I will commence upon receiving site plan and building permit aprovals from the City of Renton. Construction of subsequent phases will be dependent upon the rate of sales 'for Phase I. The major uncertainty to sales corresponds to the availability of mortgage money at reasonable rates. The entire project is estimated to be complete in 18 months from permit acquisition. E. Detailed Project Description The objective of the proposal is to provide a medium density multiple-family residential development that is consistent with local zoning and the comprehensive plan, and which respond to the demand for moderately priced housing units. The proposal consists of site preparation and construction of approximately 280 residential condominium units on an 8.4 acre site located between N.E. Third and N.E. Fourth Streets directly east of the Puget Sound Power & Light Co. transmission line. (See Site Plan, Figure 3) . The site is presently zoned R-4 which allows from 40 to 70 units per acre density, or between 356 and 588 units® Building construction and development will cover the entire site, which will 12- 11 II a\ rr 1 } SNOHOMISH CO. r KING CO, 11 rs r—,,, AZN 41,1 L":t::, r, 1 U'1,,,; V.I. 11~10., vi..A, rwr:i A WWWWWWVP t h k rww.w...,. i 1,, iI owlwramiss iiisZi - 1j,i, 11 SEATTLE 4 1Ems.1\ BELLEVUE J'^`bgallillIW w"` t' Lake Sammamish icy` `Lake Washington.w n, I } 9I( II fC L..r - wvr.a ww.w.. II v.....V.....q.yM/w. M.. , fiw. w w.r`rrw.r w .rw.I JIIM/_ nw. w.+ « Mr .r-,.,.... .. SITE jl ty IITUKWILA• „_..-- RENTO C?aaaarAaaaaaaa aaacaaaaar aaaaa mar KITSAP CO. ......... 1^. Ldke 1 KENT r`s Youngs PIERCE CO.t^„ g MAPLE: k--/, r.f /,:....« ...ri...: VALLEY Vir mown 0.10440., f GIG HARBOR ,Ana"' -unim I. S BLACK DIAMOND• e4okortr~ ok.c' o AUBURN..._ ti 'p, •\.L l mow: M\• 1/111.. 7Ar v ri TAC MA •• II 1 1. I figure 1 LOCATION AP_ 1 i Illr-lauglA ci r r 11116 LAKE 1 WASHINGTON i i-- 1 4 __ IPPZ , 1:11; i: z ` l tali;. j igt_.glitim, -1 , 1 10,___ rt . f 1 5711.11.1. -\ \ RNTONroi •l A 'PORT 7 IIliie. la` 1lib 14 t1 I_ I i 10._ N E 4thle4L1Tipthi13ri1? *- ' 'irgjk i 1. _ • I UV, :;4'''../.. _"-A.- \ it •- A-9.'\ - -i .._ I ' 1111t.—"-----... -- L.? 111-1010:11j111 -- 1. -- s' DA1: 71W11(111.A -‘ _ 1 '' : lF"e \__V__y1I rl r n. IIIINIaIR a ,.*, I) '._ I Ik,RENTON CEDAR R!- r • IHILL MilfrWITI OMR et. 94. 1...---4;eiri-416%-, 1-4,......°) 1 4 9 4/6 .Imo., rti 11-1,. \ 4.3.1 iil 'N'NN 1 . 1-7.4 . , 21.11* i ' 1 i figure 2 VICINITY_ MAP r- 4\ l t A 1 \ ; 4. I Poli 4/&. t 0_ a r O ..' Ov' 44- s• z- vim... 1fr`-" oev . r A - jilieV- Iiirlilex ; 1145 11. . 1 ,,, c--- r\ A\ apAW ' i AI\ '... hr to- vv ,,,, ,,,-- 4,,,, kt -- 114z\9 17\. jlrtnllAr hk ' • I' 4 4'. 0 ' •- O• " I.:. y' c.,. o, p' Tv, O s r. / 8. p" Q:;, l. Ow w y 4 • ' tip: . •' /, 10 1, Q: o a' o',_ io .. r-' litis j ate ` ' ` , J ,• vrV OO ... wilts' © l. T; f' Ail J -'`.• J I S Arty0 v q O O O tii as o p ,„ 7 -*... 3®,,- e `- t",., idolo 1 I ar, r ooyi. . p-:.: \, 1 40 a s? +, , 5 14 ii 4 J, r OV O, '. os\' I Oar / 44, 1 oiy, 9 VT T, rG • ice i, ` 111/ 1To• f pie® f r' rfe All, r y+ 1; rj `. ice/ 4, 1.,, f O` er` s . , J. also include recreational amenities such as a swimming pool and bath house, tot-lot, recreation building, half court basketball area and open lawn area. Landscaping will comply with the Renton Parking and Loading Code. Five different dwe ling unit types are planned that range from about 535 square feet to1about 894 square feet. The breakdown includes 56 units (Type A) which are planned to be about 551 square feet; 56 units Type B) planned to be about 662 square feet; 56 units (Type E) planned to be about 774 square feet; 56 units (Type F) planned to be about 894- square; feet and 56 units (Type G) planned to be about 535 square feet. These !square foota es do not include decks. The units will be three stories high contained in 14 buildings with about 20 units per building. (See Fi ure 4) All 14 .buildings are identical . The typical composition of units is made up of eight units containing one bedroom and one bath, four units containing one bedroom, a loft and one bath, four units containing one bedroom, a loft and one bath, four units containing two bedrooms and two baths and fourtstudio units. The units are to be served by a private street system. Access will be provided from N.E. Fourth Street and partial improvement of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Parking on-site will be provided for 420 cars. The total p oposal includes: j1) The sec ring of all applicable building and grading permits j and approvals from Renton; 2) Compliance with the soils study recommendations; 3) The improvement of N.E. Fourth Street along the northern edge of the site with drainage facilities and a sidewalk. 4) The partial construction of Edmonds Avenue from N.E. Fourth Street to the project' s entrance; I5) The construction of a mini-park including recreational amenities designed to fulfill the needs of the residents which include swimming pool , bath house with recreation room, Jacuzzi , a half basketball court, volleyball on the grass, tot-lot, a sidewalk pathway system, picnic tables and barbeque grills interspersed through the central area; and a meandering stream; 6) The construction of a sidewalk along the south property line at N.E. Third Street; 7) Construction, sales and occupation of the units; 8) The acquisition of all other permits and approvals customary and/or required for this type of development, for example, utility connections, etc. 16- 7/..- 1, 1 f . t e ',-'• 1_ 41 f•••••-•,''''''' L..-----,--- 3,;., k••• J; 1•1 p il I K I. 1, i'- 4 •- 1 tti I( ji1:1 0111411' 4",'' "'.'' 4 4.-.....„..,,, 4:,. ir' ss.. 4444 1; ., c1 , S....: 4.,••••••'"- ' 4.4 7. 7--:.::- c:,, s.-.---- ' i( 0-. f J) Amgtr -'', T3I- c- ii Y,i, •1,,.... ...,-- if,, h, ..,,, 41' 4140\ ' 4 Rowf Pi'' . 4 4''' '' t• - 4 ''' h' 7. Es.,,,, r, ....-...,-„,, v , t..,,,, 411..., N... 1 fl 2.----.....,, t,[ 010,..•,--•, s."- 1. 41. 71 - 7.:::- 1.•. 7411eAii,.• V. AM4Vtillr'''''''''' '''' '(.- Q. A:,, : 7-;: . 1, 4 .-.. 4Malt00. 4:, 9.,•, ;•• idy,,, 21:,,•• ir - -• Wirft, it ,,,, gs n, ....,. . 4art 4: 4111 ,„..{:-•:- ,....:-.... . ..-..-...: 7: 7:.- in4,,,,,,,,.... x ... 14*.. 31; pkvh. i.: 0 c-...), • •. e ' r'?.. 115. P..: ?:::-- 4,... 7. r---, 111ii --..: 1 ''''::!-: (.. 1:-; -.-.--:-"::::::: 117-•-:::: ::::::;;/ 77'''.* 77-'': 3,--- 1?%,„ 311. 01\: 2., .-- - 231.:-:.• I? f,.:,. •- :.:...-... ---- 1---;;;;;; L: '. • .: 4'. 11,-.: Wr-•::-. 1.17'.' t 3:• k 44, 1 : I • , - ' 4- - 4. .. - 4I' •-: 4tg`...'', 4tr i ' 9,.',. v ^: . 2 - 2,.: 1-..:. r ,:,.....„.. , . 1,, i„..., •••- t i . 1.., -... 4....... 1 - .,,$, -.--,. ...., .:,-.• ri' cv - -•-• , , ,, ; 1-••,,,,, rz,,,. 1— --: ::::::::...-, vr,----- 473.., .....:—......,..:.:•::,:•—•.-. .:-... 4:„ L.: m— _. _,,,,,-,,, 1„ 1,,. / E;,/.....: • •, ,! i• - i-• i' l'---'--- t ' y • .., 1,--',,,, t :..' i" • 4 peto" •-----'”-------• , ( 04- 44-.--,- 4- / i us...;.:::::.. 3..,';', Z. Z .,..! ',:' 4. 1'., t.,.,,,,,. -... 4--: ""--- 4. 1 . 1. 1.'''.: t''-' 44 '.; ''"' 1; 7'X* L._, '', V.: f .! ly.- 1 -- ' " ilA, itptl" t, L•' iri- 47' - lf: - 1- i 1' 1! i - :':', ' , v.- 1- 11..•-•.----:.. tirf- Ii7.•.:.. l' Il:- • „ Li i!,: irl ., AI 1, ,.. I,.-..--, •,,, v- - • . . •. .. ...... ,....... ., k„.--• : 4& i4, W. 4 ' ir.: 1 :,. .,, a0.,...,..,,,, , --,„ ,.. 44, 4 ! i-,- . . 1- ii i 4 4- : iii 4: ,,•• Y z... -•,: r. --- -,,,.:. . tr-•••---• );_;,,,„. 40...,: i 41, i-- 4:, ,, ': i i:, • - I, 1-J 4 '', 1, L) I':-...:: N\•-,.. .: ' i. a,,,,,,,,,;..• ...-,..,,,. _,;;; Lii ? t, ":,': 777.-- 7. I :. : i ... 4,-..,---,-- :.: Trihtkk, lia. rt..„. f. 7.- t.-- -.--- IA , : ti.= ,, ,,.-..-. 1 i i: 1 „ 4 - _...,.-:..... -.: :::, 4 : .,-...---- ........, , ,..- i . . •. -..„....:- .------- 2... 1 i . --.--- i ti Sr- ... :..... 4 4 1444, 4e ' 1. 4......... i', 44 : •,! ''''''''' 00, Aw.•",---. 71:-.-.. T77. V--, 1 . s :“, 4 . . ri . ..... 444• Nlik ',,-' 1fir, b3.', 41, 4-:::::-: ::•• ------- - 7-...../ 4 ?: . 1 :! t.....: 7.....: r, , • -: , i :.- kr.:. f..! 3a3t3wit..... 0-.. r.:• . s., 41,.; 44., 3.-:,,, vz;• itr'• viv- T" ' - • • .: 14,,,,,-, 3, 3 vir, :, . ,..,..:,.. 1,„ „...,,, 1„... i. •---. 4„ r 1 31 z..........:::..:. .:,:. ._:::‘, •,(. 1.,..,,,,,, .., r,, 4.,„ ban qi., hiz. v33,,...) ,, 3r33„,:,:::* mr' t!. Ez.. E. 4111 1 ..:.- rt 11. Tr - _ 3.. 117, i.„ 3:: * v.-. 6- 3.: i' i ; -, oit,:..,:.:::,,,.:., 1 ,„: ,. • „. . 6'.- 1- i- C,.-• . • • : :, ••.• ',. . c. at.-. 4# 0* x angikiti 1 k rf• I'' " '•,% RaittcAMIlm i :: !- •• / 7• Rs,, .. ii,, , At•.: t , k,:•'-‘," F. --. 11.. 1- L. - Nr- Tv- 14,-- . •,. 4,!, ,,,, i : ft:!! 4: P. ituiikaggttt! 1 ;: t4 ,, iitl go, f4. 4r,'• otarti:, • - - ,.. wtr.: 41.;,; i • ,,,,,, ttlit .. f: - , --- - i•-• , ,, .. , ti• iws..„„ 4, , 1..,;-..: 14-,,-- 441„,.. witi . .. ,,,,,„•,. E 4,.... v... wia407: 4:, •• • I.- , s..,:. ,..,.,;,•.„: 44.. ,, .'•,:, , ,... 44. t,. 14. It . „•••••,--- w"-',--. 414/ 1.' •• r. 4% ; !' iv,* till: 4.1i ellAttil'- 4 :,: r'" 0$ 14‘,',• 41- 1 1- ' ' IrftfiltAi ...,. . f'''"'- -, 44 .. ' 7v72. Wt ,-.; i .„,, . * . 4::-.:,---. ..._, p . z, z,' i st rft..".- 7: 4R'',' 5. Awp. 42. 41.;•:,-;;;,•----,---- 5:::':':-. 7ka,,.# 11 , 1, : ,,:. 17tc,,, 4,,...--,•,-----,-.'" - li.,• ...... .. 474101• 4'.. 1. i...,, 7- ,:.''-.--',. 1. 7,*--..---- :•-• s. , V l' 34--". V4';': i •.)-----‘'-'' - -------, - t„, -.... s•,' r......„..• -- ---....,...._ , -.... , t„._._....= - -- e ., •• ft1) 1". 1 t:-- 4-,• ---• i• ; ' il i kr ___ •-•-• s\ .,----.. 2,* 0-- - 3p•- rf „:- ' V \- 1.;:., r;.''.:'-;;." ---"- .---..<. , :''''"....-.-. 1'-' V ' --- 11 '. 1. 1.......:,.... r.... ..... ( sr L....... -...•.! . ) .. i.., 11iii. 71,,,,.., v,../ ,...<. 2.;,... : / 4. 4, .,,_.',,',": 4",,,%.:,, j; :• 1 .. \ f I.,- 3 J• 1 )., .. 44--.-,, 4.44-4,4-4,-`.. li.) 1 , Cc ___ •//,' 4.. 1 I V.'? lit4 ‘ • -.' 44 4,.. 1,' • 4•• figure 4 THE- Th i .- •,,. i; II" h•• ,1 I.. ; 7;:-;-: i i!-;‘ 1" r ;,;•-'1 -tzi, ii A1111014' s,<-.,.<„,,., fi 4,-;,--- 4,) ' i 1.1 !•• i; 0, ,i 4.,)/ 3.:::.,.........:_:::f-"i: ,..,,„„„„„ CrIlk' tk.'is•:' krilr 1 1 • 1 '• '', •r•••1•=2""'' e.t..t • ,1 ,. c04-ke i .:',•A; ;.1 V.,Iiiiet rt•1VP' IA i if ' 4 s.' 4 l'... _. .,„' -::::-- 2.--.Si,1-?P,m74,.„1.-. 7t/C E • • - 044 Z):k 409,- - t...'.7::"...--i." , ',Mr i '--.....-.....• WAII.O. ,., :,,.„-.-).-:>(4., .',..; 0. 11 :, ' - ''• P•'' "1'1. t, • 1*..,-- .f.• !, . Mg4i,\,,i- i.S.:-.."1 i.V**.i-------1 A.4P.,•;',0,-..'.i .................::Plit..', '' I •171,:iiirMr;• '' '- d:/,' (i:s•"--1'11 1 ' ."•‘-'Cig.. ...' 1'1.,.'''•\‘`' , 1:11:: ••*,,Z1 Vii,,,SZ•p..,. 1.rfi... ..-.:;.•-'1:.5:.:I1 .--•-•-**, ,•9.. f.',.. 11-4p. :,.,.'. ..,,,,li.4:4.':'tit, -. 0.,, ....-.,----...--:-2.--.:-• ,,,,,„,.--5. ._--1 [ '•,u" :4 :I k) r a 7.:., .,.'..4 01,m1-,„-c,"••'''''... ',:;. 4..P.4'. 7{61, 1! t‘;' '7411Pv.. --4g... . :::;...:;.:1,11.1: -_-.. ..-..'.1':1::::.:''....::.:-::.:-:'.. . 1,-:#111:'' r7::.-:Fill[7:'::.....':-•:!;.. 1,01%]:....„.:.::;,,;.:,.,„_•..........::::::.:1- i.. "i...._ p Aiii141i'..:k ',..;'`, •;t1,k,1% V4tr,,,;,ef;;:-. ,...f.:._:::-.....---.......------ --".7.-----,--illiaie il!'iiiiiiiIIMIL91::'N..•-•:••::::::::::::r41 '-44L ;I ": 7.:•.,-' ;'A.' s•'• 1,-f T, .-e•,,;(.*.•W1110kilktki0k- -.,• ••,--_,...--,•-•. 11•2*.............................--- /,'1 i-:•14L441111011t/1111101-NL- :::-Ii ''.. '.' .4 . ' ' ' i.C.';,• "f.• 'AO,.•,-. ,0,1-,4t topn=;?.--._---. ...---- . --------------------- ---,,,,,,TH.4,iiii-r:::,!-).4.14•Tiiiiii, ., ',,::::•.--..1 t --._? .,,-- ::, . ,,.. 46,,,, i's Op 4,,,i, ••••• „,..0.----,-,*---, -- 1 41'.'oe't l''."'"El,',',,J:'.','1,11 1',11 \----17: t f T.....-:.•:ii: ' ii: i. .i.1ft t,..tiVkZ11....' 4,:...4:, ...- •--...-11 ilt*.V.N.;,:- 110.1.1_-.-- -- :::.-------------------------—------------ ---------------/ 11:11.11ttn":10.VOi.--i* ..•::: :::: r.ii :A.:771‘j 4---..7.-. .''''Iiii1;i1,...11i .'.40 :::::::-",:.*:.-------....-------....... f 1 1•1-71.!.11.• ,...........•-:.irf.A"II t,*•"^".:-.•.• i -I':: :;...IP;).-**:-******'1 :Ol!ll'iil: ::.: '1;,:,',. ..i .i 2-1#1;1"I-4,$:IA..-''' . 11.1i ' .'J. 4' /*:"1......i, k...........:.:-.1.,-.3 FN.diii,,, r •-•'• '• ----.:....----•....----' - ---------. - • 1 lallti '4'• 'il' . .1' I II',11 f,., f,::-.1V 17-•:-....•----i.....„......................_.........._ i, . . ......-.. --..... . 1 i•61:",'411, , r,0: .: , r I-..aq;`,......7.4!: ....1.....4i': ii:..............._...i iiiiiii.i 4..1,,, .._ ..:, , . ; ....................--, 11:.''--Ii 1..‘..„, 11'''...9. 1.1..- 1--' 411.11:-.....'' i.... r..:,..:113li)', 1-.--.".. 1..-;-' 1...::,...' 111', e'(. 1...,,...!f1. 1:t::---4!---7.H111..-'.: 7_...„....'....7:-. 1_'..'..:'..._\... 7.111:---:11...- 1I7isti.L..:.. f.,,Ifi'l... =TAT - ........if......_.......L........._............----7,----- , 1„Ell::1„filli I 11111011111111 1111ffilliiill'....... 7**-t ' ii y-i ,. 1 --..f.,:- -,---- 1pip, s „, , i, ,.,-.1J isk.;::::::y.:•,-,.. -1, .-:.. ----- `-',..,.,...,",; 7------ - i 1J------,-1 . i• 44111illliihialiiii..• `-/ . - ::,:tlisr I i.. I :114' 1111 ,,,. 11 li i !I;Ir. ••••-1,11}limpkiii,, ..1 i'. 1, figure 4a THE TERRACE i 1 1 N • 1 s1 ...„:41'‘.. Vi 771 may S, y I)/-1441,b414 PAS i 1' l i 1,1r%;1, i liUPH S I f 1.1 II ImiEll - 000... I 1 r A 0 f: j PH A I 1 II s`o . figure 5 PROJECT PHASING F. Major Physical & Engineering Aspects of the Project Drainage Retention Storm drainage facilities will be installed in order to control surface water runoff. The drainage system will direct surface runoff to underground storm drainage system in the access and parking areas. Runoff will then be directed to underground storage which will be designed to control the rate of discharge from the site. Pollution control facilities (screens, catchbasins) will- be- installed to reduce the impact of surface water pollution. All drainage and retention facilities will be designed and installed in accordance with Renton Standards and Policies. (See Figure 7 ) U1:ilities Sewer service to the site is provided by the City of Renton. Sanitary sewers will be extended to the- site from an existing 8" line located in N.E. 4th Street. (See Figure 15) Water service to the project site is provided by. the City of Renton. Water will be distributed via a connection to an existing 12H main situated within the right-of-way of Edmonds Avenue North, which is adjacent to the site. (See Figure 14) The proposed development will be serviced by underground electric power from Puget Power and telephone from Pacific Northwest Bell . Roads The proposed looped access and parking configuration for the proposed project is shown in Figure 3. Access to the site is proposed from N.E. 4th Street and from N.E. 4th Street off of a partially constructed segment of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Four hundred twenty (420) parking spaces will be provided as well as internal pedestrian sidewalks. Streets, parking areas and sidewalks will be maintained by a homeowners association. G. Relationship to Existing Laws, Plans & Policies The City of Renton Zoning Code The project site was zoned R-4 in 1963, and since has remained undeveloped under this classification for 17 years. (See Figure 8). Under the provisions of the existing R-4 classification, the maximum potential number of dwelling units that could be constructed on the project site is 588 (ie. , 70 DU/acre x 8.4 acres) . The project proposes to construct 280 dwelling units on approximately 33.3 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is consistent with local zoning requirements. 20- The City Comprehensive Plan/Zoning In J.nuary 1980, the 'City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan was revi -ed designating the site as well as property to the east and west as High Density ;Residential . (See Figure 9) As s ch, the site is intended for residential uses allowing the maxi um number of dwelling units, the maximum number of stories and the maximum proportion of land coverage permitted in the 'i ty of Renton, in accordance with the R-4 zoning clas ification of the site (ie. , apartment houses and multiple-family d elliings) . In .F:.bruary 1981, the City adopted the policies element of the Comp ehensive Plan which set forth specific policies as related to the -nvironment, economic, urban design, residential , commercial , indu-trial areas, transportation utilities, community facilities and 'overnment. The proposal is generally consistent with the goal - and policies set forth in the policy element document. Special Permits In J ly 1976, a partial permit to fill and grade in an R-4 zone . Appl . No. SP-876776) was granted. As conditions to the permit,- a 140' setback on the south and west property line or to the existing tree line was to be provided as well as a 50' natural landscaping buff r from N.E. 4th.iStreet. As a result of the excavation acti ities of the previous owner o.f the project site, these conditions were not attained and the site was denude of vegetative grow h. The Proponent is requesting approval by Renton of the re-u a of the si to to multiple-family use. City of Renton Parking &Landscaping Ordinances The 1roposal is consistent with the City of Renton Parking and Loading, and Landscaping Ordinances. Parking on-site will be provided for 420 spaces or 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Eight and one-half percent (8-1/2%) of the parking area will be landscaped in accordance with Renton requirements. 21- III . EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED PROJECT PROPOSED PROJECT AND MITIGATING MEASURES A. Index of Elements of the Environment 1. The Physical Environment Earth Geology Soils Topography Unique physical features NA Erosion Accretion/avulsion NA Air Air Quality Odor Climate NA Water Surface water movement Runoff/absorption Floods NA Surface water quantity Surface water quality Groundwater movement NA Groundwater quantity NA Groundwater quality NA Public water supplies NA Flora Numbers of diversity of species Unique; species NA Barriers and/or corridors NA Agricultural crops NA Fauna Numbers of diversity of species Unique species NA Barriers and/or corridors NA Fish or wildlife habitat NA Noise i Light and Glare Land Use 22- Natural Resources Rate of Use Nonrenewable resources Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions NA 2. The Human Environment Population F ousi ng Economy Transportation Vehicular Transportation Generated Parking Transportation System Movement/Circulation of People or Goods Waterborne, Rail & Air Traffic NA Traffic Hazards Public Services Fire Police School s Parks/Recreation Facilities Maintenance Energy Utilities rgy Communication Water Sewer Storm Water Solid Waste Human Health NA Aesthetics Recreation Archaeological NA NOTE: Elements of the environment which will not be significantly affected are marked NA Not Applicable) . 23- B. Elements of the Physical Environment Preface Throughout the text of this document, mitigating measures proposed to - be undertaken by the Developer are identified by an asterisk. 1. Earth A soils exploration and geotechnical study of the proposal site- has been prepared by Earth Sciences. A portion of the following information is taken from the study report dated January 8, 1981. The full text of soils investigation is presented in Appendix C. Existing Conditions Geology and Soils The soils and land forms of the region were developed by the repeated advances of glacial ice occurring approximately 10,000 years ago during the Vashon Period of the Fraser Glaciation. The advance outwash deposited sand and gravel and/or silt and clay, compaction and similar deposits produced glacial till . The recessional outwash produced additional material similar to advance outwash, but uncompacted. The project site is located on the upland area north and northeast of ;the Cedar Rifer Valley. In the vicinity of the project site large areas of recessional outwash exist. These outwash deposits are characterized by very gravelly and sandy sediments that range in thickness from four or five feet to 80 or 90 feet on the upland terraces. Major deposits are several hundred feet thick. From this geologic action, the Everett Series soils were formed in - the very granular sediments which are loose and porous. Formerly, the project site was a borrow pit, which as a consequence of !excavation activities, top soils were removed and gravel deposits extracted. Simil ar activities occurred on several parcel s to the south and east iof the project site. The surficial and subsurficial geologic analysis of the site concluded that, "Subsurface conditions are almost ideally suited for development as proposed" . The nature of the Aoils hive good strength and slope characeristics of up to 35 to 40 inclination. Topography The terrain of the project site is relatively flat except for a ridge as much as 20 feet high which runs along the west property line, and a smaller ridge along part of the east property line. Figure 6 presents a slope analysis of the site. 24 414\ 7...„ , 14: 0. 77,:\ ;,N g.,. 7 \ 4ft. . s., A,,,, ,„1 AZsie:;`..,\,_..:: 2.4`..%1`,...\\N fr pitri1/4041* r..;\tip 1N-...-'- ' Jeei•••''\ x4v;$:\,1\*. flati,.\ N .,...\1*;,is , i 0 t 4.;* se*.A y 1: 6/ i iwiQ.:..'•O II 7-14/o P, t.., 15-24/!,s. ,.....„\'‘ 1'.•.. 4/0 1..., 01„ 4.:,I":':.:1:41.1; .:' 25%+ c . i 41 figure 6 ' 1r9 SLOPE. ANALYSIS Erosion All of the major soil types on-site are erosive. This susceptibility is partially offset by the permeability which allows most precipitation to soak in, so long as it is not permitted to channel or flow onto bared surfaces from outside the area of excavation. Impacts Since the proposal incorporates all of the recommendations-set forth in pages 3 and 4 of the soils report prepared by Earth Sciences, unstable earth conditions are not anticipated. While site preparation and building construction will require soil movement, impacts are expected to be nominal since net soil movement on-site is ;reasonably expected to preclude the need for any off-site movement. The finished grades have been adjusted to keep all movement of earth on-site. Some import of structural fill may be necessary. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 cubic yards of earth will be distributed during construction. It can be normally anticipated that during construction and grading, the potential for erosion would increase. No Development Conditions would remain the same as described in Existing Conditions. - Development to Single-Family Density Impacts resulting from excavation for site improvements and building for 42 dwelling units would be less than or equal to those generated by the proposal . Although much of the site would have to be regraded to improve the effects of previous extensive excavation. Development to Maximum Density Grading and excavation impacts would be equal to or more than those created by the proposal due to increased parking areas and building site preparation. Mitigations a. All recommendations of the soils engineer. (Refer to Soils Report prepared by Earth Sciences, January 8, 1981) 26- it b. A Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan will be implemented 'during construction, including the placing of strawbale check-dams in drainage courses to reduce the potential flow of sediments. c. A permanent storm water control system is proposed and will be- installed in accordance with Renton's requirements and standards. This system shall include the use of underground storage and surface retention areas. (Reference Storm Design Details/Calculations. Report, Stepan & Associates, Inc. 1981) . . d. A Comprehensive Landscaping Plan is proposed and incorporated to provide additional on-site erosion control after construction. Unavoidable Impacts Disruption, isdplacement and compaction of soils increase in the p tential for erosion on-site due to excavation, grading and c nstruction activities. 2. A r Exi ting Conditions' The Puget Sound Air'Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) monitors air quality at several sampling sites throughout the region. The sites nearest to the proposed project which monitor particulate levels are the S.E. District Health Center at 12015 S.E. 128th and the Renton Municipal Building at S. Second Street &. Mill Avenue S. As indicated in Table 1, particulate levels are increasing annually yet rem in below ambient air quality standards presented in Table 2. Table 1 Suspended Particulates - Renton Area Sam ling Site Particulant Level Location parts per million (ppm) 1977 1978 1979 Standard S.E. Health District Center 38 36 43 60 Renton Municipal Building 51 55 59 60 While air quality was not specifically measured at the project site, the measurements summarized for these stations may differ from conditions at the project site because of the sampling stations ' proximity to major sources of pollution, which reflect a worse case condition. 27- e..4L:1;ASIZi.X.-1Pr. t.i.ri..'.,.:'::•''`i''''.:r.i.675':-4f1',L'..! ',•',...,ti':':-• ' -`;'.--......,",I•I'i,:.,71...,.f•,...,,I, 47;7.,,,,,:. ';':;0:;;I:Ii.:iN..!. 5.::. .-:;.:.1;4'..j. s''' .'''''''''i .''.0%7S.2:iii 7414'It'''''i'f'f:'•14.•0•;'::-..'''' ."--"'.• ---r-,-5-'''.gfit J ,--0-tir-LYi'.3 :;.'''-'1'.is..!•-,,,.3- L•q-.,,--e-,-F3,....-.F4.•4.6121 L.,2_•f;',:g..-11:1111..-,4-.--.- -.1r,..-r: ;t,;(•;,;.;. .,',"..'..,--:-.17,'",:?i.`;;:i3,:-.i%:ii,..2tfli,.,. _ L.,..;;,: .•',.,„.,- ', 4,.;;,-. 1, P.:":11fi';'.;7'........- a--3,-- .i-4iii,'Ur...'' '- - d•-• .t.-;;;;k1;-t\--,-:T-7--.1--.N.t.: L,--::•;.-'.:':-, • •• 2.!':.?',%-.,.C. l,:e.L.- :,"rkAti•-d,-4,,....k.-.--...,--KT!,ip-,.._.A.: ..;;.-.;':-.`•'..r,;:•,,,.:.-...,!. i,.--,,,,--:••:•1-„L„,_.•.•-•,,',;11,;9, _;.o.,;:tcf.,;.; ,•:,,,, ,-;.7.7.,,.!,1•4„A-:.',10_.., -,. 0.7%.*:..,ii!' 1:::.":4::;15.....'7!.. „': , e1,-15;i:i::;_'. .,•c;Evrt„, 1-,.,Mi'f,',,, `.. . ,iig..,.s.1,1..!-,:li.,,,.4:,_t,tp-57.•••,,,;,,,,,t1.f.:-,,,.-- , , ..:.., .,,,,:,,..-;,_:tw,i.4,s,:., r,..,„'1.",7,,T,•_:•-v,i•-,••:i•:•••;,•-•:4,',.m.t•Z,Ifi---.-.,.'',..,-.....:Iviz,LAi4tX,,,,-_:,,t/Ite r.-gt.;• 4., , ,.. .',...=,4„;%_;-,,-,•i.',.:',.,,-.,N.-1:4-,4..---;.-*..;:, k.-:4•.,-.2.-:,..ta.e....i.vzif4,..1,;-,-,i,L:• tr ",.„.--..f%h,,,,,,r',-... n.-i _151-e„..r-LL 3, , r-1 . w-', .5,,314,1.-.4,--0-i.-,...,4. .,.ij.-"tr.'di! 1.. . 1 s,I::[--:,-,..I E:..322,1'.--..if4.': r:- ... v;.'.,I..,,',,,-.',-,!“..,.;.:;44,t; r-1, ;*.-'-''J28--q„.:4••,,-:-?,.,:ff.,441;,,,,:4!".1;;4'..,4e,„:3 1.,--. ii,-.R.Ii...4;,...:•45-,13.4,;, ,,7;....-,14 0.. _:,g,-,4-14--..51-it,,, - 4.,;.:0,--,,,,,,, i; --.N- , „.1`. ii.c...-4*.;',7f,- 1 pl. 8 1!-.:.ii.,,!, . .-, ,tirg.e. ,' •0,... 4,4,i...c.s-,0,g,-.1.4:-.,?,-,:!.!,--.-..,:',,,,..i;...,,,,V....:Q711,1k,., :-,Li: - ,dr- ,i-a.i. -?'-.:..,',.:•,-;-;:-...:*:70-..-;..1:52:-..r.1--..'-:ot,..'. e.-4;,k,",41;.;:t1;_f,Mrs';17-.--.-i-.,0'.4••-41.1i-r- i-..,.,14:-Kiv- ',.. klit' ,'--' 4. --k-q..-„1.•7.4:-.,-,17.; •, .•-r. r.-"P'.'FrIV4-r.;„N',•i4t,i'V.„_‘0,,-.„2,.i, :irai',1-,..-r",t;Li.,,,Iii,i-_;:;._ 1'.-'3:,-.--;:;-•''#•'-`-1-1.7,7.:!- igi,,,-..,•,..1,;.,_ril':;•1‘..-:i• !.P...-;.;!....1;.; .± .:•.,.1 4...;;;W, ..i..,,,.111,,f44-iwq:c.':54-..11-1,''' '14. 1-fi,•..-',-.1,1-4,...,,-,4, ,,..--k, ,',-';',515?' 1.-...,).--1-F.±^:r.,::4;. ;'. -.,.--,-_-;.i .A-_*%-ti?-x-tti:;.'4.,1r,,,,,t.-.f.';',,,,.;k-•‘•_-`••,-`. ,;-;.r.'-, •,,..;-,:17).;',A,,'',/4„'„..14,':,arn-,IN1--pkflif:Zile--4 t41105 Poe r.S...13.-::-..,, 49-7.;.- ..:1, •-1.7-..;.,-.;1;71..,vo- ...-,-Rt„.,..,„•1,,,,.4,,,,•., , 4,4 ., ,.. . ,--Y....f.-,-.4„,-.", 7);_t-,,.,-61•66NAL.ri,,:_-..---.,,.--f...,...,-1.:'---ib' 3--) Islirl..g:tipt:_.1.,.--,--.?„-.,!.....i),i4a._El,:%,..4rtm...„..R.:z...,_:::-::...ic. n....,•,... 1-,,--.7,74„47.,:.-!T!„..0--,:. . 14.c•-:.,,• 1.i*F.,....i-irriN.41.%1:42-:-,--0..!f.".. ',-,.;.;-;.04,t:•16,"';-,_' rt3'.„,..14 P''114 '' itt:-'4;Jtr-ei":1g;!.431%1!a'fz";;I:.. -:,;, --'2.-11:!4N:•-Wg,t--$1.`• Pqr:.,,-- .-!.,'-f-'3Ttri-,. .?1 ;t6-0.4;.70474414`07:70j-'iunfi ght-:,,i);?rIlllit)i-iifr..,,,17._,_,.,,,t!',.,.,7_7..': -•'•-••=-.1--.:.[-,- *:'. aT;.- .'-',4P-,' 14• -:, '-',,?..;`,if:'-i,', .' .g ,-;-.2:-,71-5‘qiieiiii.dt,ttr:.-pupt,Art-A-org!,s_t..'•tor,2,t:.,- -,, e .1,-;-;Jr.F.41 -:.,•-1-"1,-F,.-41-1111A-151 des-11 n''-"”7,'"---.11.P40.4.1---- 1.-, ,,,.'•ff.,0. ',.F.PR'IMARY.'---:..'SECONDARY• . •i ' VAt'e,',-4:-.!__;.,27i,.- 2 "I-12-.4...-,,,-,-:-.-f.e.'._,., f-' i.',i .a 7.Oulm91140.TrVi Pint. 41.4 ir"4-il'''it•>..•:; 1::' e- 4 ,.. .11 . 1,49 -• ;Iti?• .'-ii-i•050,01 a t•Of_Pwl.rth',4',''‘.1...'"' I''''._,. A.''' 4,2'7'',:-.;-,i,Lr kt,,,,;,.,,,i,:i 1,--,•:,• .7: •••1• •-•_';'•':;-;; ':- • :1','''..0`;.1J3-',....'1.."..,i -' 4 .; ::-,-,,,„-.7.-,--- e '''-;7:1 illig ti$S4es!liOrtivisP.I.r#tori•f4",ict••9n-e'24.;' 0..t-' IT'--.j ...i..&,..rrire,i' •...:).-,i .i........,EY,"-.,al e45 05;..4 hgli.-71,17a4;-47',,,,.;'7-••r77-71- 111-"' - '-'-'- - '' "•- fri-..-- -•4: • • ppm ••••-•- ; .':...7'''.-.-13 git ..._. ..1 .,... i....._?,.. 7.-.. .. . $. .,•,.;:o ont'iinpa 1;r4%.•tf,',.',iip rata 1.'1 unc t!PP.• 9 .-- i•d,..-r.,r.irr.rj,trii • 1;.'T.,.,,:-YAt.i.t."---::.....TIOYT-1-!.ft--'-`t'411:-,tP?-T!6'EUR-41fli.14 #‘;,,,i. ..).,' "- ,--:-6.'• '. _, , ...,:::-.':j -.,, -:'...•,,,,,,;,-4-!,..:"•'-,-:1 J.-h Til ,..7... , -,:••:.',7.1eng•,•_-40;•-..,,-Agi,4q-0•40X0019•11 .., 4riti4e/.1,- 1:'-`":'•:-.:' f_PI.‘ n7,,,,,-,.. . ,. .. ..,.,..,: :Al= •-•:,N41).thc.-17.- ••1.-V!Ilk 1:•,-...... 7 .. -.•11,0 1 5-'a n'd'..-cr2 0100jr, causes 1 u.n9,11 ght.n i."--- W ' -' - When '''s l'fVr4--:' „,.11,Plitd /tg-,109,•?,•:i., ::•:....u:k$ypi..-:,,, --- ., •-:...,J. -!.... p4•iii..--7.,,-,..••6_ oii-:::-,. a ,L: 4-`,.. '0,0--5--5.;.',.c'9..ugiip-9,17..110. ,..-r..,_*ileeztinrni)illiithritv-4i..,..-1::: z. .,-,L.- 5,-.1. li.: to,,..,--s!i9P. i, a,„qt:„„...'711:61.;rifWctes„,' . '''',g-.. . .,,- ,-,..,„;'7.,•41,a,---.h-';',:-'-'• :!_;'1.5•*:•,-;-.',&;--' 1 ' • ''.:'-'s-',:-.,f.:,, ..k.1,,-,Li.,,',.' .. • ' -'-. 0. :, 4iii,-' 1---4-''''• '-' 11-'1 2 i:--'''.'''t''''', ' , '." ."-'- ' 1,,Iii'l 3 '''.7'.12-ri-r .4-A.V.'1 --',-g.'5 ,,-2,--4,,fii.;. =-:. L'.:,:i.-:,!--:,, ;-1.-.,_ .--,-,7-':--:iir" ..-. b :: 040 "..• a •-l.r --:''.,0.X14fRt4 1..j•jerPrOliget.4.6./ri._.111 .1smaller A„... p_- 4.!,}7,i,,..,_.,, 441.,;:ailite,:-......,:_f_.,4. 4.,7,.:,. itvrlf.-..k.n.c.r..vg1.4.-, e.,,...,. . i.,,A,.; kl.,Atiyragg...;.,.;,1,- 2.,..q.dt.....,..r ..:, ., ...,,,,.,.... ,.._,-: ..,-0,..-:,. , jp.,„...,_ .,...., _ ,.-_,...„...._ .....,.„ ...,-„, „ .. .._.,t4"z9no,--i.,Xi:- .-::- ;1.i-1 -,.. •- '---flelr:-.14.-!itlue.siii; liig.'--k.-j-t ;•V-'.-Z1:7--:-.----• '`----:,- •-,,,I.,,,,:ii4k.,, .:..,,Q.50. li'i:'::7.-:',1,..:.' 7:-••7 '''',-1-',•'.• , 1, '„i;1Pr.1.5.•4wt 0. ch.r9,qi-F ta.,se° nY6't trNrilulli-47,1,-- 011_50 •..,.....-.;•-, .-- --ylt•_ r7----iellft9R,•:. :4,-,,....,--...-.-i: '- e.- :- -.::-.,..-q • -='•,, - i.. 96• • c -•,`-•:,•-rsuPP 41.5'aXhrimi':.§ 11-pqs :.. t--Ark' i', : ' i5494.5.:4-,f:-.:,:::,"'',..'-!,Mi•--2:'`'wf,..' '-.P.',....-'-'A-'-'-'-i'ai,12..--'';'%-- ----.4 -..'-4fA-'4--•3: •: ii' -.'•'-'-r•.••...-••• •-`42--;Mr._,;?r, - c 1'..--.9 i 7r:'F'- , -' •;''•_'-- ciftin'oes-4n':otbnei.:oncentr4t191.11.(J7';',-:.'it0,47, iiisi-,4-..v- 1,4:777:-.7,1L,7:5-...-t7.-...,;-1-t.wor...Lgii,troge r• ..-h':,.,:-.t..':, ,...--,-,.. - • .-...,,,,,--4,, J-4, ..-_-,7:1,,..r.. 4',, - - . • r- h--•'lin `!• ',,, •r,.... 7 T, !,.-:31r 1.k...s 7.3..7,1,1,0-.....i.177,.1.-i....•-/....4%7-71!'..c.,.q,...„. MI- • ., P'*1,.,- 1.-41./.0:--r,.: ..A.-.:•....-i..r..:,.-:-...;.:.-- --.--.- . ,... ,_ ,-.,„ ,. ,----,-%-. 4.?---,- ...-,-- ;,- • •1.,-;;,-;'•'---t----,-- -...11 11' b ri 1.1, it.--. 5. a, _•:•,.:,;.•.-:,:::',--:.-:,•.''.'!„i Yr-...:.`, , 1,,":11ji-.3,7;;;;:e%-.1.;•:.,..-i-i-',...,:-'''.,Lt•-/...:.''t"-: 4-4-,ILi ,,,.:•,,--- -....,. .-, -: t.i.f .',.7V:V.T.'T.--::''o:-::::,i",7..,:f i.'''';: :::-'!' ..,..!A a. .- ' ''',i" ;,...":1'-'4.'Illat;',.. .-- .--.:-. 5.'-'=" '''''' -4',F,W 1,Id-,t L.-T •i , .,-, -,-,„_,.• ,..,....,.„...„,,-,,,,-,di.',4.114u.rvariger,,, -,,. h,, - .,-.),. . ,..- , , :- ....,...,,, J. 1,,.1-,,,,,_-_,.,.i.... •t•.;,• •,,,,, .- - -,-- .. z,•-•c- •-,-."--.,,,.'s4.4,-, .•-v----r-,- -..-L .----- - -• ,-.---. c --r .,-.. r.,0.--: .--., ..-. ---.- 4.-- -,-._-,.: --.;:-..-T:T.A,-,' ,ki'.1...,.....141..;;.,.i4. '--',.:,.--.•,;-•;....-P-ili:-`,1-f.-.;.[-- •.r•-----.., 1.-,-i! ‘,1-,--.p„-p.:..,. ----' •:---,;.L 1-.- j;_.,,• • . .; .7...!...,,,i ,-;,- ,;.• :,7.2.;c.,.; .1:00 . ',' - d :•-•.:!.:- 'NO-FIRGIN-pip)91;1:Rc,,.,$.,..;,.$-..,,,-:,.-;..., ........i,:_l....,,._,,...,,,...:iL: 7.• . :'• 7?• 1/..,...;,..,-L 147'qt.-. • -t."V-H.-T:i& L;':•....-...--. - 4' ''''''-` " C'''-.-- r;'-%'-.2-:)' i '-CrY-R1151!11 .11 1-'''' ::....-4'' ' ' Nitric:;0)1 1 dCr0R I from the••fi catie.tf;'....,, leo ,,..41,-,1, 4;111. " : , titisra'.-Q-1'-.91'"'PPi0:17,-7r.!s-.i. ‘''r7;.---,..511SpEtiDED':',:__'-; .1-',..°:".',L'94/m.),':, '...-' - 1,-gLirri4i!'-.'-‘,.-.''..-..,-:-...',1 •-:''.4'..nriTm.47----_ •. . • 14 Oil ..,-•_. '-'‘ -„:i:., 1..."'.,:.' 4-y..•.•11-.1.0,090 i'ivi;',-,919e91-,at...hi nh,.... terffiel,-.;.,4,-.:;,,.i'. ifv,..;1,..'t-.•• r 4.x, 0,100..1CYb a 01_cts Phlrf,A,?9,..1, .„'-tz. itlitiDT0- . .,,_,,,71r,,,t....-.1.-.......,tiliti'.•§4--.1fi'ftifit' q01.11,14tign.e.4-;T e ..4 ,4,c-:-1.‘.,-.- -' • '..4 :-4.• • "h.r1 c''.--reictions‘-* t•:.' • 01,. N.-At:0041 c PO,R1 PX-.e,4.tftg - - -cr .,..--,:, -. . ‘-_,I....r,,..-..:,. 60,,,...)1"4 2•--ii,- ,!_q-11!-[_6Er•-•:':' a- ..f.:.-60'7-•••%.. _9. .i.,,..ko are--$.0.yrq_!•••• .v.ITIP-P,Te„ ,..,- -- -,,,,- 44 ir.''-J7narifa.'- is t t o c 1 0 t e d' Wi '-'41;••,`;',1,/"-Ii‘finuit-.-', il0;Itieen-: '1.""_;•:7-5,-,,,A'. 51,<, ..,• -!--'i: j., •-.\fi-- • . ''._.-7...'i•-•......--'ra-le-`-' -,...: i,..-...14p-L4,-4,..4,,•-••te ad,-tsi the ox 144 Lien-P! 1 L..,.r 1.,. . . ...-.. , mg 11311,-fn;': i...,.. v„e•-• .,. "..."",n'1,14/rid'P'vr •5 ,--7.-L., ..„4-,.21-r::'7:-- '-••'''-'-.1- ....:.•,-, •. ' 'n•-:;:. :i.:', ff-r---T1. Cii•'.:::::--. b :..., ,1•-• . 4.,- ..•',..:- e.-.,-,-:-..-.7...-2 •• ...:21.,..-,,,-,. i,_......--,r,L..J 0.,_ . '44' firf-14''Sti-- ; -.5--Cin e"- •-1 --k•T?..iL,gii:;.tiai0AvtAgeiLv :.-.:',g011-:,,?.,7-. ,`, - . 15v -.--_:.-74 ,. '!,4...W.-,.f3-,',--_, • - -,...,.,;-?-.1-•'.:--, - --.'-'--3fOX-140-.i.A9"'R-itr-PS0P.ifq!9,-1,19F.i', - . _,,..,,,i1; iiils J;i4- - -, •',Aie Aro-,,.,,,,,.-,npf.,fit 1 cutAtg.i.,111-1-1*.Fi .?,„1_,-p.,_:,,,•,s,,..1„....._-:::. ':.•'' --'-...-' . 41. .:,.J-..,,,,,-;-::-.. ....ta-1----,.0, --' .vr. ,--. f.'...4f-presence'of IR.trggen;41 94.5 p tie .11:4Fah.All' .`,It',4tiilfy3r.gt:',B-Atiiliti-t-4,tf 4,7'.:: : ,g_.;:i0;•,-..-.'-o • -:=•/;f7'''1'..-,..ti-7,:.;Z'!';',.*.i1Z Ir. r•i-::':::::', :--::',..'-'•;::,. .-';' 1 . ...;-': .1%. ii i.,Is,.es 4 en f,a],tq:-..the•pre4metISTJ-...111 .., 7: a': -°' , "F-1 $'• .( if--- r 1 taw ACT'?-4:1,---siAglittQ,XIDE_•r••:- . ••,-: A:PPui '.1:--' - . -,‘i,•::,,,'- ::::, •7•4',,'....4- '- •-;•.,"1.•-... ..ry:•:,.i....}1'..!'..;.: Zi:--. fra'' . oxidoit.i : The.presence,r;;,J 1..! l•-...50- P- -•„. ,_,.• -' '--• 1„--vi,' .- r '..7;‘,/ 'c.r--:,- -- ‘4.-,,,„.-;. ... r".-.2'-'.?c-"---i::. :.,145-;,:;.;--;.'''..::•';' '. ...-- ....?''':-'''''`.f.'4::-",'‘ -r121;.-It'Plig.;.91*'''.14'.7-- '`..- ' •'-Lob r tif:. i V-bac'''''''i Vt0'95_P5:.•tq:-,r,?••!41°,1s$A0,-,,.1.;-_,,.•,,:lak ',./' -'•Ii ."'.;---:i.'", n-''',,.14').:-. .• s 4 iii :.•':::::: v i,,,.-,cf:lidOit ;;•:, ' ,':•••::,S:14ff.ff-7 ,_..-,,,', .'-:11.;iepf,otro9priAl9i(.10f:•,11n:.., .en_,. t_t_••'-,-Tgri-tri'd.:-•:-. .'A...- •-•;,:;...,f_.,..;;. :..-., -, --..,-7---....--7-.2g,..-...;,,,.:,.;_,-;,,,, :',Z't,..Ni:k -- As co c 1 a t id-.W i41;".y dr'kW,P.T.1.7RAI7r_:, L' a '41 ''''- --' , -Po).•--..---.!--. -1:-.- •r•rf..- - ' ',-.:- .-i ', , 1-,-.- •- w cf.; 4' '. 1' F--'-',.... ...q..1 meg() , •••-••• •-•. 4Vo...,....r.-,4-,,,•'3..,.v.,.....!..--.1.,,,.ri. , Optg#,,t)if'.r. tk14:4 ir, Ore- 4...1SillrFea.1,14e,a441.11_„,,,ir-4-9-C-;";r;. • Z4 i1,.". ' .. •7;-`,',..-i- f,..'.1.4.' :i• .1.!tfir.-'.- •.'. ..."4";4-p.4."..--,...,-.:...... .,;„..i.:.:-.0ir.4.t.fpf Ai p!, F -i.,:-,....-..-',-,..,,,,,..,.,-;,-44:7;1:•;0,.`,-,.i'i.;• -..!. 4,..704:':, quogr.041e,#,:vi kiD_IL,:c....140,114--,_. ,E2;1-tv.,1414-11-,t5a,24--,:.-' .i, ;;;- 4 r..5•r,e•.,.,.• • - ' '•'-.- "„,,..--,,' '•• :_,„:.,:.:'',,_.-,", . _ „_,,,,, s.,....,.!-,,-5..-i,z,...,-y..7..,,,..: ...i..,0,....ji, •..-'' : • -- '•,-;:'g,."'-':'".'.*-' '.'Or-'5/..-70:T2-', ..'''1„,.....,-,:•,.•...,-..,,•_ ,••••-41- .....„.,--::••.-r-•"..-.-nr,'•'. •- . . ,:. ,.: .',_-_ ..,-;5---:t'-7-41.---‘-'•- •----'- L-'-'-..'. i.1-71c-T--•_•• --.;- -...--.HYOROPKIPIq,':,;:,'„,.---*.liii.':.:- .0:';',„?‘-'''F;;e::,.," •','...":'••--,..--.4.,‘ iii.k41-FH--;L'- 1. Tit-' r.' rirn-tie ti- s '4--•'COPUir-:-r- 7'--- 9g1 '---t--''f:: 1 tn"-PRIII!:-.:.:•;- .. -, -'-z.ia"grer: _I,"it,u;,''.4.-:"-. . •-v-'4•10; ::::,-‘''':,-Ic7:-..4.:;•-17-'• --:--1-N:.:',..-C.-'','' •',"•' :......'C.;-.:-.-A-11,K.1,1',--':',',t:-;-;',......'1.••;',',..,.,.. .,i'1/4.4-,:,.: 4,• •‘-'i;-124if49 - ..-:rsc.r.-P.74.4''''r•r7-•''''1 -•'- ' '''-',..,41.1.5•44: ?;k7'kr-',37 ,,-'.1.i-F,ri-•":','•:•'-r-' ,;-,"". ---', i - - ;•''--Ls -',-'2 5<4itr. '••t--,"'7-''.. ..;:';•'';' S..ii- k-f.1,%.1,', ',...f,'.4,:•.'. ". '• •• ' ''' 4-.P' oinpailods,'compose4;r:-',, Ir:.,''..? • ' '' '?t1 1":-, 'PI,.4t,-,".„.1 e ,1i•-`,:iFf;4i--,,,i ':,11.,:-• -•.--r•3-'--- -,,,=„74:44,--.17--- _: salien,'4.:-,0'. -.•......-::.k-A-.:A too,'•'-:.• -: '...z,,I•fsff.1_4c-:,f, '.;'•,-,,i_i,/,,k-rAti,Ped, :as,..-%-Pr9,,.4:P vc-0 Fo-n,,,.i 1,dr:by4i.c,,,iiiv,-,, Ri:,•:.!:,7,f., . ..ft.%,,,r1_T•,., ,,,,...1-.-a,,,...1,-,-..'c;-.•t.....,? ...,,,; ,‘,414,..,•wit AiiintirAyop9-1•:., -..t,,yte4A-;:i.?,;,---, -.. .-.---....'-•.f,•... - ...,:ti;:- ...-7.E.:,-,. ,-_}.,,--: .-.,:,.:.-:,;-,:... s-:.':-.... r17:,,,41f:..er/// '/'"e14'-"'"' !-''. ftt4i41::-;: it;-1}1,:ii, . .1,--141,.:!_4,'!,„.17.4,g..*•.,,;,,'.1, .!'L,.,...;;,-t-,`; 1,_ ai,-,,i.r,-,,,,f7,4.ii,,!.1.-,..;;7.A.L36.,34.s.,,,,: ,.. .,-r..:,... ,.,,....„;,;:,t,.. i.:,.,. . . -.....,-..._:,.......L. i.,,z-, :•,.._-,,,,,,,, Tr... ,., ..' . ',...,-,,.r.,..:,-.:.,..,,, ;-,..,-.. jIydrQC4rOp..0,4:: are iltpri IT@ ri,..1Y,- 1.':...,• . •'-'' r, ' ollptf,-.Z:4,V.'[..1,-.'-'1,-- •:;,:',:i-.1-'.,-..,,,„•77:;--:- r-,,,..,1„,--..,4 -,1-,:,-. ''''--:' '.-,:f i'-'.-'-',..',F,i'... ...:'-!.- .1:ii..-.:_strtl-, r:,!.,.... 11,..,1.,...±,-..... ...,...7'....:, .,-,..,:i.,,. ...;!._4,.,....,, ...., -..-,_..f:',:wit.1)7:thg;!oe of2o0tro!engl• product ,- ,_ e........f.••,, 1.". Irtliok rilTR9gOilltallif s-•'P Pin',.-- :-._ . -.-..%...-;•,c.!,-, -4.,--,-;-:.-.-.-T .,Nig A. -......,..., ,,,,f,,,...•.,.,..i.,...-....„ • ,••,•.,- 7 i•-, ,,,,. v""`•• -' : '---They are the main,ccipponents of nrIoLo ssoc'i...atvil,',.::::;:;'... 4a't"t '''..:':w...4.11'.::ti 0'7,h,. .11..4H.-,-'77,1'.-;, .4f1. :,,.,:- ,- - . ''-''.';',...r1... '-•'.::-..;'''''-'7 '.---: ': -.7 'I. 7.7f.' .-:-.•''''' .:7.' '' ':c 5.•--'' ''' ''''5"'.-`-..- ''-'?,'''(- fa i- ''4iiciOtaitAns-a 10Pe.h6Yg'-!"11 (15''''.. same ..--L al. 7;'''''..sar6e.'". • •::.•:-' n'l''''•".-. 'l ;•'••••2hqni c4 'fr79 ' h a' health•• therp.. ;', 4'1i.,;'•'?;.4104141:4nY; etlit9ild;cells In'flecre9sfl,,,,z,...,Ajimayttinragp ... , , !..,, 1 0'no- known e oct--.no LP 0. , • - ! -- :.-_ i.1 •1 ' •- ' r.of prescribing"-. -,, f.---1-'''''-:-. L''' ''' '1' - ci ty qf 5 tArl -.-`A."-"-. r`--..". :' . -.. -...!.•-? ... . -_-.. r. ,-,,z,,,,,.. ;•t:1:F.-1,2.'..,:i.--v- •, -' i.,-•-,--.!..t....1.-;_;_,-•;;; . . . '-'_fore the se!e:-.,p,PrP,P.Pc ,--, - ,-,,..,-.,-,...- of,mr;.:,-.the„fisaio n..carryr_ .-- „... .... •_.• . y•(...y., .v.,..: -•'--A-:-••••,•• N ,•'_. '• 3-.- pfo:_-: ' NO-';`2ball'nirg1:-TheMta- tienal.7-Vrimary- 4 tn9,4_.--- --;-,,- ,:-..t(YPtco.i4Inu.._. . ...P -- • r- •_--,-:, l'-,"..r.r 0--, .-; - ' ; 'T'-'_]'•-."'".,'''''.-!'.' "• "- . . g .hydrOcOrb.cin;'standard 1S.. 1'.51:,f,1!",! ',-3'.--7:.'..17: 14' .as,'',based•on'404..,-.--1.-.'7.---(1.1'.11s.::kle.thenel': ''. _ •, .- .;‘.:-•••" t'.,;•'-,- -......,--;. - ' ','•:::-''''''' •-- '.",, r;Photqchewl•ql• L:10•44-nt !'!. '..':-. T;:-.I.--;''!.-;",-.:•:-.:".i...7.-Iiiii 7r.-,,•'•',.fOr-,,c#,V)0P Pot1,01.„ e,- .. - k., , ,.; . .1,00 i.,,:,:...5, .„-,-. .v,,....„ . . ....,.. ..,, 0 ,34.z:.., same: ..,i,,_ 1. ,:,„;40,.,,,,..„,.:,.:.,...git,-1.4.:....,,:,:.:Aince.il he t A ive ',„:..9f-.-cOruoxy,•0109 ...,R,•..::.._•,, .a ---:ifiyerage . • , _..+., li-• - Jr• ..,.....jr:...._..:. ::,.. • • ••••;!,,,•;I EADz.,:-,-_ _ 4:„:;..p:„-.:,.A.K.„•,•,.:.c„:,,..,.•.2-,-.,..-,, ,i)::_:,...•:,.;;;11 1..:t`?•1_;:lift7;1iaiolq:L'iii&gcl=4.t_',10W-0 ..- 2*54 11.1-a '-:.-,;.:.',. - :, L.....:•., ; r-,•. --. •-i.zt.; - 'frii'-'''.4..---el at (1.','OstlyrimP01!rent 4 f..011 1 1.0...-...1;. N...•.,.-.'..• Lvt9.1 ..,..,1:., . :.mg tip ..: ff- ts humans'in numerous ways,'PA t9':4:-'''''il §14 'V.!':4. •- '.time' 1 t rval sYr.Th.&•--... •-.....--"',',;','•-'- " '`"--.----'-- - -- 'tov tfil§Cyjrui"4":': - - "'-11 e' ' d. 6.1;.:.0,, Cal inf'.1ae..t100r_tOr : -.)i, 5,,:-.7. - • ine-:-.7--, -4! ,•,-..!4-.--r-± - . c.-.,•:- . . .-A-.....'.,,, Oft:ANO•10,5kt'V i'',44114.-- t4",Ar--...-,- ..--: et49e,- - ":. . , •,1*--::'-'.-.-,- • -- ‘..,---•-,'. ' ::_;,.,,,,,,• .c.:,--r,.,-..., ' 1. ' -.: ÔflNational brctrhe 14 ipo4;totrain%system.-tqft...11e.rIc.,4_,% 1,-;.....;t1.,:::-.7_1,0•17,.: r.ta rp 0 it;;.-Tgleiloio de, ai'e'intended 41_3-,..--:--- ,',--F'.YL.,... ...-,;•.-.;..:-.. :.•. -:---, . •--. i.: lre4.-t4/1•.;, t.ha•e-',-figrgoic0.4ifg,CtS AP.P'!,4r,-.,::...,- :,....:7i'it::', f.':4:;':..1 • . . ...'.. . •.. ' ... W."i:114....i.141,tomp...-Olid,t o kidneys,'It gt,---•::: 11'.'"••''''"m-i. - ''•.f• the•oegurre nce;of--c0rt-:.a-:-: f•,.,..1.- . -0..,.3.•- - .. ---. -,-.‘... c --. . ...-,.."..;. i,.,.1. ,..rh'::::-.p:,.-1-4y1'4.-...-.Rril gCt'a74-111,•F''• • ' h • 2% I-'Noe;'v'-'-',---',9'•'::•..'::-'''-- :-i':." '''''' ' - - ••- d'---;-•••••• - ' -• '.'- ' .4'.:.-' ''..'' Y''.-.-.'-i''.'-;''' ' '. " ' ''....Z''' - . ..- L'..r'..2.:-ICC -- • ' gages. --- ..1-5) are: 'Ati'licIii7;'' '' 2 '-':--_:'''-_- .- 7-.1,''.-'1 i--•ti.7'ssome'pe rsqns':'more t hen-,:others:e::.--,4,: z...,.4,,,._•1,,, lhefficlei ptii 0,1 Oval 3..4,0ve .'• . -r.-.,---,,,r a•,--•tietee.p.) be.'exce,ede- - - .-' f7-•„!-,...1.,'----.1 . - ,.--,:-_`.,-.;•.;.-;,.:,.' ''.'..... v,-.:.'..L YOUnq. Oil"(1.17P9 ., '7 P_ ,_,-,T-I‘,.;,-.S14Ida' .iii-"Q-_--i.10'•,...ta.?....--pack of.ci 1 ya_re,.et-,,te. .,•_.9',.,,.'.`,...ri,-.:,:',1'.:1-,i: L,-,: liclt:..t.o-,,liti.R..*F900.0:more'.than once.pTr„.,,Y- t,e0y4.eriik,-4,,4.i., 1-.1.. ,,,,,:. .,,,.. .....,.. .... 7 -%-1.-•-,.-.,-,-hrl L'....,,-.•&•',-r• '. ' y•sensitive,•to::.)tad expos;ire;.-.1"n •74,7:iiiiser-,c'i'Irboxyhernogl ob n_..i.e Y: 1 •-IT--:,1:',:,,'.!!!'ii-Oltioict 0.be exceeded:more than .w cc . n _ h- .,.._ I..,,,.... :, .,_.:.. .:..........:,..,:.;1 ....,:.. i.:... .:.:...;st.anclard. for lead in: al tr-is.,-;i_iitenici„Ler....7:.: 17i,hiii ',--5 ::,.--11i11,,is Pillii!al got °.€PT9 .,-_:,-.,k;_-.,,,.a.--.,,iNot:Aciie exceeded: more than once in:•09.. t.riptI__§..4..41,..„..., . . 1.4.fl. - . . -.. i:',-.• 1--'.....,-i:-:••"- •:.,',2to prevent moat.chi 1 drenj•Trom._o.Nconii n_9..,..!„.„fd i';:i4 :,1(....,•-.),,,,, f-iw r09r,e_tpuri.-t9,,- CL,e.efi.-.9-.t.-::::',•i".'-'111.111-E-.4tand4rfr attained...i_lheil expected nomb.e.E4r.--4.4yA- ,-,t-:,ep: . •.:, parts:e5r...40).1,p,p!.r•blood le4d.level;,.9t..:49 pi T."1,9.reirs;, r!j..,,4.P.' ...'...i..1...,,..., ..-;',.'--lerlear,with maximum.hourly average'-:#1,409'.0,:12.,'.:,:„.,..„.,deci 1 i•ter.Pf'•hit. 1 equal .to...or less than on ... •.-:...•:'.':‘.,•:,. : F-,-F,:nuira' F• micro9ram5 P0r, •a''-'•••'; ' '.. :' :,-.:,:-7yi:.....'-, !.:.:-, ...._, ''.:;•fre-..i.'.71;,P=0.", r•,....;:?1,--••.'.,:-.•:-•si•c,•,:.--H.li-i,', E'-';',. ,-- •„,-• 6 ':.-dai 1 y .....,_-1%. -, '''.-1•:::1":Y,.."':} ithie,mp-ter -:.-,...2-.:;;;,:,, '',;:.:::.:.::-.i"--,,,.7 V.,,,..,.. i s:'-%-Ln-• .:-1:;-'""-r':‘-::'' p-t•IP-§',4:9..gr .--,r 71. ' 7, .4."..:,'"rr.t.,q•-?..-,-.i..,..-0.' •-•• -.rf ..Z.' ..-.:,...:.. L..1-1.!.:„:..s. .),,:z..:,,.:,...,....,..,•.__,t2._-_,........_.ii.. ;_-„,„.pkArekraiaa;t41;:.Yfjt-ifi,'44`; , WikY,,,PR'',IN.r.'..;;`,'.•,f.,:- ,--. .7-,-- :-C''''-?',`'.771-4.t-;-..-1-e-,-,. --.-:41-:.'6''-'' *".-'' '-i; --: - ' -.. c."--'''''...„"1-n- 2:-"'''-')--;-'L.--'''. '..'-'-'-:-'T' 1.1? 17:•--''' : ."' ;•'----''1';:12 :1`.41'?'.' S&'.4-..-1,,E'.,„. 11-4';'' f•k;r. r1..:,.,:.•-7:",:i." 1.1:4'.1','1t...--1..%III,..; ..c;;'•ir:-,--. ..: .•.....,,.P.11,7.7....,..,:-. ,i.,.-11./.,T., : :. '-.,.7.:.i.7:::.:-.. : • ',.J.: L- .?,.. i...,:..I.TI` 1 - .1',..-:.!-..-1i2-..'•!: I !•:: : r,71;;.•,, ,:-,i3,......z.:, ', id....f.,..1.••,-:/.. •-••••“4--p ,F... , . . ... t6r.: r,..,....-„,Al ' tis,:_,..„4,,,...,:. : -. . .- , . , 77, With respect to carbon monoxide, neither the Department of Ecology nor the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency maintain monitoring stations for carbon monoxide in the Renton area. Carbon monoxide levels are at or below current standards (refer to Table 2) .- i- Impacts Over the short-term, suspended particulate levels ( dust) will be increased due to construction activity. Traffic analysis of the proposal projects an increase of approximately 1,550 vehicle trips per day resulting in potential increase in carbon monoxide levels not exceeding current standards . as the volume of generated by the project represent less than 5 percent of the total projected volume for the vicinity. No Development 1 Conditions would remain the same as described in existing conditions. Development to Single-Family Residential Potential increases in air pollution due to vehicular emissions would be less for 42 dwelling units. Site preparation would result in lesser short-term impacts on air j quality due suspended particulate levels as a result of fewer unit and a shorter construction schedule.iDevelopment to Maximum Density Short-term suspended particulate -levels would be equal to or _ 1_ slightly more than the proposal . Vehicular emissions would be greater for 588 units than for 280 units. Mitigations a. Construction measured to control dust, such as watering and 1 reseeding o.f cleared areas, cleaning and sweeping of streets. Unavoidable Impacts Short term increase in suspended particulates during construction. Long erm increase in vehicular emissions which could decrease due1 to vehicle emission controls. 29- i 3. Water Existing Conditions Currently the surface water runoff from the majority of the proposed site sheet flows northerly across the property and is intercepted in a drainage ditch/swale adjacent to N.E. Fourth Street. A small portion of the southerly end of the property sheet flows southwesterly across the property where it is intercepted by N-E-. _. - Thi'rd Street. (See Figure 7 - Site Drainage) No significant off-site drainage discharges onto the site. The terrain off-site and directly north of N.E. Fourth Street and south of N.E. Third Street slopes steeply to the north and south respectively. The terrain east of the subject property is undulating and 1'elatively level . At 'the northeastt corner of the project is an existing multi-family development called Vantage Point. The storm drainage from Vantage Point is collected via catch basins and underground pipe and discharged into an open ditch/swale adjacent to N.E. Fourth Street at ,the northeast corner of the proposal site. However, before being_ _ -_ discharged, the storm water is detained in underground detention pipes and released at the site pre-development rate of discharge per the City code. There exists a drainage ditch/swale directly adjacent to the southerly margin of N.E. Fourth Street which drains westerly and southwesterly following the alignment of N.E. Fourth Street. The drainage channnel varies from a shallow ditch, to a swale flowing along the edge Hof pavement which has been extended to the toe of the road excavation. It is the opinion of the Renton Public Works Department (meeting with Don Monahan 5/29/81) that this drainage 1 course is inadequate with respect to capacity and is presently affected by erosion. Approximately 200 feet northeast of the intersection of Viewmont Avenue and Bronson Way (formerly N.E. Fourth Street), the storm drainage discharges into a 12" diameter CMP culvert. The storm drainage continues down Bronson Way through a series of manholes via 12" diameter pipe until it intersects the storm drainage system in N.E. Third Street. From there the storm drainage is transferred to Sunset Blvd. E. via 18" diameter pipes and onto the Cedar River along Sunset Blvd. E. via 24" diameter pipe. Connection to this existing system is available at no anticipated increase in velocity. Discussions wit Renton Public Works Department indicate a concern with respect to the capacity of this section of system during intense storm resulting on occasions in water backup and flooding. Impacts Site developmenit and construction will change the absorption rates. The construction of the proposed project would eliminate a majority of the existing natural surface and replace it with a high 30- f J N frAA a vw lc(2 Th„,..„ 7,____ L___=_ _____., 4 2, \ . W J v itI i \• 0:.. J. I / I / li.... , Q\\ 0— 46„ u.).. • ixt7; 11 7 4/' i - t 11//, 6 * _, 7.,, Y) rnr"' cr 0. u) V---- • . 0. 1 . f r r 1 0. 4*. A- s.,, 4:... f& I 1\ proportion of impervious surfaces (about 45%) . The introduction of impervious surfaces will increase the rate and quantity of storm water runoff from the site and will revise the flow pattern from one of sheet flow to one of concentrated gravity pipe flow. The storm drainage in the developed condition would exit the property in approximately the existing location. Natural drainage patterns will be altered from construction of streets and introduction of a storm sewer system, but this is not reasonably anticipated to have a discernable impact on nearby areas- because under the Renton code the amount of post-development runoff cannot exceed the pre-development rate. Estimated storm water runoff for the site once completely developed isexpected to be minimal because the drainage system is designed to handle the site runoff by receiving and routing and storing the water from additional impervious surfaces for release into the off-site system at a pre-development rate-. Storm water from both footing and roof drains will be tightlined into the storm drainage system. Soil and groundiwater conditions were explored on-site by digging 13 backhoe dug test pits. No groundwater was observed in any of the --- -- - _ soils study study teslt pits and, in view of the granular nature of all the soils and the absence of silt or clay imbedded in the soil , it is doubtful whether even intermittent groundwater could exist in significant quantity. Therefore, little or- no impact is anticipated or-lithe alteration in direction, rate of flow, quality or quantity of groundwater (Reference Soils Report, Earth Sciences, January 8, 1981.) Surface water quality may be impacted during the construction phase by potential erosion and siltation of exposed soil surfaces from disruptions of the soils during grading. Surface water quality may be impacted during the final project phase by pollutants associated with residential and multi-family developments such as suspended solids, herbicides, fertilizers,, phosphates and petroleum-based materials from asphalt roads and automobile crankcases. Due to the residential use of the site the amount and frequency of occurrence is ,not expected to be significant. All drainage from the subject property will pass through an oil-water separator prior to being discharged from the site. Sediment and other suspended solids will be collected in the sump of the catch basins. The impact of soluble pollutants originating from such things as fertilizers, automobile washing and vegetation spraying, can only be mitigated by prudent use and should have only a negligible effect to downstream water quality. No development Conditions would remain as described under Existing Conditions. 32- Development to Single-Family Density Due t less imperious surfaces, storm water runoff volumes would be less han the amount generated by the. proposal . Development at Maximum Density A lar er scale project could result in a larger area of impervious surfaces which would generate storm water volumes in excess of the propo al and require additional storage facilities. Mitigtions a. A storm water system will be designed to retain and release water runoff at: a rate not in excess of the previous natural rate. (Reference Storm Water Design/Calculations Report, Stepan & Associates, Inc. 1981.) b. Oil separators and sedimentation sumps will be installed to remove particulates and prevent their entry into drainage courses. c. During construction, a temporary erosion control plan will be followed to prevent the entry of sedimentation into drainage courses. d. Both the design of the erosion control plan and storm water system will be 'coordinated with the City of Renton Public Works Department to assure conformity with standards and requirements and to resolve any specific design concerns. e. A landscape plan will be implemented to further reduce the potential for on-site erosion after construction. Unavoidable Impacts Incre se i.n storm water volume due to impervious surfaces. 4. Flora Existing Conditions Vegetation on the project site is for the most part non-existent due to prvious on-site excavation and gravel extraction. A small strip of vegetation does exist along the site' s western boundary consisting of deciduous trees, predominantly maple and alter, which is relatively sparse.! Impac Gradig and construction 'activities on-site will remove the limited amounts of existing. vegetation. 33- Existing flora will be replaced by landscaping which will introduce new species of flora common to urban development. No Development Conditions would remain as described under Existing Conditions. Development to Single-Family Density Impacts are anticipated to be the same as the proposal. Development at Maximum Density Impacts are anticipated to be the same as the proposal . Mitigations a. A landscaping plan has been developed as part of the proposalcalling for the introduction of new species of flora in order to : Replenish on-site flora previously removed Minimize impacts of noise, light and glare Provide screening to minimize visual impacts on surrounding properties Provide visual separation and physical buffers between structures and on-site use activities The following is a representative list of species to be introduced: i Trees & Shrubs Evergreen: Douglas Fir Norway Spruce Scotch Pine Deciduous: Rhododenrons Oregon Grape Andorea Juniper Golden Mackorange Tamarix Juniper Gold Throat Cypress Unavoidable Impacts Removal and replacment of most of site vegetation. 5. Fauna Existing Conditions Some minimal number of small animals and birds typical of a neglected pit area are present on the site. The number and diversity are not known to be significant due to the past use of the site as a borrow pit and removal of flora. It appears that the wildlife habitat potential of the project site is very limited. 34- i As cl ssified by King, County (refer to the supplement to the King Count Comprehensive Plan, March 1975), the project site is within an urban/rural area. Representative species found within this zone include the following' which 'is presumed to apply to this site though - site Visits have not confirmed all these fauna are present on the site. Animals witrhin: an urban/rural area and which could be present on th site include such ground mammals as Douglas squirrel , north est chipmunk, rabbit, raccoon; such game birds as California quail mountain- quail , ring-necked pheasant; such songbirds as.___ - --- -- robin red-shafted flicker, jay, red-breasted nuthatch, song sparrow, winter w en,, hermit thrush, and Audubon warbler; and such predators as hawk species, domestic dogs and cats. Impacts L Site reparation and development may remove habitat and will require • some auna relocation. Approval of this-- project will commit 8.4 acres of land to urban development, thereby diminishing the use of the site by potential: wildlife species. However, the surrounding environment does not appear to make this relatively small site a highly valuable fauna; resource area. No Development i Conditions would remain as described under existing conditions. Development to Single-Family Density Impacts are anticipated. to be the same as the proposal . Development to Maximum Density Impacts are anticpated to be the- same as the proposal . Mitig tions The. i troduction of some species of flora to the project site may enhan e the potential' for breeding area and provide a buffer area which allows the movement and migration of smaller species. of fauna squi1rels, chipmunks, birds, dogs and cats) within the adjacent transmission corr dor area; Unavopdable Impacts , Site iescriptions due; to construction activities and removal of vegetation. 6. Noise Existing Conditions . No noise is preseytly' generated on the site. Existing noise levels within the• vicinity of the project site are typical of an urban/suburban environment. The primary source of noise within the. . 35 i immediate vicinity of the site is vehicular traffic from N.E. Third Street and N.E. Fourth Street. Other contributing sources of noise impacting the site and surrounding community include low-flying aircraft, jet engine testing .and airplane take-offs from the Renton Airport and the Boeing Aircraft Company which are located approximately one mile west of the proposal site. Impacts The anticipated noise impacts at the project site are as follows: - 1) Short-term impacts from construction equipment during the site preparation and building phase. 2) ! Typical residential noise characteristics of multiple-family developments. External noise sources impacting the project site are as follows: . . 1) , Long-term impacts as traffic volumes increase on local roadways. 2) Impacts associated from air traffic at the Renton Airport. No Development Conditions would remain the same under Existing Conditions. No short-term impacts associated with construction activity as well .as long-term impacts typical of multiple-family residences. Development to Single-Family Density Short-term noise impacts due to construction activities would be less as so would the project scale. Long-term impacts of 42 single-family residences would be less than the proposal . Development to Maximum Density Short-term impacts due to construction activities would be approximately the same as the proposal ; however, long-term impacts from occupancy would be more due to increased population and vehicular traffic. Mitigations a. Construction operations will be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p .m. , except on authorization by the City of Renton. b. The use of construction equipment that will not exceed the State of Washington maximum environmental noise standards. 36- Unavoidable Impacts Shortlterm noise levels will increase as a result of construction activi ties. Added traffic volumes on. local streets will increase the noise levels Over, the long-term. 7. Ljght & Glare Existing Conditions Pile surrounding residential dwelling units and street lighting are the only sources of lighting within the vicinity of the project site. Impacts Development o the multiple family residences will increase the amount of light emitted from the- site. The potential sources will be interior lighting through windows, exterior g I ounds lighting and automobile headlight glare. N. Development None Development to Single-Family Density I pacts due to street lighting and building units as well as hicular headlights would be less than the proposal . Development to Maximum Density Associated impacts would be potentially greater than the proposal . Mitigations a. Supplemental vegetation will be introduced on-site to screen to the extent sensible from view dwelling unit lights and .vehicular headlights. b. Street ighting will incorporate shields for the purpose of controlling light glare. Unavoidable Imo acts N•ne 8. L•nd Use Existing Conditions The 8.4 acre project ;site is located east of Renton Business district approxim tely 0.5 miles east of I-405 between N.E. Third 37- 64•- • a-Ir • , a• •-1 ••••••i„iii.:. •-•-, .-:-14••_4•••.,.::1_::••. t•"...I-,j .0 •••• . i* , .,.;.. _ , 1,, I-.')•,':•. • " ,',,, , _:,' 1.,i;-•J,- :`,..1.-..-:, 5 :'''''•-•:' •1'::- • .: t' ••',... 1 1 1 •I.'-s 1..1"iir..--:-j4:;,-.-T.d:,1",1 . .. ilt.:::'.7:-.' .....:"-l', •-• :.:ALit*--, P - ITi'r, -,-i ______A r,. ..,„• ., 4:. r- ,---:-... .- 2!,%-----., .,..,j .4 I,-;,, 0 . ,• • .i• 4 2. -, .'• . 1 iC,;] 4.`, -, 1 .•.} 11..:•, ! •,:',..;)\... 4...- ;• ...)1,, .... -v_(...i.',„•••?.-:••:-...p.,•::".,...„.177..Th •!. 1 r--til-----•'' ''il a.:L.-,;(---...14-:z-;.'.i..,-,'..,,„—z,•-,,,.ii- r::-..----1 `-',.., 1 -- ---- C - . :',,-1...--'''''4137•21 1. .-.8 r • - " EL_ _--) - ...&•-,-.i L.,..,._.3.•j;.i__Li.. 1. 1 a..._a - _.,_Ill m. • 1!t•••-'' \",'1.. . . 1 • ":. • :11.• . . - — ' ... 2, ' s l*C-1 Ts-'1,•• . ‘:.••1`. " , . ° ,-.. . .• • • • I 1 .':'; i\ ' i IT!- 4, s.:,*„.,. v.•.,..____,,1,...„..., ..4,. • .., \ ,1 7.1.•..h,6(-7-----\1 . . : .l• ° I i 1I1s\‘,,\ \. .., f.:,- 4. 1:._ fr_41..,.. ,,. 'r''.' 71 • •;../.7. ,. .,, .•i 4. ••:I ' \\ „; '. •i i 1 1 •c,...,..\, '''. a .1 ::.:...\z': 1 ' " •A.,• Clti,7.:21. .4./1" ' .."`Q •. , ,‘4; . .4' 7• ',... i6 ' I U:,. v...4.. ... '/,,,,r r!'-,: t5, ..„ li! • •, . .z...'..„.. . • -,..... •-.4.4:71:. --_--4.:.-,. ,..'. 1;!....'• .:-P ' 7 .• gt • 't2 :47 'II I ,P.A.bIN \ iiiiifil -- - 1 . \:3,.....,..,.. 1.--,,,-.1 ..,1,14.1(:V - \-A-s•• •! -,••• 11--•-• :__,-:i --ti ,, •11i 1s 1 \ ....,,., „ _ _ .-_-_,— r-,-- 7, ,---71 1 •• ..'.--•.:_• ;•••••,/ '',2-1 ... 1.;,' L.? 1• Lf-,', ' l ; .l• ,T-114_., • . i ,Its‘ -4....,___ c.:\:,:fir-,. • -1•••-----,r, •,..- 5.............. i L,----.. la,i.i.i. .., 4.,,,,.\,•11.1,__At 1/4--..' c:f • ." , 45.20"10 I ‘ z •••1. 1 ...‘-•••.._ _.-* ••-•-• • .) ..* ' k i ' ..ii.. .\:.........,. ;Di 717' (•.' i " - 1 r•-- ' 'I i..._ •.•;•, . A, i ilciaili .i..riaraw-1‘ ----- 1., c"''• •''..... 1.4, ' 1-.1 -i',4.> •1,54' 1 LI : 1 , • . • • i „,..„„k „A..... . . r_.; . Jit i- '' .4''' ' •_,-' -?- - Aeli. i .w N.,. _ ); k!.. ' •• iPALIFICCAR10.' '‘e ..: I.: ti. ,L.e.rrr, ...• • , : ' 1 * . . '4' . ' i9J,411 /! ..... ...: \ \e', ...;.„.4.9.: v;...\ ?.. t...li 6 FO,..)NORN CO 3,..:,,,,.• ,, 4, / 7 „In; 4!, . .,„ • . ,s R-I 1 „ . ...,,, ,, f \ vri---,:4- i • - , 1 • .t) '!i toR-4 il 10-9\ A, " ,_...- , • ! 1 1 Ii .. , lik,.._:•• A N ,-- -..„... I { . ' L . •,_. ' -:_ J..4IfTir' IF i yr PI' ...z. 44-. 3' L-1Fii' 1-.1 - •,-- 14,...47/. i B-I . /74 T. I * 1 I 'I• / I • G S-1 R-4 \ • 0 i.. .._ .2/ , A •",•,, 4ild7.3 sA_ L-I 7 ir--7 •-. 77; ///. .P"'"""-----74 J ,.. . 1" bair t . ,I'MD Ma,' 13/Erl: /\\ UM: L : G ST!..1: \ _ER ArY . 1 •. .:.! ,•,( .\ a0-• ,4 --.. • , , r R4 'a. z.,... t' / S"WI I70,....k 1) N,.... R- , 1 B-I B_I 44,14 H- I L , ,... . ..„ . . , kts...11441111111ft..i •••••„.. figure 8 11......... ZONING MAP) ii \ ...,:::::::::;...........„:„..„...:........„..,.......:....L i.,,,,,,„,,,,„: 7,...,1t';.}.:± ,ice•`yY„j!,`1 i l.,...„..,.„.i..,., T \ 1,,,, i R R R ' 1 1 , i, iI,,11I i\ /fit-I R 1lRSR i„,. ,f r i / R RR • 1 /' H IS RRR RR 1 R R R , 1 R R R R R R R R ILfRR RR R , RR R R 1 ..• , LiiJflJ if-, j/f 1 1\ I r. F C. C- f 7/1....::::...........:..., k 1:•.. 4• ,:i. 1 II /I I r II Jii.l...!....:.)....1::::...........:;::•..............:::::::•...11:!:: I IIIiIII iiiii,iori 1 y I I1r 1 I rY 47 iIpJkII1 1VI l it --' J..i:•:..1,1i:.:::1I1IIII3 J 1 \ J. J i J _.} W III V i l1' iw ii'I! iiI # taur• 4. .r.. J_.;3 J. i J . ,• 1 /(- \ l .1 mo o 1i ii11 r .. eIf• r te•.--,+..+: tir.il•.. "T• e.r' 11•` lamJ •• r. ior.R:ar.RRRar.: 1 \ // - I \,1. 31 v>y •,•'g ,, i .\-\ v _ /_ • \ IEriirIT J• •• .4. '. str \ iu MMI, I 1''•:..:1., 1 1"k WWit .:¢ \- \- ,` s s d: .!/r' t• 1 / iu:. 'iy ,v //'LC .'t. °: y'.,, /• a I I \I/ •" J 'SJ :)1.Cf•.=. w•iX;;A:g iJsIsti,.Y'1.; rl 3 14.9 AY.' 1u 1' iVe ..'Le2.i Yi:.2.s.ke4»`. ii.st—f-0•try.i.").....,.v: :,;'!.]• ; 1... 11 SINGLE FAMILY 4. •• RR„",R,R.•1 LOW DENSITY MULTI—FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI—FAMILY HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY 1 . COMMERCIAL 1 II Ill LIGHT INDUSTRY OR M.P. HEAVY INDUSTRY f , ` RECREATIONi:..'4•ti i PUBLIC &. QUASI PUBLIC figure 9 COMPREHENSIVE__PLAN MAC I I E"--7 \i 1 I / 11::::::::::::k::::1:i'.. ....i.......:.:::$1.::::::::::: fiA.;g: ::.:.:::.:::::;;;......!:..::::::.:%•.::::::,...:, - ft.:. :.,..:.....:••••:.:::.:.......::.:-:-----•••••:::....••.•• .............„.....:.::ty.:::::::::,...? r rI r/r-r11r I;ice r r r k:j.....fil•;.•:•:•:::::::::111..i•••••:.1'.':•••••:: i:••••:•:•••••••••••;•:•:••• • •••'.'•'•'• -•.•• .' - ...••...• •••••.. ...••• ....• •....• • 4Ah. M' 1. d.: .,::::„.....„:„:„...„.„„..::..........„:„.....:.„.„..,:.,.....:...::,:.,. ..,..,..,„,..., .:::, I ....:::„..„,...:.......„....::.:::::.......,.:........::.::::„...„:„.„:„. ..„ :-..............: •: f: i.Flw.mt.ifil/Agg-flogowg .,.,-::64. 6.... f:i." ....,:p..:..":4- I tom.I I JfIi} k +L x ,, . . . Y/ yy iy i J. v?sYriur j, M y'i y x. .x• •Y• •% Y••• • i /••': 0, X a' X K a .t. = x %R a a K % %• Y = Y I,/\. f Y . = x! _ _ = I x„.....„ x X K x K, \ I.O x' ! X Y w Y /\ ‘ - j/ / i i X K i r \ Y R K; X a X X X , -I`, // x a -Y x_\; Y X Y Y i Y \ I I _ \7 I -/'i .. ' i % wax "R' K x X.» Y X w r % ,• \ \'— / \/ \ / • x i i x x X a K x i / I_\ i fx% x wKXK wX `//\-/),\r\/ x X : a w % x % % Y .,/\\ x K i X K X X Y X X x X r x f x R K X % R i K Y _ I II I X w Y Y K X . i x ' 1.\ x X x r a i Y x % % w K { { x x% /' 11 1 K r i Y % w X i K x X YI /` R % K K { X i K x K Y x x i 1/\ X- f a r Y a X X = K w K K % x K i Y x i K X X R -t _. R i K i a X Y K ! i X Y K %' X Y i i % K Y i II Y w R M % a%. r K ! i R K w Y % X i K % r i X K K Y i R K K i/1\.. lIti II Y Y % w riY Y i a Y X iK R X K K { f x K x iRY xi \//' x .4i Y a r 1' a i a K f K // Kx ai xKi X 11yyiXYxi iX iKR l".. i X iiiirX' % / Y XKa f x % Y1a X K % % K x K % R { Y a Y jwfixK YYxii .:.:a K K X a % Y i Y X % .YY f K Y X % a Y a i Y x x Y X x Y a y Y Y % % R i X i Y K x Ti\ iYY' K .•. -_.• . : . 1 Y X X X X X X X X K X x Y X X X X X X X X Y % Y X Y Y i Y i Y i K i Y i i i % X % X x %' XIF'X r r i K X K R Y x Y K ! X K Y K Y i i r f II4 d y Y K K r. k R Y X y X X X w X K X X X Y X Y w K K X i w r X w i ! X Y X Y X I. X X' X X X K X i X X x a a w X:. x w Y x x X x = r Y Y x i Y r x f. K • 1Y•" i.Kx Kr ` XII KX Ky.K;;: . f X X w = 'X x K X x K w K K Y Vic. K `'Is % f % : 1.: :••••:: X X X X X X X X x X X X XXX X X X X• w X X I ::•,:M K i % Y X K i = R Y x Y K K i x X i K K' I x w Y X Y Y =X X X X X K Y K i f x X X X Y X X x A' i X' r i :'::::'.• f X r X X X K X X Y X w X X X w X X. X X X X lit' µ\ \, 1 \f i'"! x K X r ! y ! ! X Y i K i R x R X i K-K 1!'' f Y Y r ... 1;;.'.:•. •— \ / Y x w a i X . is--x• - XXX r e.. K X Y K Y Y x Y X K r K K K a K K K K 1rSf; 1. K f al I:•:::•: -- t r X . % K a X i R X X K a X K X K % K a % K Y — 4Av!n.i(' A, X X =' I: :•a \ 1_rw/ \ X X r w w' K y y y K K i X X R f K X fit rt•;:ti w f':: 1\ \ 1/ 1 w X % K i w Y w % % K K Y a K K w X y l y.•:. ::•:::. ::::''• r \ a a . r r ................................. An X I\/\/ —,."- { X w f Y Yr. r .1y;, _ '_'.. ............... X i i a X K K Y K K x f K ! i Y . SINGLE FAMLIY RES. MULTI FAMILY RES. CEDAR R1VER HEAVY INDUSTRY' COMMERCIAL 1+ w'. =1•1;4 PARK AND GREENBELT it-' ': PUBLIC & QUASI PUBLIC r r r i _UNDEVELOPED X Y a K figure 10 EXISTING LAND USE MAP ": Streets and N.E. Fourth Street. The existing unimproved right-of-way for Edmonds Avenue N.E. serves as the east boundary of the site and the Ptget Sound Power & Light Company transmission line right-of-way serves as the west boundary. ._ Land use activities surrounding the project site include the Vantage Point Condominium development to the east, single-family residences to th north of N.E. Fourth Street, the United First Methodist Church to the west as-well as undeveloped land, and to the south of N.E. Third Street undeveloped land, a gravel pit and scattered---- -- - — residences . (See Figure 10 - Existing Land Use) The R74 zoning which covers the site has been present since 1963. It has remained at that zoning undeveloped for 17 years. The proposed land use is residential which is similar with the multiple-family to the east. Density of the proposal in terms of the type of structure and scale are anticipated to be in harmony with the neighborhood and is less than that permitted under zoning. The proposal increases housing opportunities in building types that are sought to be compatible with the existing neighborhood character. (See Figure 8) In January 1980, the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use. Plan was r. - _._ ._. revised designating the project site as well as property to the east and west as High Density Residential . Consequently, the site is intended for residential uses allowing the maximum number of dwelling units, the maximum number of stories and the maximum proportion of land coverage permitted in the City of Renton in accordance with the zoning classification of the site which is currently R-4 (apartment houses and multiple-family dwellings) . The proposal effectuates the zoning and comprehensive plan designations for the site. (See Figure 9) In February 1981, the City of Renton adopted a policies element to the Comprehensive Plan which set forth specific goals, objectives and policies and related to future development within Renton. The proposal is in conformance with the policies set forth in that document. A summary list of specific policies as related to the proposal is presented in Appendix B. Impacts Under the provisions of the existing R-4 classification, the maximum potential number off dwellng unts that could be constructed on the project site are 588 (70 du/acre x 8.4 acres) . The project proposes to construct about 280 dwelling units or approximately 33.3 dwelling units per acre. As a result of construction, the status of the project site would change from its present undeveloped nature to that of high density multiple-family residential . However, the development.proposed would be consistent with local zoning and in conformance with the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 41- No Development Conditions would remain as described under Existing Conditions. Development to Single-Family Density Impacts would be less than the proposal . This alternative does not meet the intent of local plans or zoning to maximize development potential in and around existing communities where appropriate services are available, which plans designated the site to be developed at maximum urban densities. Development to Maximum Density The. site would be developed to 588 units; the full potential in regard to local zoning and land use plans. Impacts associated with this alternative would be greater than the proposal due to increased residents and vehicular traffic. Six-story structures presently do not exist within the area. Mitigations a. Construction of the project to be completed in three phases over an 18 month period, subject to market demands. b. Conformancy with local comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. Unavoidable Impacts A change in the status of this site from undeveloped to medium density multiple-family development. 9. Natural Resources Ex fisting Conditions The 8.4 acre site has few trees and is not considered a timber resource. Soils on-site are not conducive to agricultural production. Gravel and sand exist on-site much of which have been previously extracted as the site formerly was used as a borrow pit. Impacts Plans for development are expected to have minor or no impacts on existing natural resources. Principally, the impact associated with the proposed development is the commitment of 8.4 acres of undeveloped land for long-term residential uses. However, such- a commitment of land for this type of use is consistent with the City's plans, policies and regulations. Construction and maintenance of the proposed project would consume natural resourc s in the forms of sand and gravel , water, wood and metal products, electrical energy and fossil fuels, manpower and 42- capital , as would new multiple-family construction wherever it may occur. The proposal would not result in the significant depletion of any one of these resources. No Development Impact would- remain as described under Existing Conditions.I Development to Single-Family Density rlLessintense development would consume a proportionate amount of resourIces which due to fewer number of units would be less than the propoSasl . Development to Maximum Density A mor- intense development would result in a proportionate rate of consu ption of natural resources which due to an increase in the numbe of units would be more than the proposal . Mitig.tions None Unavoidable Impacts Consuirption of building materials due to residential development. C. Human Envirorment 1. Population & Housing 2. Existing Conditions Population data was derived through the combination of several resources including the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) , Trends and Policies Comparisons Report, September 19, 1979, Population . and Housing Estimates, 1977 & 1978, 1980 Preliminary Population Estimate and the City of Renton which integrates builidng permit data with PSCOG projections to develop population data for planning areas. PSCOG maiintains updated population projections according to Activity Allocation Model (AAM) Districts which comprise one or more census tracts. The proposal site is situated within census Tract 254 which together with census Tracts 252 and 255 comprise AAM District 3860. The City of Renton. uses the AAM District as its planning area but I adjusts RSCOG number to reflect building permit activity within the 1 District. A summary of population and housing characteristics based upon combined data for AAM District 3860 are presented in Table 3 - - below: l 43- I 11 1 II 4\ All,.,41sH. a1 -LAKE 41, I k WASHINGTON 7-! L 1,. r , ai.A li Z, 1 T-.----. 1---- ' i ki\ — ds._ lea 411 i meow IMBOM*, k,,ti,... 711- Fi.:=0 \ q 110I 1 1i t i __i, el ,, 7„,_ N 1Slitlc11031 .1 _... Ji F R T. • !r71 1 A' PoRT N-roN , i GROUP - faaHEALTH lk I .1 IIIliUtRENTON- jj VOC TECH' ` 111).4 97,,,7roppv- ' do' •. ,INSTITUTE1, I Itivi MTh, N E 4th ST vet \ N'ai-, 'K tp-.r t !I- ..: y ITE 1b-11---,-- L 1 4 DAR RIVER PARK AAM DIS apt7pR- — 11 p 38401 - pvet isivirmo i , iiik„...._ _. Rite\ j j 'Ilk RENTON DA 4) 4'111111110*1 HILL 1 . oti . , 11 11 0 riiiii- I sillroll'- *Pk' . 1 10+ 4. t--N 429,,,:. 411kol......, _1-0111ZP•asi011-, 1-4..........24 w iiii7L.rgillth___I , f VI!r\ 4I7,illw , e .,‘ r.1 .. L - S k 4 figure II 1 AAM DISTRICT BO.UNDARIES_. , Table 3 Demographic Trends in AAM District 3860 Year Total Population Total Households Household Size Average) 1967 11,918 4,217 2.83. - - -_ 1978 11,850 4,550 2.60 1980 12,111 4,786 2.53 1990 13,050 5,010 2.60 In analyzing the abo ee figures, the total population within AAM District 3860 between the year 1976-78 to 1980 increased approximately 2%. The population is forecasted to increase by approximately 7% between 1980 and 1990. However, what this -forecast does not consider the availability of land within AAM District 3860 which if developed at full potential for this period, the projected population could be higher. Impacts Using the 1980 estimated household size of 2.53 for AAM District 3860, a residential population of approximately 708 persons could be projected to reside within the 280 dwelling units contained within the proposalL However, as the proposal is a multiple-family development which characteristically exhibits a lower persons-per-dwelling unit figure than single-family, a more realistic population projection for the proposal would be 560 at 2.0 per dwelling unit or approximately 48% of the potential population were the site developed to its maximum allowable density. PNoDevel ment Conditions would remain the same as described in Existing Conditions. Development to Single-Family Density A residential population of approximately 105 persons could be projected to reside in the 42 single-family dwelling units constructed in this blternative. This would represent approximately 9% of the maximum Otential population allowed under full site development conditions. Development at Maximum Density A residential population of approximately 1,176 persons could be projecteed to resideiwithin 588 multiple dwelling units representing the maximum potential population under a full site development condition. 45- Mitigations a. Development of the project site as proposed would be consistent with local population forecasts, plans and policies. b. Construction of the project into three phases. Unavoidable Impacts Increased population and housing. 3. Economy Existing Conditions The City of Renton' s property tax rate for the calendar year 1981 is 2.297 per $1,000 lof' the assessed evaluation. Presently the total amount of revenues to be received by the City is approximately 3,676,836 which will be allocated to various City funds. Impacts The project will result in the addition of 280 owner-occupied dwelling 1 - units 'which together with its future residents will provide an increase in the overall tax base of the City, including an approximate increase of $35,000.00 of additional real estate tax revenues based upon the 1981 property tax rate. In addition, the piroposal will result in increased employment opportunities in the housing construction industry and associated material industry. In forecasting the amount of potential real estate tax revenue -which could be generated by the proposal ,. the 1981 property tax rate was multiplied by the total anticipated sale revenue of the proposal . Thus the project with its estimated total sale value of $15,400,000.00 would ,produce $35,373.80 of additional tax revenues at the current 1981 property tax rate. Assuming the 1982 and beyond property tax rate will be higher, so too wouldthe anticipated revenues. Additional impacts include the increase in the total tax base of the City resulting from the addition of 280 housing units and residents as well as job opportunities in the building and construction industries. Development to Single-Family The construction of 42 single-family residences would produce fewer tax revenues than the proposal . Development at Maximum Density Development of the site at the maximum density of (588 units) would potentially produce more property tax revenues than the proposal . 46- 4. Transportation/Circulation The following discussion summarizes the result of a traffic analysis whi h was prepared for the proposal by the Transpo Group. The full tex of he analysis is presented in Appendix D. Existing Conditions Vehicular Transportation Generated The primary streets serving the proposal site are illustrated in Figure 12. They include N.E. Third Street, the primary east-west arterial serving the area, carrying 2-lanes of traffic in each direction with center left-turn lanes at primary cross-street intersections, and N.E. Fourth Street, a relatively wide (22-24 ft.) 2-lane road that is improv-d along its alignment east of the site with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Wes of the project site N.E. Fourth Street is in good condition with nar ow but stabilized shoulders. To the east of the site exists the uni proved right-of-way of Edmond Avenue N.E. lying between N.E. Third _ and N.E. Fourth Streets. Tra fic control in the vicinity is provided by a combination of traffic sig als and stop signs. Signals are located at the intersection of. K.EH _ ._ Thi d Street/Bronson Way N.E. (Monterey Drive N.E. ) and at N.E. Third Str et/Sunset Boulevard (Refer Figure 12) . A review of traffic counts, (See Appendix. D) shows N.E. Third Street carries approximately 22,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in the vicinity of the site and increases to 28,500 vpd at its intersection with Sunset Bou evard. Sunset Boulevard carries between 20,000 - 22,000 vpd near i s int rsection with N.E. Third Street. These volumes reduce substantiall ! eas and north of the interchange with I-405 where volumes drop. by 50 percent to approximately 10,200 vpd. , Based upon field observation it is estimated that in the vicinity of th -- - project site, NJE. Fourth Street carries less than '1,500 'vpd. West of the site down the hill , the volume increases to approximately 3,000 vpd due to trip generation associated with Group Health Cooperative, the act!vities of the First Methodist Church and through traffic which was Bronson Way N.EI (including transit traffic) . Traffic volumes north of the site range from approximately 1,000 vpd to 3,090 vpd. I-405 carries approximately 60,000 vpd in the vicinity of t e proposal site. 47- c Lu" 7--Llp1 ,....1j9z-a 1-- sl Aamse NE g*t j'y, o NE HST S -x¢ x am' NE 5 01., ‘..---../ G2 la jC-,a . L) . W!__,A,L o cn e& I z Z NE 1 STH ST.1; g W W Q wu.a p,Pt O w 3 a G a`, gp P w Z y iiii r___) u_ iii 4TH ST a g, k, a. T N E 4TH ST Ze1•.\... 00/ J) SITZ it r 7.Sao i NE Z Za' Ilik id. 4 dp . m w h' Ed 174 ERADCO 1 CEDAR •_---- PUD IRIVER k. 0 N TRAFFIC SIGNAL am METRO BUS ROUTES figure 12 CIRCUL ATION/SIGNALIZATION r. A review of peak hour counts shows that peak hour traffic represents 8-12 percent of the daily traffic volume. A review of the directional counts shOrs a typical pattern of primary eastbound and northbound flows in th- evenings and opposite pattern of southbound and westbound flow in the morning. Generally, the directional -split on N.E. Third Street- during the evening peak hour is 70-75 percent eastbound and 25-30 percent westbound. It is estimated that the level of service (LOS) at the N.E. Third Street/Bronson Way N.E. intersection operates at LOS C; however, given - the factors of a channelized left-turn pocket for east and westbound traffic, .a very low volume of side street flows during the peak hour and _ . a high percentage of green time, the result of a relatively good level of service. The level of service at the Sunset Boulevard/N.E. Third Street intersection is estimated at LOS D-E which is maintained because of good channelization. Detailed turning movements for the principal intersection in the vicinity of the site are included within the Transpo study presented in Appendix D. Parking In a detailed surveyof parkingon streets in the vicinityof the site, it was observed that majority of parking associated with the Vantage Point Condominiums is provided within that project site although there is some spillover onto the street, which was desigend to accommodate parking on both sides and permit an unrestricted flow of traffic. Transportation System Presently, the vicinity around the proposal site is served by Routes 14, and 144 as illustrated in Figure 12. Movement/Circulation of People or Goods Regarding pedestrian and bicycle activities in the vicinity of the project site, it was observed that there tended to be a noticeable leve of activity in the neighborhood north of the site. Near the site, no pedestrian or bicycle activity was observed. ImPects Vehicular Transportation Generated The following discussion presents a comparison of two ciruclation alternatives considered in the analysis of vehicular transportation generated by the proposal as well as from surrounding development. Alternative 1 Considers the design elements contained within the proposal which include direct access to the project onto N.E. Fourth Street as well as a partial 49- construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. Fourth to the project entrance. Traffic impacts are primarily upon N.E. Fourth Street west of the project site. This sreet is considered a substandard neighborhood street by present city standards. Traffic volumes on N.E. Fourth Street would increase by approximately 30 percent, while peak hour traffic would increase by slightly more than 56 percent. Mitigating Measures 1. Widening of N.E. Fourth Street from the subject site to Group Health Medical Facilities. 2. Maintain at least two entrances off N.E. Fourth Street to provide for multiple access for residents and more important, for emergency vehicles including a partial construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. Fourth Street to the project's entrance. 3. Design the internal road system with a loop so in the event of an emergency, vehicles have an alternative route if one route is blocked. 4. Provide an emergency access off of N.E. Third Street for fire and police. 5. To reduce automobile travel and encourage transit and carpooling, it is suggested that the project sponsor distribute information relative to transit routes and schedules as well as information relative to ride-sharing. 6. If practical , following occupancy, it is suggested that the homeowners association sponsor transit/carpool information sessions. 7. The project sponsor and/or homeowners association work with the Metro Transit to establish a route and bus shelter along N.E. 3rd Street. Alternative 2 The short plat decision required the construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. Third Street to N.E. Fourth Street. This alternative evaluates the impacts upon N.E. Third Street and how access will have to be provided in conjunction with other proposed developments south of N.E. Third Street. The forecasted travel demand on streets in the vicinity of the site are comprised of three primary elements: existing traffic, future- non-project traffic and forecasted projected-generated traffic of 1550 vehicle trips per day. Future non-project traffic includes a 21 unit single-family dwelling proposed along Edmonds Avenue N.E. north of N.E. Fourth Street, estimated at 210 daily vehicle trips; the proposed 425 unit ERADCO P.U.D. , 50- est mated at 2546 daily vehicle trips; and finally the average annual growth factor. N.E. Third Street is presently designed as a major arterial with two lanes of traffiCI in both directions. - Construction of Edmonds Avenu-e N._ will result in easier access of the traffic from the project onto the City's arterial street system. The traffic signal at Bronson Way and. N.E. Third Street is vehicle actuated and Alternative #2 would result i diverting all of that anticipated traffic, 1070 daily vehicle trips, to the intersection at Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. Third Street. _Th=is— would represent only a 4 percent increase in the present traffic volume 25,640) on N.E. Third Street. However, it is anticipated that a significant number of the existing 1,500 vehicles presently using N.E. Fourth Street west of Group Health Medical Facilities would be diverted Est mating that half of the, existing traffic would be diverted, then th: total traffic volume increase at N.E. Third Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. would only increase by approximately 7 percent. This is a sig ificant positive consideration in evaluating the total traffic syst:m. Alt rnative #2 would also lend itself for the future construction of the ERA CO P.U.D. A standard 4 leg intersection could be created with a co t ben fit shared bey the two developments instead of the creation of two sep rate intersections. .I _ ._. Impacts upon the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and N.E. Third Street in total daily volumes would be identical . However, Alternative #2 wou d allow the traffic to access onto the arterial without the possibility o queuing on neighborhood streets. Mitigating Measures ' . 1. Construction of a T intersection at N.E. Third Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. 2. Construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. Third Street to N.E. Fourth Street. 3. Design the internal road system with a loop so in the event of an emergency, vehicles have an alternative route if one route is block:d. 4. Provide an emergency access off of N.E. Third Street for fire and police.. 5. 'To reduce automobile traveland encourage transit and carpooling, it is suggestedi that the project sponsor distribute information relative to transit routes and schedules as well as information relative to ride-sharing. j 6. If practical , following occupancy, it is suggested that the homeowners association sponsor transit/carpool information sessions ! 7. The project sponsor and/or homeowners association work with the Met Transit to establish -a route and bus shelter along N.E. 3rd Street. 51- TABLE 4: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) ALTERNATIVE ONE ALTERNATIVE TWO 1982 LOS 1982 WITH PROJECT WITHOUT NE 1982 WITH PROPOSAL & WITH WITHOUT 3RD ST/EDMONDS AVE. NE INTER- NE 3RD ST/EDMONDS AVE NE INTERSEC-T-ION EXISTING-LOS- PROJECT SEC-T-I-ON INTERSEC-T-ION NE 3RD STREET/ EDMONDS AVE NE N/A A-B* A-B* B NE 3RD STREET/ BRONSON WAY NE B C C C NE 3RD STREET/ SUNSET BOULEVARD D D D-E D-E ASSUMES ERADCO P.U.D. ACCESS INTERSECTS AT EDMONDS AVE NE SOURCE: THE TRANSPO GROUP 5/20/81 Transit As iany as 20 percent of the trips generated by this project could be made by transit. Pedestrian and Bicycle It is reasonable to. expect that some people would be walking from the site along N.E. Fourth Street to the bus route and that some people cou d walk or bicycle north along Edmonds Avenue to N.E. to some o.f.._the- - -- j - commercial opportunities along Sunset Boulevard. Parking j The Renton Zoninig Code requires that 1.5 parking spaces per unit be provided. In accordance with this requirement, 420 spaces are provided, Mitigating Measures' Alt ough this project does not appear to generate any significant traffic imp.cts, there are some mitigation actions that can be taken to help ins re that impacts; are no worse than predicted and to possibly reduce the level of impact anticipated. Tra sportation System and Trip Generation a. Maintain at least two entrances off N.E. Fourth Street to provide for multiple access for residents and more important, for emergency vehicles including a partial construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. Fourth Street to the project' s entrance. b. Design the internal road system with a loop so in the event of an emergency vehicles have an alternative route if one route is blocked. c. To reduce automobile travel and encourage transit and carpooling, it is suggested that the project sponsor distribute information relative to transit routes and schedules as well as information relative to ride-sharing. d. If practical , following occupancy, it is suggested that the homeowners association sponsor transit/carpool information sessions. e. The project sponsor and/or homeowners association work the Metro Transit to establish a route and bus shelter along N.E. Third Street. Ped-strian/Bicycle Transit f. When streets are constructed internal to the project, they shoul , include a pedestrian way on at least one side of the street. 53- g. When N.E. Fourth Street is improved, it should be improved to match the section of N.E. Fourth Street east of the site. h. Sidewalk should be installed along N.E. Third Street property . . boundary. Parking To mitigate potential impacts relative to spillover parking on N.E. Fourth Street, one of the following mitigation measures should- be_= considered: i . Prohibit parking and/or storage of recreational vehicles as part of the conditions, covenants and restrictions of the proposal . Unavoidable Impacts Increase vehicular use of local streets. 5. Public Services a. Fire Protection Existing Conditions Fire protection services to the proposed development will be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. The closest station within proximity to the site is located at N.E. Ninth Street and Harrington Avenue N.E. approximately 3/4 of a mile from the project site. Additional service could be augmented by the main stations located at Mill Avenue South and South Second Street. The stations have a full component of pumpers, ladders, trucks and aid vehicles with full-time personnel on 24-hour call . The average response time to the project site would be approximately 5 minutes. A sufficient water supply is -- available, to the site providing adequate fire flow to meet local requirements. Renton has a Class 4 fire insurance rating from the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau. Recently, the City has adopted a new ordinance effective June 1, 1981, that will require fire protection sprinklers in buildings of 12,000 square feet or larger. Impacts The construction of 280 units will require fire protection and emergency aid to be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. The Department is presently sufficiently staffed to provide adequate protection to the site. Adequate water supply to the site will enable the project to meet appropriate fire flow requirements. The Fire Department will require a loop system via two access routes to adequately serve the project. Other requirements include maintaining adequate turn-arounds for fire 54- fighting equipment and a 45' radius on all street turns for maneuverability. No Development None Development to Single-Family Density The construction of 588 dwelling units would impact the demand= fo-r- - I fire protection more than the proposal . However, additional tax revenue may offset the cost for increased fire protection service. Mitigations a. Conformancy with UBC requirements. b. Installation of smoke detectors. c. Adequate supply of water to meet fire flow requirements. d. Fire Department notification of any street construction or blockage during construction. Unavoidable Impacts Increased demand for fire protection. b. Police Protection Existing Conditions Police protection services for the proposed development would be provided by the City of Renton Police Department with its station located within the Municipal Building at 200 Mill Avenue South. Tht present ratio of uniformed officers to population is approximately 2.0 officers per 1,000 population. The national average is 2.3 officers per 1,000 population. However, 2.0 officers is within the standard of a city the size of Renton. The primary crime within the vicinity and occurring particularly in apartment/condominium developments is residential burglaries which 'n. 1980 accounted for 16% of police service calls. Impacts The proposal would add an additional 280 housing units which would increase the population requiring police services to approximately 560 people. During construction, an increase in potential vandalism and theft o construction materials and productscan be expected. 55- No Development Conditions would remain the same as described in Existing Conditions. Development to Single-Family Density Single-family residences accounted for 31 percent of police services calls in 1980. Based upon the 1980 cost of $107.40 per single-family unit for public protection, the construction of 42 additional single-family residences would result in a potential cost to the-- - department of $4510.00 Development to Maximum Density In 1980 multiple-family residences accounted for 18% of police service calls for only 7 percent of the City's development area which. resulted at a cost of $90.40 per unit. Assuming this figure, the addition of 588 units would result in a potential cost of police service amounting to $53,255.20. Mitigations a. Internal security systems and security lighting installed at- :. _. .= appropriate locations. b. Active participation of residents in a coordinated crime prevention program. c. Additional property tax revenues from the development and local sales tax will help offset the cost of additional services required. c. School Facilities Existing Conditions v The project site is within the boundary of the Renton School District No. 403. Educational facilities currently serving the site are Hazen High School (1101 Hoquiam N.E.) , McKnight Middle School (2600 N.E. 12th) and the' Highlands Elementary School (2727 N.E. 9th) . Currently, according to the District, the school system has been experiencing a declining enrollment. Enrollment charactertistics for these schools is illustrated in Table 5 below: 56- 11 Table 5 Projected School Enrollment & Capacity 1980-81 School Capacity Enrollment Highland Elementary 675 • 445 McKnight- Middle- 1,107 743..-- - -- -- Hazen High 1,404 1,385 II Source: Renton School District 3/25/81) Impacts IThe methodology used to project the probable number of school-age- children likely to reside on the site- was derived from population information in the Puget Sound Council of Governments Trends and I Policies Comparison Report, September 19, 1979. The percentage of the population in AAM District 3860 between the ages of 5-17 years s approximately 22%. If this percentage were to remain constant..for. '-. _. .:_: I future years, the number of the 560 to 780 persons estimated to reside within the project between 123 to 172 may seek enrollment within Renton School District. It should be noted that this I projection does not differentiate between type of dwelling unit andlnumberofbedrooms. Therefore, given the characteristics of multiple-family developments, as well as the fact that,the proposal will contain 56 studio units and 224 one bedroom -units, it is likel ', I that the actual number of school children to be generated by the proposal will be substantially less than if the development consist:d of 280 single-family units and as such the projected number. of i school-age children will be far less--than. 123 students. The Renton School District can accommodate the potential increase demand for education services of the proposal . INo Development Conditions would remain the same as described in Existing Condition . Development Ito Single-Family Density IIThe development of this alternative could generate up to 24 additional students. IDevelopment to. Maximum Density Development at maximum .density could potentially' generate between 2' 5 II to- 336 additional students• which is a very high estimate in that a condominium development generates fewer school children than a singles/family 'residence. • . I I' 57- . 1 Mitigations I None I Unavoidable Impact"s Potential increase in student enrollment. d. Park andI Recreational Facilities Existing Conditions Park and recreational facilities closest to the project site are Windsor Hills Park, Cedar River Park and Liberty Park. Windsor Hills Park is located directly north of the project site and offers a small multi-use field with backstop, play equipment and picnic areas with tables and benches. Cedar River Park, 1.4 miles from the site at the intersection of the Maple Valley Highway and Houser Way, provides, areas for picnicking and fishing, theater and a multi-use - field. Liberty Park is located at Bronson Way N.E. and Houser Way N.E. , approximately 1-1/2 miles from the site offers a lighted tennis court, ball fields , multi-use fields, asphalt game areas, picnicking facilities, children' s play equipment and a swimming.pool . ._: Other facilities in proximity to the site include the Highlands Park, 4 miles north, and playgrounds associated with all public schools,Ithe closest of which is Highland Elementary School . I Proposed acquisitions within the site vicinity and listed on the City's six-year CIP for parks include the 10-12 acre Heather Downs Neighborhood Park located to the southeast. Impacts A nominal impact is anticipated on surrounding parks due to the amount of recreational amenities open space are to be provided on-site including a swimming pool , bath house with Jacuzzi , half-court basketball area, open lawn area suitable for volleyball , a tot-lot area and equipment, and picnic tables interspersed throughout the central area of just over one-acre. A one-acre mini-park within the project would meet the project residents' demand for recreation areas and thereby can mitigate the need for additional off-site improvements (Refer to Section 9, Recreation) . No Development I Conditions would remain the same as in Existing Conditions. Development to Single-Family Density Impacts would be similar to the proposal ; however, due to fewer residents, there would be less demand and useage of local parks. I 58-1 411.\ c I i- ii-‘\) ";: .,-1 LAKE RI0' 1 WASHINGTON I 7,116._.-jA I ILL/ i 1 11 1 ..._,n aim n -r ft, r- M- a F R T 10 I IRS NTON H \N. A \ i1 PORT l a /-, VOC TECH ti i,a,, PA 1i INSTITUTE N E 4th ST 111 ri 4111 ! lair/ i 11 ''Zi rjr" 111 I.11 v, a T( K ( ' 3rd rni___ T-. 41,' ,,• / SITEr. /\ Ff; s I ! F RE STA I* s .• A r1 DAR RIVER PARK__ iiiri% - Will 1. !It , I Oi' ,. : - ., e 11 '_ pliStIll!i kRENTON EDAR Q ' ` illtilli,HILL I GRI 4 ';` ' II1tU' 41 sR i = t Wp( i f 900 n 69 a) ._ ,___ , 112-.001111r CI_ - ---4 73 ' 9 ' 4/‘ .i_ ___ -7",A111-Mil- 7----tail\ IN r. F-7, 1 i figure 13 COMMUNITY FACILITIES- MAP_ 1 Development at Maximum Density Impact on local parks and the demand for recreational areas would be greater than the proposal . Mi ti gati,ons a. A ariety of on-site recreational facilities such as swimming pool , half-court basketball , tot-lots and open area could be prbvided by the developer. Unavoidable Impacts Increase in the demand for recreation facilities and space by future project residents. 1e. Maintenance 1 Existing Conditions The City of Renton presently maintains all public roads in the vicinity of the proposal site. Impacts The Cit of Renton Public Works Department will maintain water and sewer, roadways surrounding the site and drainage facilities. Internal access and parking areas, recreational facilities and landscaping will be initially maintained by the Developer and subsequently by means of a Homeowner' s Association. During construction, maintenance of temporary and permanent storm water facilities, street sweeping and ditch cleaning will be maintained by the Developer. Mitigations a. Maintenance of facilities during construction by the Developer. Unavoidable Impacts None 6. Energy Existing Conditions The recently completed Energy Management Plan for King County November 1980) emphasized the critical issues of rapidly rising energy costs and scarcity of supplies for conventional fuels facing the residents of the County. 60- A large portion of the natural gas and petroleum originates from sources outside the Country with control over the constancy of its' availability and the stability of its price beyond local control . , The recent attempt by Canadian sources of natural gas to raise __ prices up to 30% is indicative of this situation. Actual or- - threatened curtailment of these supplies has occurred in the past and may occur in the near future. Approximately 80% of King County' s electricity is generated by hydropower However, virtually all available major hydro- sites -th;t_ can be economically or environmentally developed have been utilize• . Puget Power has stated that it will not have adequate firm supplies of hydro-electricity to meet its projected total load growth. In _ order to provide for this shortage, Puget Power has begun operatic, of oil and natural gas-fired generated plants and there have been substantial surcharges on its rates to pay for these additional costs. Presently, there is no energy consumption on-site. Impacts Since the site is undeveloped, development will require provision electrical services to the site facilities. Once construction is complete the estimated connected load will be from 1800-2400 kilowatts per unit per month or a project total of about 504,000 p r month for all electrical units. The Puget Sound Power & Light Company indicated that adequate supp y of electricity is available for the proposed development. Telephone conversation 1/2/81. ) The Washington Natural Gas Company indicated that due to the absenle of a distribution system within the. vicinity of the project site, natural gas service would not be available. Development of this multiple-family housing proposal can have the tendency to promote energy conservation through efficiency of shard wall construction, preservation of open space, utilitzation of clo 'e access to mass transit, and provision of on-site recreational amenities. Energy will be utilized during construction in the form of equipmeit . operation, manufactured materials and fossil fuels. The urban location of the site along with the compact design of the residential proposal both tend to minimize the total energy expenditure for construction. The proposal could result in energy savings in vehicular fuel consumption due to the proximity. of the proposal to commercial and industrial centers. 61- No Development Conditions would remain as described in Existing Conditions. Development at Single-Family Density Increased demand for energy for 42 single-family residences would be ' less than for 280 units. Development at Maximum Density The energy requirements of 588 units would be about twice that of the proposal . Mitigations a. Incorporation of energy-conserving construction techniques and building and materials. b. Energy conservation practices undertaken by the residents of this project. Unavoidable Impacts Increased energy demand on-site both in the short and long terms. 7. Utilities a. Poweir Existing Conditions Washiington Natural Gas Company indicated that due to the absence of a distribution system within-the vicinity of the project site, natural gas service would not be available. Puget Sound Power and Light Company indicated an adequate supply of electricity is available for the proposed development. Conversation PSP&L 1/2/81. ) The site would be served from existing electrical power available along N.E. Third Street and/or N.E. Fourth Street. Impacts Increased demand for electricity as the principle source of power to the site. N o Development No Impacts Development at Single-Family Density Impact would be significantly less than the proposal . 62- Development at Maximum Density The addition of 588 units would result in electrical demand. as much as twice--that of the proposal , perhaps requiring= - - - -- improvements within the area system by Puget Power. Mitigations a% Practice of energy conservation by residents. . . . b. Incorporation of energy conserving material in the construction of dwelling units and structures. c. Coordination of the installation of electrical service with Puget Sound Power & Light Co. d. Underground installation. b. Telephone Existing Conditions Telephone service to the project site would be provided by the Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company. Two-conduct systems which could serve the site exist along N.E. Third Street and N.E. Fourth Street. Impacts The proposed development consists of 280 dwelling units with two lines to be provided for each unit. No Development No Impacts Development at Single-Family Density Forty-two (42) units would require the installation of 84 lines. Development at Maximum Density Five hundred eighty-eight (588) units would require the installation of 1176 lines. Mitigations a. Installation of telephone lines will be coordinated with the installation of electrical power lines. b. Both electrical and telephone lines will be installed underground. 63- c. Water, Existing Conditions The City of Renton provides water service to the proposed site.. -. An existing 16" water main serving the site is located within the unimproved right-of-way of Edmonds Avenue. Impacts The proposal would require the connection to this adjacent 12" main installation of a loop system internal to the site with provisions for the future continuation of the water system west along N.E. Fourth Street (See Figure 15) (proposed water system) . No new system will be required. No Development No Impacts Development to Single-Family Density Water demands would significantly be less than the proposal . Development to Maximum Density The development of 588 units would require a fire flow analysis to determine pipe sizing and requirements. The demand for water would be more than the proposal although the system is adequate to meet the demand. Mitigations a. Review and approval by the City of Renton Public Works Department. b. Fire flow analysis by the Fire Marshall . Unavoidable Impacts Increased demand on water supply. d. Sewer Existing Conditions Sewer service to the project site is provided by the City of Renton. An 8" sewer main is adjacent to the site within the south side of the right-of-way of N.E. Fourth Street. Impacts Renton Public Works Utility Division, has indicated that the 8" lineIwithin N.E. Fourth Street has the capacity to serve the project demands. 64- i I:\ 1.'Sirp i I— EXISTING WATER t 7) , 1, vi k - .:.- I' , ,-e- : (1--- 7--- L-7— ji ii:\v... UJ 01— 4L. / / ro,/ C--) I \ 3: (2ln,. i ,06. 0 cs, 0. 4.0. -- 47. 0. i4 .74 r.e.",,,,,..---\ iii-77 1 trcv I ,,:„.„ .••• • iI ... cill'4*,>*°°° 1 t s, L I G.Q.,e d/q r NNi rs/.y.r4, 7 G_GSIGC-.s 1111116,/ 0. mo /Vi'l_ A gT\ ysT G_GfG eO Al,..... .... \,1110S-.f* ''''''''''' '''' \,,..,...,\ ----... x ., iligdV y G. -\ 0 I s, 1 .,‘,,,4\\ N ) 1 il OA. 1 .14.'. k -,.... 116.11r..-A s• 'el% ' V.,, IF, I Y' V, silkN. s; ,, ,e,8" • itZt t • . 1 ri /Slit* G.ersme-a./ 4114 MAg LI1 I I* I\ 440 a 1 N. 4 004_4( 4:1 , 1 I f lik ;,f4;0•;111. Of ,..: , ,- r----'•0 il A / figure 15 PROPOSED SEWER- SYSTEM. Approval of the sewer tie-in must be approved by the Renton Public Works Department. Such plans have been submitted and are currently being reviewed. (See Figure 16 - Proposed Sewer System) No Development No Impacts Development to Single-Family Density Impacts to the sewer system would be 85% less than the proposa . Development to Maximum Density Development of this alternative would result in approximately twice as much sewage than the proposal requiring further evaluation; of the design capacity existing sewer mains. Mitigations a. Coordination of design and installation with Renton standards. e. Storm Drainage Refer to the discussion under water. f Solid Waste Existing Conditions Solid waste collection for the proposed development would be conducted by the General Disposal Company which would rent dumpsters to the project. The rental and collection rate for two-cubic yard dumpster is presently $7.75/month for rent and 11.83/each pick up. Collected solid waste is transported by General to the Renton Transfer Station and ultimately disposed at the Newcastle landfill . Impacts The proposal would result in an increased demand for solid was e disposal service which can be adequately provided by the Gener.l Disposal . No Development No Impalcts Development to Single-Family Residential Impacts would be similar to the. proposal . 67- Development to Maximum Density Impacts would be similar to the proposal . Mitigations a. Recycling of certain solid wastes by residents should be encouraged. Unavoidable Impacts None 8. Aesthetics Existing Conditions Presently, the site is undeveloped and void of any substantial vegetation due to previous gravel extraction and excavation activities. In short, the site is perceived as a borrow pit. The surrounding area is a mix of single-family, which is situated to the north and not visible to the site, and multiple-family residences three stories in height. Impacts Implementation of the proposal will transform the site from a borrow pit to multiple-family structures of three stories, parking areas, open space and landscaping which will be compatable with surrounding development. Building exteriors will be wood with natural tone staining. Landscaping will be provided within the parking access as well as throughout the interior of the project in order to improve the visual perception of the project. No Development The site would remain essentially as an unused borrow pit. Development to Single-Family Would result in the construction of 42 one and two story units in proximity to three story multiple-family residences. Development to Maximum Density A maximum of a six-story structure in height would be developed. 68- 11 Mitigations, a. A landscaping plan will be incorporated as part of the total proposal and quality control of architecture and materials. Unavoidable Impacts Alteration of site appearance. 9. Recreation , Existing Conditions As identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan (1978) the project site is located within Neighborhood No. 9, the Highlands and Windsor Neighborhood. The study has characterized this neighborhood as having a high population density. As set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Park Plan, the area is projected to experience a slight decrease in population through 1980, but land availability will not increase. Population is younger than average for Renton and family size is moderately larger. Two main occupations are laborer and student and average income is low. The residents participate in local recreation opportunities and tend to look at the larger community wide pictur- when responding to recreation questions. They rate highly existing programs and facilities, but express a need for a neighborhood park within walking. distance which will serve the entire family. There is a strong desire for a multi-purpose center at Cedar River Park plus strong demand for expansion of programs and facilities which has occurred over the years. Within thi neighborhood there exists one neighborhood park, Windsor Hills (4.6 acres) , and one community park, Highlands (9.4 acres) . Facilities included within these parks are baseball fields, tennis courts and multi-purpose courts, a community center (gymnasium) , recreation building, trails, picnicking areas and playground equipment. The condition of these facilities is listed as being good. The 4.6 acre Windsor Hills neighborhood park is situated immediate y north of the project site across, N.E. Fourth Street. No acquisition, priority was established by the Comprehensive Park Recreation Plan for the Highlands and Windsor Neighborhood. Furthermore, the development priority for additional facilities within this neighborhood was established as being low. The recommendations set forth in the plan are to continue to develop t'e existing Windsor Hills Park according to the expressed needs identified by the survey results. 69- ti Impacts Mr. John Webley, Director of Renton Parks Department has preliminarily reviewed the proposed site plan and indicated the recreational amenities to be provided by the applicant are adequate and sufficient for the anticipated population to reside in the devel opulent. In the City of Renton' s standards for parks by size and population characteristics, the category of mini-parks or vest pocket parks were deleted as "Not Recommended" . From a municipal viewpoint this may be due primarily to the high costs involved in maintaining small scattered sites, for the low return in recreational opportunities possible on small parcels. Under private ownership and maintenance by the homeowners, the perceived advantages of a mini-park would be the intimacy, security and convenience of having facilities so close. The recreation areas and facilities supplied in the proposal would serve as a mini-park to provide acive and passive recreation to those residents, not at public expense. The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) sets standards for mini-parks as follows: 1) Containing between 2500 square feet to one acre of land, and 2) Serving a sub-neighborhood with a population of between 500 to 2500 residents. Although the facilities are to be integrated with the residential units, the area devoted to recreational uses would comprise about an acre on-site, open space for free play and a sidewalk pathway system, a meandering stream and picnic tables and barbecue grills interspersed through the central area supply the passive recreation. A swimming pool is included for active recreation, as well as recreation room and bath house, jacuzzi , a half basketball court, volleyball court on grass and tot-lot. The inclusion of these features with the development is anticipated to mitigate the perceived recreational impacts. No Development Conditions would remain as described under Existing Conditions. Development to- Single-Family Residential Impact by this alternative would be less than those of the proposal due to fewer residents and less of a demand for park and recreational facilities. 70- Development to Maximum Density Potential impacts on nearby parks would be greater due to a larger', number of residents which could not be offset by a larger area of on-site open space for recreation. Mitigations a. The provision on-site by the proponent of a mini-park containing various amenities within approximately one acre. 71- IV. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Implementation of the proposal would provide a multiple-family residential neighborhood of approxiimately 280 units on 8.4 acres, altering the present undeveloped nature of the site to an urban environment. Although development would preclude other uses of the site in the long-term, resources once available on-site have been previously extracted. Project development wo.ild result in economic benefits to the investors as well as increase the local housing inventory and tax base of Renton. The proposal is consistent with regional and local plans and policies which seek to encourage infilling in and around existing communities where public services are available. Benefits of deterring implementation of the proposal would include temporary maintenance of the present status quo, ie. , local trip generation, noise light and glare, air pollution levels. Delaying implementation would potentially result in the development of residential use in areas less suitable, increased cost in housing due to inflationary pressures, and continuance of housing shortage. Delaying the proposal would not eliminate the associated environmental impacts. 72- V. IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The construction of the housing units, roads and utilities will entail an ir4eversible commitment of building materials, time, labor and financi .1 resources. To the extent feasible, the proejct has been designed to avoid th implementation of energy intensive features and to avoid the un ecessary use of non-renewable resources. Limited mineral resources principally gravel , exist on-site but have been previously extracted. No un-que habitats or aquifer recharge areas which will be lost as a resu t of developing this proposal . At a future time, alternative technologies may reduce dependency upon non-renewable resources. Until such time, the future residents will use co parable amounts of non-renewable resources whether they live at this to ation or elsewhere in the Renton area. 73- VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL A. No Development Description With the no development alternative, the site would remain undeveloped eliminating any potential impact associated with the proposal . In short, the site would stay as borrow pit. Feasibility The objectives of the proponent would not be met by this alternative nor would the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Policy element be realized. R. Development to Single-Family Density Description The project site would be developed into 42 lots for single-family detached dwellings. Impacts 1 The impacts of this alternative would be essentially the same as those of the proposal but to a lesser degree. Feasibility The objective of the proponent would not be achieved. In addition, the sale price of the units would increase substantially if a lower density alternative were implemented reducing the affordability of the units to a high percentage of the potential buying market. C. Development to Maximum Density Description Under the provision of the R-4 zoning classification, the site would be developed to its maximum development potential of 588 units with structures to be built to a maximum of six stories. Impacts The associated impacts would be similar to that of the proposal but to a greater degree than that of the proposed action. Feasibility The objective of the proponent to provide a medium density residential development with a recreation area within an affordable price range would not be met by this proposal . 74- VII . UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Earth Moveme t and displacement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of soil duri g site p eparation and building construction. Increa ed potentials for soil erosion during construction grading. Air Long-t rm impacts under "worse case" conditions due to the increase of 1551 vehicl trips per day resulting in increases in carbon monoxide 1evels . Water Increa ed potential for erosion and siltation due to increased surface wat r runoff Potential surface water quality impacts due to urban type pollutants. Minor odification of natural drainage pattern due to the installation of storm water system. Flora Gradin on-site will remove existing limited amount of on-site vegetation. Existi g flora will be replaced by landscaping which will introduce new specie of flora common to urban development. Fauna Site p eparation activities will disrupt existing limited habitat activiti -s on-site. Noise Long-term noise increases due to residents and vehicles. Light and Glare Increaed amounts of light and glare from vehicle headlights and building lighti g. Land U e Change in the existing undeveloped status of the site to that of multiple-family residential use. However, such use is compatable with zon-ng and comprehensive land use plans of Renton. Natural Resources Consumjtion. of natural resources for construction and maintenance of the project. 75- Population and Housing Population will increase on-site up to between 560 to 708 persons. An increase of 280 multiple-family dwelling units with Renton will occur. Economy An increase in the tax base of the City due to an increase of 280 residential units. Job opportunities in the construction industry. Transportation The project could at a "worse case" condition generate about 1550 vehicle trips per day (875 round trips) and about 180 vehicle trips per hour during evening peak hour. Fire Protection Fire protection and emergency aid needed for an additional 280 dwelilng units. Police Protection i The proposal would add 280 units and result in an increase of 560 residents requiring police protection. School Facilities. Potential generation of between 123 to 172 students. Park and Recreation Facilities Increase demand for park and recreation areas and facilities. Energy The 'proposal will require provision of electrical service on-site. Estimated connected load will be from 1800-2400 kilowatts per unit or a project total of 504,000 kilowatts per month. Power Increased demand for electrical energy. Sewer Increased volume of sewage with service to be extended from an 8" line situated in N.E. Fourth Street. Aesthetics Change of site from undeveloped borrow pit to multiple-family residential structures three stories in height. 76- viii. IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE ADVERSE 1. The tax base of the City of Renton will be increased. 2. The supply of affordable housing within the City will be increased. 3. Increased employment opportunities in the building industry. 4. Residential land use will be implemented in accordance with Renton and Regional plans, goals and policies. 77- II APPENDICES li A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION B. SOILS INVESTIGATION C. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS I I i I I I II APPENDIX A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LOCAT ON OF THE TERRACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT SITE IS DESCRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING TWO PARCELS: LOT 1 THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 3) NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF ASHINGTON BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF S 1°05 '03"W 174.92 FEET; THENCE N88°54'57"W 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF N.E. 4TH STREET (ALSO KNOWN AS S.E. 178TH STREET AND COUNTY ROAD NUMBER 174) AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG. A LINE PARALLEL PITH AND 30.00 FEET DISTANT WESTERLY, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID EAST LINE S01°05 '03"W 350.00 FEET; THENCE N89°59'60"W 306.90 FEET; THENCE NOO°00'00"E 471.35 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN, SAID POIN BEING ON 4 CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 925.00 FEET; THENCE SO THEASTERLY 98.93 FEET ALONG SAID MARGINAL CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF a6°07 '41"; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID MARGIN S58°47 '29"E 83.61 FEE TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 234.00 FEET; THE CE SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY 161.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH CENTRAL A GLE OF 39°27 '22" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 2.80 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LOT 2 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP •3 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 ELST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 " '.E. 128TH STREET" , EAST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE I RIGHT—OF— AY DEEDED TO PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED I UNDER RECIRDING NO. 2500774, AND NORTH OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE MORE NORTHERLY OF THE STRIPS OF LAND DEEDED TO CITY OF RENTON FOR STREET BY DEED RECORDED NDER RECORDING NO. 5649198. 79— I SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF FOR STREET PURPOSES PER DOCUMENTS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 7111050330 AND 7111050331. AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF S010 05 03 W 174.92 FEET; THENCE N88o 54 57 W 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF N.E. 4TH STREET (ALSO KNOWN AS S.E. 178TH STREET AND COUNTY ROAD NUMBER 174) AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 30.00 FEET DISTANT WESTERLY, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, TO SAID EAST LINE S01°05 '03"W 350.00 FEET.; THENCE N89°59'60"W 306.90 FEET; THENCE NOOo00'00"E 471.35 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 925.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 98.93 FEET ALONG. SAID MARGIN CURVE THROUGH ACENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°07 '41" THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID MARGIN S58o47 '29"E 83.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE. NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 234.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY 161.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°27 '22" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 2.80 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. APPENDIX B SOILS INVESTIGATION on RENTON CONDOMINIUM SITE for HOMECRAFT by EARTH SCIENCES 81- 417. T= - _=--=--- EARTH SCIENCES . EA ®N BOX 126 HOBART,WASHINGTON 98025 4:1 L: AREA 206- 682-6942 li January 8, 1981 Mr. Steve R. Clark, Planning Director Stepan & Associates, Inc. 930 South 336th Street, Suite A Federal Way, Washington 98003 Re: Homecraft 8.4 acre Renton site Dear Mr. Clark: During tie past month, you have solicited and negotiated approval of a proposal of technical services which I wrote for the Renton 8.4 acre Homecraf: Land Development, Inc. condominium site. The specific area of service covered by the proposal includes soil exploration and the development of conclusions and recommendations for use in site planning and foundation design. The property is bounded on the west by power transmission lines and on the other sides by N.E. 3rd Street, N.E. 4th Street, and unimproved Edmonds Avenue N.E. The site configuration and tentative building locations are shown on page 5 which I prepared from partial site plan provided by you. Most of the site was formerly a borrow pit and along all but the western edge, is cleared of vegetation. Terrain is relatively flat except for a ridge as much as 20 feet high which runs along part of the west property line and a smaller ridge along part of the east property line. The western edge of the property supports ground vegetation and a few trees; evidently, this area was spared from mining, possibly to avoid removing lateral support long the property line. The ub il]in gs would be -of multiple story, wood frame construction, pre- sumably With slab on grade. In order to fully develop the available area, some of the westernmost buildings will be dug into the ridge there and the ground floor units will include structural concrete walls along the west si.e. Although the grading plan is not finalized, it appears that some of the south end units may be founded on engineered fill ; such fill would be compacted under engineer inspection and would be certified as suitable for foundation support. As I expl fined earlier, a risk which is common to developing borrow pits is the possible presence of major areas of fill which could seriously restrict construction or which, could require extensive site preparation. One of-the purposes of my investigation was to evaluate that risk. The developer has also expressed concern over slope stability in light of the grading which will be required. Also, because the project will be VA financed, the soil investi- gation must satisfy that agency. The scope of work which I have completed Mr. :Steve R. Clark Page 2 January 8, 1981 and which is summarized herein is fairly standard 'n the engineering com- munity for projects of this type and I have submitted similar reports for VA projects in the past. Subsurface Conditions - Soil and groundwater conditions were explored by digging 13 backhoe dug test pits at locations which are shown on page 5. These were dug under my super- vision and were backfilled after examining and recording the conditions at eachlocation. Logs describing the conditions in each test pit are summarized on pages 6 and 7. Generally similar conditions were observed across most of the site. Perhaps the most important observation was that there doesnot appear to be any major areas of existing fill . Within the area roughly bracketed by pits 3, 5, 6 and 8, piles of recent loose fill have been dumped. The total quantity of this fill does, not appear to exceed a few hundred yards, andiit could be redistributed to exterior or landscape areas where it would not restrict development. Excluding duff and topsoil ; all soil types noted were dominantly granular. Within the upper few yards, the most common types are clean sand and slightly silty sand. In some locations, gravel-sand mixture or highly sillty sand were found. All of the major soil types are dense and well drained. No groundwater was observed in any of the test pits and, in view of the granular nature of all the soils and the absence of a silt or clay matrix, it• is doubtful whether even intermittent groundwater could exist in significant quantity, even following periods of high precipitation. i Conclusions Subsurface conditions are almost ideally suited for development as your client proposes. The natural soils have good strength and; slope stability character- istics up to 35° to 40° inclination. The greatest limitation will occur near the west property line where the soil will ravel and slough to its angle of natural repose as excavation proceeds into the toe of the embankment. Develop- - ment will amount to an improvement of this area, part of which is now unvege- tated and in a state of continuing gradual erosion and raveling. After back- fill has been placed behindlretaining walls there, any remaining unvegetated slope area could be recontowred to a more stable configuration and seeded. Considering the horizontal and vertical dimensions shown on the preliminary site plan, it appears that the buildings will be set back sufficiently far from the top of the slope and from the property line that no special construction procedures need be followed to keep the effects of excavation confined to the property. If the developer wishes to construct any of the units on fill , the on- site materials are relatively easy to compact and it might be possible to accomplish the earthwork even during winter months. The problems of excavation are further simplified because vegetation and topsoil were removed from most of the site in association with mining. I Mr. Steve . Clark Page three January 8, 1981 Recommendations As is always true in excavating for foundations, good judgment and common sense are necessary in locating suitable bearing soil . It is possible that localized areas of fill or otherwise unsuitable or questionable materials will be uncovered during construction which might require engineer inspection, deeper-than-planned excavation or other deviation from plan. For the most part, your grading plan will accurately show which units are to be founded on natural soil and which will be supported on fill. For those buildings which are on undisturbed native soil , the footings could be designed to bear at pressures up to 4 ksf. Footings which are poured on compacted fill should be limited to 2 ksf. Minimum footing diiensions and depths of burial would be dictated by local building codes. Wherever adjacent finished grade slopes at 20° or greater, I recommend that four feet be used instead of the 18 inches burial depth which code allows. All structural fills should be built up from engineered and approved surfaces.. The fill should be laid in individually compacted lifts to at least 95 per cent of maximum density as defined by the five-layer proctor method. A slightly less stringent density would be acceptable for areas of exterior improvements such as parking lots and sidewalks. Strict adherence to these specifications is essential to building quality. I therefore urge that all excavation be under my continuing inspection. The importance of inspection to quality and to the VA was addressed in my November 7 proposal in which I also stated the cost for that service. All existing fill should be removed and selectively incorporated into the engineered fills or wasted. Finished cut slopes should be no steeper than 11/2:1 (H to V) . Fill slopes would be stable with respect to sliding at that same angle, however, it does not appear that fills will rise much above adjacent grades. All of the major soil types are highly erosive. This susceptibility is partially offset by the permeability which allows most precipitation to soak in, so long as it is not permitted to channel and flow onto bared surfaces from outside the area of excavation. Considering the present unvegetated, high angle slopes along the west side, I doubt if development will amount to much change until after construction at which time, erosion and its effects will be reduced to near zero. As soon as grading is complete, I recommend that the slopes be reseeded and that ditches be provided. wbere necessary to keep runoff off of the slopes. Mr. Steve R. Clark Page four January 8, 1981 Any of the natural on-site materials would be suitable for use as backfill behind retaining walls. Where the backslope behind' those walls does not • exceed 15°, I recommend that the walls be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 psf. For steeper backslopes, the lateral pressure on the wall will increase sharply. I I advise against constructing rockeries. over six feet high and only if the rockeries do not retain fill . Please let me know if you have any questions and notify me several days prior to the start of earthwork so that I can schedule inspection time. veryYoursy truly, EARTH SCIENCES Jame N. Eaton JNE/jed 01-1080 3 copies submitted 41 r r I ' HOMECRAFTILANDDEVELOPMENT, INC. 4.RENTON - CONDOMINIUM SITE 05° 0 it* 0 NORTIi SCALE. 1"low II 4 ‘ 4\c\a5, , to g 11‘ s g 61 e111iljJ1r itti.i _...:. 116-fh AVENUE SE 1 TEST PIT LOGS 1 0' - Brown gravelly well-graded sand (dense) 11 .5' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 2 0' - Duff and topsoil with roots (soft) 0.8' - Brown slightly silty F-M sand with occasional 3.4' - roots (loose to medium dense) Brown F-M sand (dense) 110.9' - Completed, no groundwater encountered I 3 0' - Brown gravelly well-graded sand (dense) 6.1 ' - Brown F-M sand (dense) 8.3' - Brown gravelly well-graded sand (dense) 1.1.4' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 14 0' - Duff and topsoil with roots (soft) 0.8' - j Brown silty F-M sand with occasional roots (loose to medium dense) 2.6' - Brown silty F-M sand (dense) 6.2' - Brown silty F-M sandy hardpan (very dense) 7.5' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 15 0' - Brown F-M sand with trace of silt (dense) 11.3' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 6 0' - Brown F-M sand with trace of silt (dense) 11 .6'CoMpieted, no groundwater encountered 7 0' - Duff and topsoil with roots (soft) 0.9' - Brown silty F-M sand with occasional roots (loose to medium dense) 4.5' - Brown well-graded sandy gravel (dense) 7.0' - Brown to gray F-.M sand (dense) 8:2' - Brown to gray silty F-M sand (dense) 10.4' Completed, no groundwater encountered 8 0' - Brown F-M sand (dense)10.3' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 9 0' - Brown well-graded sand with fine gravel (dense)9.7' - Completed, no groundwater encountered, depthlimitedbycaving. 10 0' - Brown fine sand with silt (dense)12.8' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 11 0' - Brown fine sand with silt (dense)10.5' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 12 0' - Variable silt, sand and gravel fill0.6° - Brown fine sand with silt (dense)10.2' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 13 0' - Duff and topsoil with roots 0.9' - Well-graded sand (dense)9.8' - Completed, no groundwater encountered depth limitedbycaving. I a I APPENDIX C TRAFFIC ANALYSIS I INTRODUCTION This report summarizes a traffic analysis for the proposed Homecraft- 1 Renton Condominium project. The purposes of this analysis are to identify adverse traffic related impacts generated by this project and, where ap- propriate, to outline policies, programs, and/or physical improvements to minimize or eliminate the effects of these impacts. The proposed Homecraft project is located in northeast. Renton in the Vantage Point area. The site is bounded on the south by 3rd Street, on the north by 4th; Street, on its west by the Puget Power right-of-way and on its east edge by the right-of-way for Edmonds Road (116th Avenue) and the Vantage Point Condominiums (See Figure 1) . At this stage, the specific size and character of the project has not been defined. Accordingly, this traffic analysis has been developed to reflect a possible range of traffic conditions that may result when this property is developed. Presently, the project sponsor plans to develop multifamily condominium housing. The number of units to be built r nges from about 150 units to 300 units on the • 8.4 acre site. There will be a mix: of one, two and three bedroom units.. Parking will be provided on-site and.will meet City of Renton parking requirements. Access to the site will be provided from at least two entry/exit points. The primary entry/exit will be located at about the center of the frontage along NE 4th Street approximately 250 feet south of the existing intersection of NE 4th Street/Edmonds Avenue NE. There will be one entrance east of this main entry/exit which will align with the existing NE 4th Street/Edmonds Avenue NE intersection. There is no access planned off NE 3rd Street. Presently the site is vacant, and there will be no need to demolish any str. ctures before construction can start. i 2- 4rh, NORTH 1 i 1 I 2 LYNN W0Oo Fj 1 ti ' s I-S Z. Ma r IMPS o L' C SEATTLE PROJECTW o WL a SITE SR 1 sz 1.- • Mk 0 I : 3 BELLEYUE wowAIM i asIN I sos Ili/Q ° PROJECT SITE NE 3RD S7. 41 HOMECRAF Figure 1 The VICINITY MAP i (RENTON TRANSIOCONDOMINIMANDSITEPLANo 1 ) 3- EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes the existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the project site including the street system, traffic opera- tions , transit service, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and a review of other anticipated projects whose traffic might affect the access to and from the Homecraft site. This discussion is intended to serve as a basis for subsequent analysis of project generated traffic. Street System The primary street system serving this site is illustrated in Figure 2. NE 3rd Street is the primary east-west arterial serving this area carrying two lanes of traffic in each direction with center left-turn lanes at pri- mary cross street intersections. NE 4th Street is a relatively wide 2-lane road that has been improved along its alignment east of the site with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Adjacent to and west of the site, the road is in good condition and appears to have a 22-24 foot wide paved asphalt surface with narrow, but stabilized, dirt shoulders on both sides of the road. NE 4th Street winds down the hill and changes names to Bronson Way NE. The slope of the hill increases to what appears to be 8-12 percent with the steepest portion occurring near the intersection of Bronson Way NE and NE 3rd Street. Most other roads in the vicinity of the site including NE 5th Street, Harrington Avenue NE, Edmonds Avenue NE, and NE 7th Street, serve two lanes of traffic and generally have parking on both sides of the street. All of thlse roads are in very good condition. Another major arterial serving the site is Sunset Boulevard which crosses under Inter- state 405 northwest of the site. This road is generally 4 lanes wide with channelized left and right turn storage lanes at its major intersection with NE 3rd Street, which lies at the foot of the hill west of the site. Traffic control in the vicinity of the project is provided with a combination of traffic. signals and stop signs. Signals are located at the intersection of NE 3rd Street/Bronson Way NE (Monterey Drive NE) and at NE. 3rd Street/Sunset Boulevard. Most other intersections in the vicinity are controlled with stop signs that are located to control traffic. on minor volume side streets, permitting uninterrupted flow of the heavier 4- v lume on thelmain streets. Several intersections north of the site Hare c ntroiled with 4-way stop signs. T affic Volumes and Patterns Traffic volumes on streets in the area were assembled from City of R nton Public'Works Department's records and reflect counts made in 980. These show both daily and evening peak hour counts. Where evening peak blur counts were. 'unavailable, The TRANSPO Group made estimates as indi- cated on Figure 2. While both morning and afternoon counts were reviewed as part of this analysis., it was consistently observed that the afternoon peak hour traffic volumes were higher and represented more severe tr ffic poblems thanthose observed in the morning. Accordingly, this analysis w s based on a detailed review of the evening peak hour travel conditions. N netheless, 'special morning traffic problems are addressed in the t affic analysis portion of this report. A review of the counts shown on Figure 2 shows NE 3rd Street carries approximately 122,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in the vicinity of the site. This volume increases to 28,500 vpd by the time people travel to thellfoot o the hill at the intersection with Sunset Boulevard. Sunset Bouleviard c rries between 20,000-22,000 vpd near its intersection with 3rd Street. T ese volumes reduce substantially east and north of the interchange with I-405 where volumes drop by 50 percent to approximately 10,200 vpd. No count information was available along NE 4th Street, however, based qln s veral in-field visits in the area and observing the land use chara ter- i tics, it is estimated that the volume in the vicinity of the proje t site is likely; less than 1,500 vpd. Moving down the hill:, this volumlIe likely increases to approximately 3,000 vpd due to the trip generatidlI;n associated with Group Health Cooperative, the activities at the First Methodist Church, and through_ traffic that uses Bronson Way NE (.incl ding the transit traffic). Volumes on local streets north of the site ra ,ge from approximately 1,000 vpd to 3,000 vpd. I-405 carries approximat ily 60,000 vpd in the vicinity of the site. A review of the evening peak hour counts shows they represent 8-12 pe cent of theidaily traffic volume. Generally, the peak hour percentage. I is lower on high volume roadways and higher on low volume roadways 5- r indicating higher midday use of the major arterials. A review of the directional counts, shows a typical pattern of primary eastbound and northbound flows in the evening and an opposite pattern of southbound and westbound flaw in the morning. Generally the directional split on NE 3rd Street during the evening peak hour is approximately 70-75 percent eastbound and 25-30 percent westbound. This pattern reflects the dom- ination of work-to-home trips during the evening peak hour. While these daily and peak hour traffic volumes give a good general impression of traffic patterns, it is appropriate to examine them relative to the street system and traffic control to determine their impacts on congestion. Although detailed turning movement counts were not available at either of the major signalized intersections (NE 3rd Street/Bronson Way . or N E 3rd Street/Sunset Boulevard), estimates of the level of service at these intersections were prepared. These estimates reflected certain assumptions regarding turning movement percentages at the Sunset Boule- vard/NE 3rd Street intersection and were based on sample turning movement counts made at the NE 3rd Street/Bronson Way NE intersection. The tech- nique used to estimate these levels of service are drawn from several sources including the Highway Capacity Manual , the Traffic Engineering Handbook, and Highway Research Circular No. 212 and are rated according to levels of service (LOS) which range from LOS A which is very good to LOS F which reflects a traffic flow that has deteriorated to a start and stop condition. In urban areas, most traffic engineers design improvements to operate a LOS C, but consider LOS D acceptable during peak periods as long as these condition do not extend more than one hour within the peak period. Recently, some of these standards which were established in 1960, have been mdified recognizing that many roads currently operate at LOS E and unfortunately, there is little that can be done to improve those levels of service. Based on this review, it is estimated that the level of service at the NE 3rd Street/Bronson Way N E. intersection operates at LOS C. This may appear to be relatively high considering the high volumes carried on NE 3rd Street; however, closer examination shows that a combination of factors result in a. relatively good level. of servie. These factors include a - channelized. left-turn pocket for east and westbound traffic and eery low volume side street flows. during the evening peak hour. In addition, substantial proportion of the traffic traveling southbound on BronIson Way NE is making right turns and thus do not take away from the effective Green lime c his southbound approach. Also, most of the traffic associated with the resi- ential development south of NE 3rd Street is inbound to the development and Thus, the number of times when traffic needs to make a left turn (northbound to westbound) onto NE 3rd Street is limited. Accordingly, the percentage of green time allocated to the primary eastbound flow on NE 3rd Street is sub- tantial (about 85 percent of the green time at the intersection) . The level of service at the Sunset Boulevard/NE 3rd Street intersection is esti- mated to be approximately LOS D-E. This level of service is maintained at this level largely because of the good channelization that permits ree Tight turns via exclusive right-turn lanes. More detailed computations are attached in Appendix A. Parking Althoughia detailed survey of parking on streets in the vicinity of the site was notImade, it was obsery e,d that the majority of parking associated ith the Vantage Point Condominiums is provided on-site, although there is Some spillover onto the street. The street has been designed to be wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides of the street and permit un- estricted flow of two lanes of traffic (one lane in each direction! . On Streets north of the site,, it is very common to see parking on-street since many of the homes do not have off-site parking provided. During thlil early evening, on-street parking was observed to be at its highest level (when it wa s estimated that the average occupancy ranged between 60 and 75 percent depending on ,the area. where parking occupancy was observed. Transit.Service i Presently the area around the Homecraft site is served by Routes 142 nd 144. Inithe vicinity of the project, these routes follow the s me ligament but split after they pass through Renton and travel into Seattle. Routes 142. and 144 travel along: NE 7th Street, Sunset Boulevard, Bronson. Vay NE, and NE 3rd Street as reflected in Figure 2. 1 . 7_ i Route 142 and 144 combine to provide peak hour service during morning and afternoon commute periods with about one bus every 10-15 minutes. During the midday, headways reduce to about one bus per hour in each direction. Route 142 travels through Renton past the park-and-ride lot and into Seattle via Renton Avenue South. During the morning and afternoon peak periods, several coaches are scheduled to offer express service between Skyway and the Seattle CBD (5 runs in the morning and 3 runs in the afternoon). Route 144 also passes through Renton but splits following Sunset Boulevard and Empire Way past Boeing Field and through Georgetown into downtown Seattle. Presently, fares between the site and Seattle are set at 75t while the fare to travel between the site and Renton would only be 50¢. Pedestrian, and Bicycle Activity Although there were no specific studies made to determine the level of pedestrian and bicycle activities in the vicinity of the project, it was observed that there tended to be a noticeable level of activity in the neighborhood located north of'the site in the vicinity of the resi- dential development. Near the site, however, no pedestrian or bicycle activity was observed. Likely, the relatively long walking distance between concentrations of residential development contribute to this observation. As noted earlier, sidewalks exist adjacent to 4th Street in the vicinity of the Vantage Point Condominiums. i 1 8- FORECASTS OF TRAVEL DEMAND AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Y This section of the report outlines the assumptions and steps taken to arrive at an estimate of future travel associated with the Homecraft project and discusses the potential impacts of the additional traffic 'on streets in the vicinity of the site. Based on current development plans, it is reasonable to expect that these units would be constructed and occupied late 1981 or early 1982. For the purpose of this project, 1982 was selected as -the design year for forecasting traffic. The forecasted traffic demand on streets in the vicinity of the Homecraft project are comprised of three primary elements: existing traffic; future non-project traffic; and forecasted project-generated trffic. Existing traffic volumes are presented on Figure 1 and have been discussed in the existing conditions section of this report. Future non-project traffic volumes are those volumes that are expected to occur between now and 1982 but which have no relationship to the Homecraft project. Project-generated traffic volumes, as the name implies, are those volumes that are expected to be generated by occupants of the pro- posed project. The combination of these three components result in the total 1982 forecasted traffic volumes. Non-Project Traffic Future non-project traffic is created by other developments that may be developed between now and 1982. In the vicinity of the Homecraft site, there are several known projects including a single-family residential, development proposed along Edmonds Avenue NE consisting of an estimated 21 housing units; another development of 90 single-family units that will use Edmonds Avenue NE. for primary access; and a proposal for development of approximately 425 apartments and condominiums that, are proposed to be located south of NE 3rd Street and will have access via a single entry/exit. The intersection of the apartment/condo project will intersect NE 3rd Street abolut 100 feet west of the. Edmonds Avenue NE right-of-way. In addi tion . to these specific projects. it is likely that there will continue to be development of property east of the site, and accordingly, an annual average: growth factor was applied to the existing volumes to account for 9 traffic growth that could not be allocated to one specific project or another. The project's specific traffic growth and general non-project growth was added to the existing traffic volumes and these volumes are shown on Figure 3.. Detailed turning movements at key intersections are shown in Appendix A. Project-Generated Traffic Volumes The TRANSPO Group used a standard transportation planning approach for forecasting project-related travel demand using the following steps: 1. Trip. generation - How many people will make trips? 2. Mode split - What modes will people use (automobile, transit, bicycle or walk)? 3. Trip distribution - Where are their destinations (City of Renton, local shopping, Bellevue, etc.)? 4. Travel assignment.- Which routes will they use when making their trips (specific streets, sidewalks, or transit routes)? The steps taken to estimate these future traffic volumes are des- cribed below. To ensure that impacts would. not be underestimated, the analysis which follows generally reflects a "worst case" condition. Worst case" is defined in this study to reflect, the high end of the reasonably expected range of traffic conditions. Trip Generation and Mode Split Trip generation statistics assembled by the Institute of Transpor-. tation Engineers and the Arizona Department of Transportation in com- bination with observations made by The TRANSPO Group suggest that average vehicle trip generation rates for condominiums range from 5.1 to 7.1 daily one-way trips per unit. Generally,, trip generation rates vary in some proportion to the number of bedrooms within each housing unit. Therefore, las housing density increases, the average number of bedrooms per unit decreases and in turn, the average trip generation per unit decreases.. ' Accordingly, a. development scenario of 150 units is likely to have a higher average trip generation rate than a development scenario of 300 units.. 10- r 0 0 un o n O N o In A rn O O O 01 T NORTH N r tie o 0 L N th r.••, A 30 50 3100 0 s 330 330 31303p N4 7Ty ST 1420 1420 1 70 o o w Ili IA 1 CO N Q 0 ., w Q Q Z 0 0 Z co N Q o Y O ., Z z o cc 0O Q Y O O m N Z 0 r, NE 5TH ST Q 3 1590' 1700 1755 0 160 170, 180 NE 4TH ST Is PROJECT 1 AV' ....SITE S Oi ficf 3Qp 0 232265 10 22 60 Z ZZh' DP a 90 3 47w ° I' 1'1 o LEGEND tit 0 2 ' -• k 1 g0 qO kO 1982 1982 wN ,0 F 5 p 256 -•WITHOUT WITH PROJECT Di g 32460 33160 33 30 3135 3215 3270 W PROJECT 150 DU 300 DU DAILY XXX J AAA CCC 1 FM PEAK YYY BBB DOD 1 1 1 HOMECRAFT Figure 3 The 1982 DAILY AND 5 RENTON PM, PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC vI PICI CONDOMINIUM WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT 11- - For the purposes of this study, a range of trip generation rates was therefore used to reflect these density differences. On a daily basis research shows the trip generation rate for a condominium unit can vary from 5.2 to 7.2 trips per unit. During the evening peak hour, this project would be expected to generate between 0.5 and 0.7 vehicle trips per hour per unit. Because a large portion of evening peak hour traffic is composed of work-to-home trips, about 70% to 80% of the evening travel generated by the development is estimated to travel in- bound while the remaining 20% to 30% will be oriented away from the site. When these trip generation rates are applied to the Homecraft• project, they yield the volumes reflected on Table 1. This shows that a development of 150 units will generate about 1,080 vehicle trips per day (540 round trips) and about 120 vehicle trips per hour during the evening peak hour. Should the project be developed with 300 units, it would generate about 1,650 vehicle trips per day (825 round trips) and about 180 vehicle trips per hour during the evening peak hour. Generalljy, a certain number of trips would be made by transit. This is especially true in this area where traffic congestion on arterial streets and along I-405 is quite high. Moreover, Routes 142-144. are lo- cated within easy walking distance to the site. However, to be conserva- tive, no allocation of travel to transit has been applied in this analysis. This approach, again, reflects the trend toward a more conservative analysis. Later in this report, there is an assessment of potential transit impacts and accommodation for transit near the site. ' Trip Distribution and Assignment Now that. the number of trips to and from the project site is known, it is necessary to determine where people are travelling. This step, commonly referred to as travel distribution, is slightly different during the peak hours than on a daily basis because the PM peak ,hour travel is dominated by work-to-home trips, while the daily travel distribution re- fleets a. mix of shopping, social-recreational , school , and business trips as well as work trips. TABLE 1 i . TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY gEt Trip Generation Rate' Trip Generation Units Gross Daily PM Peak Hour Daily PM Peak Hour Density In Out In Out 150 17.4 7.2 0.6 0.2 1,080 90 30 300 34_8 5.5 0.5 0.1 1,650 150 30 Trip generation rate expressed in terms of trips per unit. i 13- 1 A review of regional transportation planning data (PSCOG) in combination with census work-trip data was combined with observations of existing travel patterns and used as a guide to determine the future travel distribution for this project. Generally, the travel distribution observed today will be typical of that forecasted in 1982. During the peak hour, there will be a strong orientation to the west (Renton and Seattle.) , the south (Auburn and Kent) and north (Bellevue, Kirkland and Snohomish County) .. Accordingly, many people will want to gain access to I-405 or travel arterial streets east-west through Renton to connect with other major arterials into Seattle or Tukwila. On a daily basis, a greater proportion of travel will be oriented to the east and north on local streets reflecting some orientation to existing and expanding convenience shopping opportunities, as well as social-recreational trips and school trips. Because the topography of the hillside limits the number of streets on which people can travel , it is relatively easy to assign the traffic to specific .routes. This distribution is shown on Figure 4. These figures show the majority of travel on both a daily and peak hour basis will be oriented along NE 4th Street. and Bronson Way NE. Some traffic will switch back via Bronson Way NE so drivers can access I-405 more easily. A small amount of traffic will be oriented east and north on NE 4th Street and. Edmonds Avenue'NE as people drive to NE 3rd Street/NE 4th Street to travel east or north to Index Street NE. The volume traveling north and east. will be relatively small because there are a relatively small number of logical destinations that attract travel in these direc tions (e.g., more shopping and social-recreational opportunities like to the east in Renton or north or south via I-405). These project-generated traffic volumes have been added to the non-project traffic to reflect total volumes with the project in Figure. 3.. Traffic. Analysis A comparison of these figures shows that the greatest percentage growth of traffic volumes is expected to occur along NE 4th Street west of the site. where volumes generated by this project could, comprise as much-.aone-thsp ird of the total volume. As these volumes distribute onto the arterial-street system,, the impact of volumes generated by the Homecraft project Is estimated to be less than five percent of'the total volume traveling on any, given street. This is a relatively small varia- i 14 - A NCRTH 1:,‘I10 165 0s5X 10 20/ 11- 1- 1""'",--....„10% NE 7TH srO Z Z W Z w w a a a QN Z 0 Y Z 15% 160 250 F=. z Y cc 15% 20 30 w cc F r NE 5TH ST a..!. N'll C. 110%1 1101 1651CO `= N SX 11 10 20' ti NE 4TH ST PROJECT d , SITE 65% 700' 1070 75% so 135 LEGEND: op a 2 PROJECT TRAVEI<. p DIRECTIONAL DISTRIEUTION 150 CU 300 CU ua t DAILY 1 XXXX I MA l CCC 1BBBDOD Ft4 PEAK YYYX Th HOCI ECRAF Figure 4 2 ep RFNTOM PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC : , TRANSO CONDoMINIUM :DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Gr p 15- tion or increase in traffic volume and can be compared to the day-to-day variation in traffic volumes that occurs on most streets .in the area. For example, this variation would likely be less- than' the change in vol- umes observed from a Thursday evening peak hour .condition to a Friday evening peak hour condition. East-west traffic flow in east Renton has become one of the primary traffic problems for the City as it has for other communities that are located east of I-5 and I-405. As residential development occurs east of Renton in King County, these problems should be expected to become more severe. Without the project it is therefore expected that the level of service at the NE 3rd Street/Bronson Way NE intersection will drop to LOS 0 by 1982 assuming the non-project traffic forecasts are correct. Likewise, future non-project traffic conditions, at the Sunset Boulevard/NE 3rd Street intersection are likely to be reduced to LOS E capacity). Additional volumes generated by the Homecraft project are not expected to noticeably decrease these levels of service any further. Residents who. use NE 4th Street west of the site will notice an increase • - in' the traffic volumes because this proposal is likely to generate be- tween 70 to 120 vehicles per hour during the evening peak hour. In total , this appears to be a substantial volume, yet over .a one hour time span, this will convert to about two to four additional cars each time the signal at NE 3rd Street and Bronson Way changes. There. ap- pears to be more than- a sufficient amount of left-turn storage and number of acceptable- gaps in the eastbound traffic flow such that even ' simple• retiming of this signal does not appear to be warranted. Accordingly, the impact of the traffic volumes generated by this - project do not. appear to be- significant. During the morning peak hour period congestion on arterial streets around the site are likely to be less than during the evening peak hour because traffic volumes are lower. In addition, traffic patterns generated by the Homecraft project are expected to shift slightly, with a. slightly higher.percentage of travel north. and: west via. Bronson Way to Sunset. Boulevard to travel' to the on-ramp to. northbound I-405. H-, There is ex acted to be less. travel east. along NE 4th Street and north. along Edmonds. Avenue NE because: there. are a limited number of. employment- . opportunities. east. of the site.. i 16 11 F I I. 1 1 Edmonds Avenue NE Extension Discussions with the City of Renton Traffic Engineer have suggest d II9 the have several questions relative to the extension of Edmonds Avenu, l= NE ram NE 4th Street to NE 3rd. Street. First, is Edmonds Avenue NE I I pla ned to be used as a primary access for the project? In response, the project sponsor plans to provide all access off NE 4th Street. Second, will the travel demand generated by the project precipita ,e or reate the need to extend Edmonds Avenue NE? Based on the trip gen ' era ion statistics presented earlier, the Homecraft generated traffic volumes can be served adequately and safely with exclusive access to NE 4th Street and will not need alternative access to serve residents IIand visitor traffic volumes. Third, should the road ever be extended? If Edmonds Avenue NE IF ' wer extended, when should this improvement occur and how should road improvements be 'financed? While the answers to these questions are no as straightforward as the previous responses, this analysis 'has con- cluded that extension of Edmonds Avenue NE. is not advisable at this time and is notladvisabie. until other significant improvements can be ,, I made to relieve the east-west traffic congestion along 3rd Street. A first impression might suggest the extension of Edmonds Avenue E is a reasonable ;improvement because it would- complete a link in an are., I wide grid network of streets serving this area. More detailed review .f IIthe benefits/disadvantages of this street extension. tends to suggest oth rwise, based on 'a. preliminary review of nearby developable land. It ilIis. estimated Ithat Edmonds Avenue NE would carry between 2000 and I3506 vpd--if extended south to NE 3rd Street. Thus, an extension would be used if it were constructed. II The benefit of -the extension would be to .reduce volumes at the int rsections of Jefferson' Street NE/NE 3rd Street and Bronson Way NE/ NE rd Street. Typically, reduction of volumes at adjacent.intersecti' nsIIwouldbeadesirablegoal .. In this case, however, these intersec.tionsll ope ate substantially under capacity, and at full development of prop-IIIerties ,in this area, it- is likely that they will continue to operate pandr' ca acity.jTherefore, there- is no significant benefit to level ol, ' . II se ice at: these intersections as:a- result of this improvement. It j woul d also- reduce- volumes• along. Sunset'Boulevard by about 1500 to 2000 vpd. 17- 1 The extension of Edmonds Avenue NE also introduces some new problems. IFirstandforemost, it will add volume (1500 to 2000 vpd) to NE 3rd Street which, as discussed earlier, is already experiencing traffic congestion problems at the foot of the hill at its intersection with Sunset Boulevard. Second, the extension 'will introduce another intersection on NE 3rd Street that would likely need to be signalized. Signalization 1 would be warranted because of the high volumes on NE 3rd Street and would create another stop for some cars traveling eastbound on this i long upgrade. During the evening peak hour this would create additional delay.IConsideringtheexistingstreetsystemadequatelyservesthevolumes that would use this extension and considering that the extension would only compound the existing east-west traffic congestion, it is concluded that Edmonds Avenue NE should not be extended to intersect with NE 3rd Street because it is not warranted from a traffic volume standpoint, nor 111 does it have an overall benefit to circulation or level of service (con gestion) along streets in the area. I To provide reasonable access to NE 3rd Street from the neighborhood that lies north and northeast of. the proposed project, it would be recom- 1 mended that the City consider upgrading the intersection of Jefferson Street/NE 3rd Street/NE 4th Street by installing a traffic signal . I Presently this ' intersection is channelized to provide left-turn storage for traffic turning off NE 3rd onto Jefferson Street (eastbound-northbound). While it does not appear that current volumes are sufficient to warrant a signal, it is recommended that the City monitor traffic volumes at this location as a part of their regular traffic counting program so the need for a 'traffic signal can be anticipated and therefore budgeted in advance of warrants being satisfied. 1 Based on this analysis and of traffic volumes, it is concluded that construction of Edmonds Avenue NE from NE 4th to NE 3rd Street is not warranted at this time and is not advisable until east-west traffic circulation patterns can be modified to reduce anticipated congestion Iatkeyintersections. 18- I Although somewhat unrelated to the Edmonds Avenue NE extension, there appears to be significant east-west circulation problems east of Renton. This problem is the result of the congestion created as traffic bound for I-405 and major arterials converge at major intersections fed- ing these facilities. The nearest and one of the most obvious points if congestion and delay occurs at the foot of the hill at the NE 3rd Stret/ Sunset Boulevard, intersection. The observed congestion problems appear to be the product of several factors. Primary among them is the elimination of several planned fre way , and roadways in the Renton area. This problem is exaggerated by a' land use plan that was never cut back to correspond to the reduction of transportation facilities. The east-west circulation problem in not unique to Renton; but it is a characteristic associated with all areas eas of Seattle,; especially those south of Lake Washington. Unfor- tunately, most road planning in the region has concentrated on developing capacity in north-south corridors and has delegated east- westlaccess to al subservient role. Again, unfortunately, land use nplaik have not been. cut back to adapt to the reduction in transportati•n capacity. In a short term, near the site, there may be several improvements that could be made to the existing. street system. These include the following: Because morning and afternoon peak hour traffic patterns are very different (e.g. , peak westbound flow in the morning), upgrade or modify the existing signal equipment to permit dual maximum timing intervals for the critical phases. By making this improvement, there will be better overall utility of each phase and thus improved level of service at the intersection. Modify some channelization to provide for dual left turns e.g. , the westbound to southbound movement in the a.m.). These and other types of improvements should be investigated in detail by, the City Traffic Engineer's staff. Over- the longer term,. however, it appears that there will be a need morefor si nificant im rovements.• One such improvement that appears "` ' ' -9 p 19- 1 a reasonable is therevision of access at the interchange that connects I-405 with Sunset Boulevard. Presently both east and westbound vehi- cies on Sunset Boulevard can turn onto I-405 northbound, but southbound vehicles on II405 can only turn southwest onto Sunset Boulevard. This exiting pattern requires that drivers travel down the hill to the Sunset Boulevard/NE 3rd Street intersection and make a left turn to travel up the hill . Considering that most major residential developments in the City of Renton and in King County are forecasted to occur east of I-405, it seems reasonable that increased flexibility in. access to and from the east be considered a high priority. Such a project would require close cooperation with the State Department of Transportation, since they control access off I-405. It is also recognized that this improve- ment would require reducing the storage capacity of the left-turn lane serving eastbound to northbound left turns. It is also recognized that both these intersections would likely have to be signalized due to the high volumes that they carry and the conflicts that they would precipi- • tate. A sketch showing this revision is outlined in Appendix A. Transit Service While the traffic forecasts prepared for this analysis assumed no use of existing transit, existing and anticipated future congestion, energy costs, and continually upgraded transit service will realistically make transit a viable mode of travel. Accordingly, to reflect a "worst case" analysis relative to transit, it is possible that as many as 20 percent of the daily trips generated by this project could be made by transit. These levels would likely be achieved during the morning and afternoon peak hour • when traffic cingestion is worse and the level of transit service is highest. • ' In addition, it appears likely that at some future point as development east of the site in East Renton and in King County increases, additional transit routes will be developed. A logical corridor for such transit services is along NE 3rd Street. Accordingly, it is recommended that s . some pedestrian walkway be designed into the plat to connect the develop- -. - ' ment with NE 3rd Street such that residents in the project site could • walk to a potential future transit point along NE 3rd Street. It is logical that this would be the location for a transit stop because of the major apartment/condominium project that is being proposed on the south side of NE 3rd Street near the Homecraft project. iIn addition, it is recommended that the project sponsor provide each homeowner with information regarding transit service in the vicinity of the project site. Since Routes 142 and 144 provide excellent service and re within easy walking distance of the site, it is logical that many people will use these routes until more service is developed in the Ease Renton/King County area. Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel J hile there was no measurable amount of pedestrian or bicycle travel observed in this area, it is reasonable to expect that some people would be walking from the site along NE 4th Street to the bus route and that some people could walk or bicycle north along Edmonds Avenue NE to some of the commercial opportunities along Sunset Boulevard. Accordingly, it is r commended that as part of the project site improvement sidewalks be installed along the north side of the project adjacent to NE 4th Street to' connect with those on the section of NE 4th Street adjacent to the Yenta e Point Condominiums. As property is developed or improved along NE 4th Street, this sidewalk can be completed down to Bronson Way NE an potentially further down to the intersection of Bronson Way NE and NE 3rd Street.. Parking r As discussed in the existing conditions section of this report, de- veloprpent plans for this project are not yet defined to the point where ; a specific assessment of parking needs can be determined. The Renton Zoning Code requires that two parking spaces per unit be provided. -For the densities andaverage unit sizes (number of bedrooms) that the den- sities imply, this parking space allocation appears to be reasonable for resident parking- needs- Because there are conditions that" may 21- generate traffic demands that are greater than this two parking space per unit requirement, the following mitigation measures are suggested as options to mitigate impacts associated with spillover parking onto NE 4th Street: Prohibit parking and/or storage of recreational vehicles as part of the conditions, covenants and restrictions of the proposal . Construct small landscaped clusters of parking spaces (three to four spaces per cluster) throughout the development in areas like theI center of cul-de-sacs where parking for visitors can be proviided. Last, and least desirable, widen roads wide enough to permit parking on one side of the roadway. Construction Traffic Impact During construction of this project there will be traffic generated and this will likely have some different characteristics from the traffic that is generated when the development is fully occupied. At no time will construction traffic volumes be higher than those i following occupancy.. There Will be a higher proportion of truck volumes during the first month of construction during site prepara- tion and when building foundations are being constructed, there could be as many as 100 to 200 truck trips each day. These trucks would be hauling soills, foundation materials, reinforcing steel and con- crete. In addiltion, there would likely be a crew that would range from 20 to 30 persons working at any one time during this site preparation phase. When the building shells are being constructed, the crew size could increase to about 30 to 40 persons and during the finishing stages of the project, depending on construction phasing, the maximum crew size is estimated to be about'40 to 50 persons. Thus, on a daily basis, it is estimated that no more than 200 to 300 vpd would be generated including truck trips and trips made by employees. k-•-,: Thus,. the traffic volumes and. associated. impacts generated by this :. project during construction would be less than half those forecasted - 7- . to occur after° occupancy. 22- The site its sufficiently large to accommodate parking of all 7_ y c.nstruction work vehicles. Therefore, there should not be any 11- i .act associated with parking spilling over onto nearby public s weets. S stems Develo'.ment Char.e It isunde'rstood that the City of Renton is considering creation of a systems development charge that would be assessed ag inst new developments to help pay for the cost of new off-site street improvements. Presently, the road improvement portion of this charge wouid 'be levied on a per vehicle trip basis. Assuming su:h a charge is approved and passed into law, the charges can only be equitable if they are based on a consistent set of trip genera- tiQn .rates. The trip generation rates used in this report are generally higher than average in order that a more conservative worst case" analysis is. reflected. Because the rates used in I th s analysis are likely higher than those used in other traffic analyses, the trip generation .uses to support a systems develop- ment charge need to be recomputed so charges assessed against Homecraft are equitable with charges assessed other developments. • II iI may• i i MITIGATING MEASURES Although this project does not appear to generate any significant traffic impacts, there are some mitigation actions that can be taken to help ensure that impacts are no worse than predicted and to possi- bly reduce the level of impact anticipated. Transportation System and Trip Generation Maintain at least two entrances off NE 4th Street to provide for multiple access for residents and more important, for emergency vehicles. Design the internal road system with a loop so in the event of an emergency, vehicles have an alternative route if one route is blocked. If long cul-de-sacs are incorporated into the site plan, try to design emergency vehicle access connections between cul-de- sacs•or between a cul-de-src and a public street. To reduce automobilg travel and encourage transit and carpooling, it is suggested that the project sponsor distribute information relative to transit routes and schedules as well as information relative to ridesharing. . a If practical , following occupancy, it is suggested that the homeowners association sponsor transit/carpool information sesstions. a The project sponsor and/or homeowners association work with Metro Transit to establish a route and bus shelter along NE 3rd Street. Pedestrian/Bicycle Travel When streets are constructed internal to the project, they should include a pedestrian way on at least one side of the street. When NE. 4th Street is improved, it should be improved to match the section of NE 4th Street east of the site. _ I Parking II-, . To mitigate potential impacts relative to spillover parking 1 on NE 4th Street, one of the following mitigation measure should be considered: II Prohibit parking and/or storage of recreational vehicl 's as part of the conditions, covenants and restrictions •f IIthe proposal . Construct small landscaped clusters of parking spaces three to four spaces per cluster) throughout the devel-II opment in areas like the center of cul-de-sacs where II parking for visitors can be provided. Last, and least desirable, widen roads wide enough to permit parking on one side of the roadway. II II I I H I 1 I i _ ...25- III I I DETAILED TURNING MOVEMENTS 1 ! II 1 I ' I I I 111 I I 1 t I 1 v .1. ?••O._4--I Oft. 0 1 I 6.2•ID 1 T • 1 I 111/4 1 mil t p 1 O 35 1 tQrr}4 C r P2ai ac.- wtTi+ Pzo..1.4.; taIT* .•F,..5'1'UJ $ A .E.,,Ade.. L+!?her •=•.Grn.1/..1.C' RYGJ1,16 0• ISZO z. a i 14--(C13 1 o._-1I I I Iqa 0—Th. 1\ t :t to oi..0 I I 1182. I 1.+1?1a. Ate/EGA wrn+ EOrto,JJs AcJ 1& . - to)10.7o st 11 a 3 0 • -•-- N r.ti ® 140m E C- 4 7 F-Dry amOS 4i4E.CE 4SA 3E ivy j t70iJ. jrn 1 CO J Onnf I.11 wt%. A PA .Pg Hac.1Z... Ir" 1 i t I I F.,,,,:•s-T 4 C.I i g Z. ma. 1/7 ;•20:!4— 0..... 41,1:2 •590 •4...4 7 p•,<7...,--wa,•" r,..oric.;• A-v.l.:AP.i.ir- . I) ir • I 0 ----11 10—..a i i 1 e.:.). 1: .::, r.1 ---. 41/40"-ilk 1 t .. - : IP)t • 0 1500 0 ICA 30 . D . • •I it•-- • 14 5 Z. 115 7- LAJ i-n•Je.10 tr7 f= 37245 ar..-7 LWT74- PZ-2-j-r--/----r Ip p p WITH.. ..E/AIV NOS AVE-n/4e. gd 1J-rt. A7.-41""JA14,-,.. 'lair-AA/6- 0 do ao rf / P' i I 0 . ....1.. . 0 •12•MS... 11° I 0 "''''"* 4o I• o ticic) t 0 it.3-.5- • I 1182 i ,, WITE-1. Pao./E--G7, I 7"..• .•*: '-:.••••- •• far t* F-C)fetan./D AVE/dile I 30/). /G.:29 7.'7_,:i.. ..1...-......•••••',F••:.- .F•••• ••!-,-Lr k • . 4—...:.• -... —;ner......1.Z.40, • .•4-r.,...... ....-- -,......''•• .... II'..1.-...G... E.Dfil°411° I 1.........' • ••-..4 ..-..,.. .1,1,,,....%,,dz 4;•-•4,..,.........4.-T.•if V..-•%:.....17!".•....,,.,.- ...... • • r,M.?.r'r...-.1:.•--..-...:- L::•.:".• '''' '- c‘••.• zi-7..- 11.•:.•..:.......•...- -•....-..;-.:„..:. • 2.5.-..t.:,,,,,,I........1 1 -' 60 - 16-90- ': '':":".::--.•: ' • • . '' - —1,....•.-#.4-•.•-•r•-••••----- f.2. •,..• .. -•. ,L......1r....3:.-Tr;',•2T.:-•••• ! 2 r...7...-.1..7,..:--;::71-:::--r-7•4*.. ir..-r---Ar.f7... n,..,_ .--..-7"*-•:.. 7 t-•'.• . 1,-7...,......;':;..z.....-•-.:4*:3-7-C-EA f•:75• 1'.:4--....--•-•.-•!""-.'":i.,.,.4„....'attaiptAral. sr........'..i-J,L.:421..c..........-:. -.4....•im;•-•,-,••-a • .•,..•- T.... .•..ft• .PP•r.,; 1‘ ,••••inin.....,,,dr• ....• • 1 t...L.....r•-•.••-,•...c.:-.,.';17,-,•••!. ....-.0-**4"••••••••... • ,.. • • . ......'...-. .......r...--... - -- •-I. ;;”, •---• 1"7" ,:r-.r11.7:11••3" 1:::•-•••,4. 7.1..,.. ...., ..„..7'. ..,7.,1-.....•••••• -'.••.'• : -•••".• •.-•••••;';• .••• • __,,._• .„,• •-•'; •••- •' • i,. - . ' • • • •.-t7 - .. . . • i.".;....4...,,plik4,....:,. si. ..1..V.... ...7.:..7..;77.r..7_ ..;'.... _7:7'. . - .....•-• • . 1.-:• •, .......,.....- -:_...........-4.,...z........ _ .._...... _.. • •• ..• • • •• L.r..-.T.::•. —•7- _-'„• ...7. • ..,.. • • •• - • 1.a.DAA 0 AA0 6 .MC /•t° 2° - 71\Yg • . POM E4.eA -7 3. TRAN S rX1.) PA - 14c r. ,--_-, •--,..v_- P2.4.0 EC0-7' . .PAA J t:. r l r MINA Ev 5- 4 c.1 `3 6 II o t ti 57b _of.. 4-3Go Gao 4®I 9 ao —01. y__416- Io4S--0- Ar---505 3i5 — 3L0 , til t r1 Itr I d93Z M5 . JI71- Cu-7 Pre41 GT W 1 Tom- PzaJf.<.i 4.1 IT;-1- •F :•NOS R ..Fi lye. J t?if s = G.el'j,j l J- JC. i it____ + s?—31, 4--196 es? _ --,/ 4.-- 1410 1130 ---S or--SI0 11 Zs — 515 M Mi4 r ti h 1 I 198y LA-7P- Iztaa.J . c-' Q 1 3wmy- RDrlor.ioS ,q1.iF c,E 049 11L . IIe-o -'"' 30 H. 1 N 4 j 1 1 t r . T OM E.GcAiF7 P . PE.Ake-- i cv Aux) Swrs,E.7 8.t a. TR S 0 c 3 20 J I J 1 1 F1 b-- 4L I ' a Oo s. 1 Ig> 9. 140 — 8 I o I c.. o -- Ia• ig---- 9 2, 5 I.\ t ( tr3 - 1432.. 143v wl- fn. P- JL. I w'- u 7 y r fzw 1= L 1 I La IT* F-. 7rg; rrS A% Er. ly:= S i- n ! .- G rn: P.! a.- CNd_ A 5 o to? c,., i Ti 1 1 I\ IL-.11 Imo- t 1gn - I 7y 0 1 zs '"` m' zL t ( 1 t' ( 1l ; ui4.4 I. VI I ea s® 940 1 I4 6. 7 tote T , I 4..... 3a) t4 ' 7I ( I 12p_ a H M . `' . - TRANS1) 0 P 3 a,,,® .$, N 6£ taw® I i1T ®.149 a j_ :__-- : i Itu I ....—.- . - . . I it - 3n)Ld/rd3L•"•H •- J 7 r r -111 1 It fY,r o .Q 3• ra',IN, cu— c o) 1"t3r+rbtt7 e9711 Z . r' moo : : _ . . _ Ar 5R 1,',I I' ... 7.0 ' i EA!' rF6 . !VP . E 2 1 asu SLP''Sw..S n 0 W CPPleti `)r I Veti d 1-1\ 1trr,N p7 si moo ."b1 4Pt/ 3 L 01 4)Nt A- J -16f ri ql Q ' Si/' jI i_fs road I d'L L2Df-I S 37fli5'S i j b` 3,n1001F Sd.r,Pi_ -71Mln1(v / da/IPMF r7 A. tw PP 7,rr-_L /CO wr'r l jL r s D —rid'. PF. ..ir '17 .- • Imo, PM,. YVi1X1,v '- T!Mc -7.Z. EAc r' 6+C To 4oAP-r To DiFf -V' s / J 4.4,‘ A Re-' B. vkc701 F. c-cc.E zH- - /.j c..er,, S ie.SFf-ru ch.. LONtat -re.a.A. 547L/7CavaS r' D l v7 --7i-fL i41•- F-2 - r+7I..,G7(ts0V la-6. i Gam& / AC•L-E SS/Q/G/r o 0-7'H0--2 Pol'r7 5 Pri...c.t#A( -- - - 10 S r 1 SFE 47-714trtEr) $4E7Grf or`- l"r7FJZ6i•04-Nz 00/Frc.47ruv 1 1 I I a a. ,.z.The TRANSi Grove Sfl - OW - w ! Final Environmental Impact Statement for the TERRACE MICROFILME July 1981 OF RFC T a 40° Z THE CITY OF RENTON oq 8 pm'o9, TE0 SEPtEM 4 OF RA A 0 ti .: THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n = - BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9.0 235- 2550 I9' O SEPlE ' July 20 , 1981 RE : FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT THE TERRACE - CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Dear Recipient : This document is the final environmental impact statement EIS) for the proposed condominium project. The final EIS is written in the form of an appendix to the draft impact statement which was circulated in June , 1981. It is neces- sary to have both volumes for a complete document. The determination was made to accept the draft document with a final eaddendum as the final EIS pursuant to WAS 197-10-580 (2) . Review of the draft EIS by interested agencies and persons has been appreciated by this department . Thank you for the information provided through your responses . Ver truly 7you-r ., 6 avid R. Cl me s Acting Planning Director DRC :wr I I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 11 THE TERRACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT 1 I Prepared For The I CITY OF RENTON RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT j RENTON, WASHINGTON J By STEPAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prepared in Compliance With The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Chapter 43.12C, Revised Code of Washington, as amended SEPA Guidelines, Effective January 16, 1976 Chapter 197-10, Washington Administration Code, as revised City of Renton Ordinance #3060 1 INTRODUC ION Action Sponsor: Homecraft Land Devel oipment Company 320 Andover Park East, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 206) 57 -4662 I Proposed Action: The Actin Sponsor has requested City of Renton approval to develop approxim4tely 8.4 acres zoned R-4 for up to 280 units for multi-family residential use. 1 1 Project (Location: . Between N.E. Third Street and N.E. Fourth Street west of the Edmonds Avenue N.E. right-of-way and east of the Puget Power & Light transmission line right-of-way Lead Agency: f City of Renton Responsible Official ': Renton EivironmentallReview Committee MunicipalBuilding 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 206) 235-2550 1 Planning Department Contact Person: David Clemens, Acting Planning Director j 206) 235-2550 Authors and Principal Contributors: 1 Environental Analysis and Documents Preparation: Stepan & Associ'ates, Inc. 930 S. 336th Street, Suite A Feceral Way, Washington 98003 16) 682-47711 1 Contact Person; Steve R. Clark 1 Traffic Analysis: The Transpo Group 23 148th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 1- I, F/\ Geotechnical Analysjis: Earth Sciences; Box 126 1 Hobart, Washington 98025 Location of Background Data: Stepan & Associated, Inc. Renton Planning Department Geotechnical Analysis Traffic Analysis Preliminary Hydrology Report Storm' Water Facilities Design Calculations Licenses and Permits Required: 1 Site plan approval ,! engineering planning/construction inspection approvls, water and sewer hookup permits, building and grading permits Date of Issue of Draft E.I .S.: June 3, 1981 Date ofj Issue of Final E.I .S. : July 20, 1981 1 Cost,P er Copy: $2.50 I 1 I I 2- II TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . 1 Distribution List 4 Location Map 6 Vicinity Map 7 Site Plan 8 Building Renderings 9 Phasin Plan 11 Commen Letters IIWritten Comments from Governmental Agencies and Public Utilities and Responses to Comments II1. Washington State Deparatment of Fisheries 13 2. Washington State Department of Ecology 15 3. Metro 17 I 4. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 20 5. Washington Natural Gas 22 6. Commuter Pool 26 I 7. King County Conservation District 28 8. Renton Public Works 30 9. Renton Fire Marshal 32 II 10. Renton Public Works Department/Engineering 35 11. Renton Parks Department 37 Written Comments from Neighborhood Residents, II Community Groups and Other Interested Private Parties and Responses to Comments II 1. None Letters No t Requiring Responses Il. Washington State Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation. .41' 2. Seattle/King County Department of Public Works 42 3. City of Bellevue 43 I 4. King County Environmental Review 44I Summary of Mitigations 45 1 1 11 II IS II 3- I > RECIPIENTS OF THE DOCUMENT Federal Environmental Protection Agency Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Energy Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Engineer Soils Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture U1S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife State Governor' s Office Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Game Department of Transportation Department of Social and Health Services EFological Commission Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington Regional Metro - Water Quality Division Metro - Transit Piget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency P get Sound Council of Governments Seattle - King County Department of Public Health Local overnment King County Department. of Budget & Program Development King County Commuter Pool City of Kent City of Tukwila City of Seattle City of Renton Mayor City Council Hearing Examiner' s Office Planning Commission' Public Works Department narks and Recreation Department Folice Department ire Department City Attorney SEPA Information Center l 4- i 1 Utilities/Services kention School District #403 Pugelt Sound Power and Light Was ington Natural Gas Company Pacific Northwest Bell Librarie Renton Public Library - Main Branch University of Washington Library, College of Architecture and Urban Planning Kin County Public Library System Newspapers Seattle Times Seattle oast-Intelligencer Daily Journal of, Commerce Ren on Record Chronicle Private Organizations and Others Seattle Audubon 1Society Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce Rainier Audubon Society Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association I I I I i I 5- 1 I IIN 1414.0000,4 4000/40.400 SNOHOMISH CO. KING CO. 11 b.) 1 C` wnl WM1101 . ww...w ii,n A...._.„.,.f wwrwwrw..e.w... XIIIMMIONIUMINENRIMM ts.\ 469110, sr. lr r="(71. Crow•o f r 1.•4:4, M 1.-.4. 4 .. - ......,, / 1!) Woh i A w. . ISEATTLEgELLEV Y..,IrM WW1 W.W....N, \ M.'I 7.... Lake Sammami w a Lake Washingts,ton-w I1 VI TV.We aWitl f4010/640. +0+v01.40040000.404 MP i w., illikik I( 19 I V SITEi 1 TUKWILA• RENTOr KITSAP CO. mow KENT Youngs •. PIERCE CO, NM 17, I1IAPLE w w VALLEY iIri r i000 i 040W411.0.400.00- GIG HARBOR """` ' r VW. A. BLACK DIAMOND 1 1 .» cF.c+ AUBURN l o•.. . - F 41.=1 rrrrrrurr ti TACmMA • 002Ivy. ram, i — r figure 1 • LOCATION MAP S i li:' lIl i__ tIiiI ' l n- 1:1:11W, II t=-- rMfr.w' k / 4,'1 yILAKEI WASHINGTON 4 w-- P. . Z1 _ 31 i 11 E...,....._.I , k folio iiik.-. . , MIlt11,7=41,..\.. 7 IIIll [il 1 ,;NTON iii ._.i idoir 4 1 ,.1.. A 'PORT 1 4 . r IiiJ ,-7-1, ___„ ., 11, 4)-4-",74,4,,, , 1 7 id 01: _. _ i ye-Aid-06 _ hwIIiiii1_•,,.1up0r„ 1 1.0 11, 1j1a 1W, A' itttieINiiot, t) t- NE i. I\ 111. t1 i'6- , 1i)'1,1.. . SITE II r . t DAR RIVER PARK 4th . ST 11 Illiillifililli _I., aillti iiimw I 1' Ii thRENTo N CEDAR R/V 49 ('%l r-- 0. g.m . I . ,__;_L, HILL 11111..GRpp I I :II II SA? li Doti ilior--44 AIL.1 . i' Wilia-g7 \ *F AI*r: . figure 2 ' 1 VICINITY MAP a\ . c"- A& i t 4 dp. pl1.. l. XII- P.:. e ' _ i1kiOd f. Qi0 0 ~ t- 0 = t: oir r__ - fiQ` M ai0% 712, 03:. 3_, __ _,: 1 '•Air to ,,,_..- i 410„../.... A. w .... N. . fi yy r . ` fy;. s Ar yu1o— fOIOl -- r. `:; O *-" ti it,*. Q 4. 111p 41kc VA% ... , t, ox y, O ime I 0 a 810 41011 A roll 1* — '''„,,„ i 0 0' , ... Iro O o'" 1 AI e J i r 11.1' 111.". 1. ellk411P"-- " 4, 7, 1 1441. 11010 ! AS: . '.. ... EVA.,.,. 34 .. .....,,,.... k; oi. 00,..! 0„ 62A .....* kr.! ,'- J., I i 1 a iir—-- dilt.' 31-..- lei A,' " 14. r';4X 0.< - 4' b."* A19= 111.' 4: 1 illc. it,'',.....\ 4, i/ ' fir k 1I 7„,„ 0".„- A. 04 or,,---.,, %- ,-,,. . 1 I,' 4, 0, fr.•. K„. i r. o 0is, 0 Z V z Ai.: r.' y 0 A.,,,, c,,,.. e• //' a. Ise: ' JI ' s• }°,. j14) • ` apt a; v 1pl. W. su If' ti \• ' CO ii L. s. . 0 ,/,* 0° 1 1 J . if 1, 4 0. nio.•-•. i + , , I. 4,11ifi! uhaie./4". 4,7 a6, A. \ II: 1 feari. i 1111,.. si.:; rs' r,' P.'. *•' l littrilrik,, so, IIT ., Tt.,:.,• 5:•;< " 43. --<!---"'" is ,....., eit"..." w4ilir. k q,.. p.,,,., _ c, forItti, A ;,;,., 0,.. 404,.. / ... 0 - je ' tio:: Ws.. ofrOd 9. ' : If Attli A A A , ik„ wiltillb)/ 0ipOir.' e Rai rI 9 1.11ritrrail •r r Mil — = r all — — r r 51, i=_ lam\ - h AA , i' ,i to J:; .( \._.., i 0' 41`P jt• tf. 1 i11 .:.,/';,.... p' t' ff. r r is 7 : Ivor. t ey]V.-t.... •\,. •••-..... '•:.---- ' •;' ,..1.k.lAlge t 2 x c,.: )ice• k:cf N eFi t: 'n a c #: S!` "r 7 1• -.:a8 :. <_ eF:• f<,..hi su. a..c' l ! .. : L. ma fifii I,s?xa' .ii I; i' r. F` H- 43 j t' s,. ww- 11 Ks 'c u3zt this, r F -I :••` , a i, E .. 4 .. 7:' 'V'., m wl•-• mow. s"a..a< •-st '• `rs, { etit, t, r... . '" ' aM / dam p• • f`. t 1. , -.._.... r L ve,; •- ..:,S:..: 6',. ...-.y. :7 ....-......._..........._ Ellalam ',,e'' t., y.. .:.. f y- o figure 4 s 111 r r s rr ar 1 I•mo{ 4` 1 BUS v_ ! i i ilF: Ill C C•a.> \) s ^-`" ttr t Yi. iSW 'Ala •. - 68a . lJ RR lc; 1 - _ ja.,b Ra . • €L r ld 1 1{ :i.-- j itz : \ ' : l e {j p V' I y -.. /. : {{ '. . < s: _r 4. ii, iL„ l. 1.. k:.!17.::i 2, Ii„•.r.P.,•. a,.."'.'-: H„%.„:.-,:::.::.•;..:-:\.::.:•',.•-:•'.:• E-, c•—••_.,:::•.'.::•. 1::. i:'.•'..-•:.• if•.,. z•..) mi.' 11.., t,.. f;;.:AtJ,.! 1)..-.._:.-..-:•. L--.., s-...•.i;., 4'( i- Qy y 11di! `1Enis"' ,.a. •r' .._.___.:_.:_.__ y - ,a r f l[ Via. ';"/ 3 l... G.-i!' x. Ri € i a)iiiiitt;,„t, , — —. --._-..._._.._. n ! 1{ I";I{ !fi F 4 1 111 i Ili::.lil!li lii:;.11-- p F 1 J I et. r•I it Ili:' . 'l ': I,.if I(GIII liiiil!:fi lia Ii:V .. r figure 4a T z 6 I . D C _- I0 k E-- I - fNscz______ iox e- irl i& P V;\ I' , -\ I 11 ill cnIst Iflift 01 s u) -.). A, - - a sue mi. . mier® a .... a 41''/ 11- 19 1 I cP4, Cr_ l L- r- 1- 1- 1) i l t J 1 gt - - I M .. all M r — .. . A — — MI M .. r .. — WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS T\N. 24IOHNSPEUIIAN4: ROLLiND'A.S'_H+`1ITTEN Governor 4'4 i,.ry-, 1" D.!'r tc•t STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Adni ar,s ion building • Olympia, Washington 98504 •• (206)?53-6600 a (SC AN)23-1-f660+J I 1 June 16, 1981 1 Renton Environmental Review Committee Municipal Building - 200 Mill Avenue South Rento , Washington 98055 Atten ion Mr. Da id Clemens Gentl men: Draft EIS for the Terrace Sponsored by ' Homecraft Land Development Company We hay reviewed thn above-referenced document and offer the followingowtng _ genera comments. Our- main concern is the possibility of sediment, oil and other pollutants .reaching• nearby salmon-producing streams. Adherence to couht.y ordinances regarding story;water control should help minimize I. detrimental impacts to local aquatic habitat. If you have any questions, . please contact our Habitat Management Division at (206) 753-7750. Sincerely, 2.-74..0/,,r.„4.4/ 0"4"-Ze-e.4..A., ' Rol l an i t, _nkA. S chm,' to , Direct r. r- I r 1 T, cc: D par':ent of Game e.' \ ,) •. D part.-ent of Ecology 1 01 J 10.-0 U '-- ii 11 13- j 1 I r Response to comments from the Washington State Department of Fisheries Comment Number 1 : Comment acknowledged. As a mitigating measure oil separators and sedi- mention sumps will be installed to remove particulates and to prevent entry into drainage coarses. Adherence to City ordinances regarding storm water control will further minimize the potential impacts to local aquatic habitat. r r r r r r, r r r r 14-1 6:iTATE•F h 4 Ac r. IN SPELLMAN J DONALD W.MOOS Governor . F•, DiL ector STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206)753-2800 July 6, 1981 l r Mr. David Clemens City of Renton l ir;Tr ;o, i, r.• ., Municipal Building 200I Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Clemens: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement, Terrace. Department staff have reviewed the document and have the following comment. The Renton sewage treatment plant (STP) is currently operating at or above capacity and occasionally violates National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Permit limits. ' It may belseveral years before the STP is expanded.- The sewer service may not be available until the STP is expanded. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mike Dawda (885-1900) at our Northwest Regional office. Sincerely, pe<2L.6- cam. Debbie Fristoe Environmental Review Section DF:nld cc: Mr. Mike Dawda 1 a 3 I Response to comments from the Washington State Department of Ecology Comme, t Number 1 : Commekt acknowledged. This situation will be closely monitored, and coordinated efforts are presently underway to make improvements to the Rentoh Sewage Treatment plant. Metro is preparing a facilities plan for t e Renton system with a grant from D.O.E. ' and E.P.A. A draft plan for t e Renton service area was released in December 1980 and contains a rec mmended program for upgrading the Renton system so that water quali y and health will continue to be protected. The final plan is sched led for adoption by the Metro Council this fall (reference Metro.. letter^, June 9, 1981 . 16- I I a rK I M., 'cipaiity of Metropolitan Seattle I Bldg. • 821 Second Ave.,Seattle,Washington 98104 I Jul 9, 1981 David Clemens II 1 Aching Planning Director City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue SouthIIRenton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr: Clemens: I Drat Environmental Impact Statement The( Terrace Condominium Project Met o staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the I foe owing comments. 1 Wastewater Facilities/Water Quality We cote the proposal is located within Metro ' s Renton Tre tment Plant service area. Metro is preparing a facilities plan for the Renton system with a grant from DOE, and EPA, in part because the Renton Treatment Plant has rea hed its "design" capacity and continued development is ' 1 , occ rring within the service area. A draft plan for the Ren on service area was released for review and comment in Dec eber of 1980 and contains a recommended program for upg ading the Renton system so that water quality and hea th will continue to be protected. The final plan is sch duled for adoption by the Metro Council this fall. Mea ures to control stormwater runoff appear adequate and e 1 Z I con istent with the Areawide Water Quality Plan. Tra sportation We - ote that sidewalks are incomplete between the proposal ' 11 sit and Bronson Way. Completion of the sidewalks, including those portions fronting undeveloped property, would improve access to transit service on Bronson Way for res. dents of The Terrace. 4 At resent the State Department of Transportation is il conesidering an interim park-and-ride lot on N.E. 4th at IInde,eex, which would probably be served by cor-tuter express 1 serVice operating on N.E. 3rd. Therefore, T recommend 1.1 I 1 17- David Clemens DES/The Terrace July 9 , 1981 - Page two that sidewalks be installed from The Terrace to and along the curb edge of N.E. 3rd. Specifications for the sidewalk 4- on N.E . 3rd should allow for future designation of a bus zone there. We recommend that as an incentive for residents to use transit, the developer provide monthly bus passes upon occupation. Please contact Ms . Shirley Larsen, Pass D. Subsidy Coordinator, at 447-5858, to discuss this and other transit incentive measures. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly, yours, IRodney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division i I RGP: shm cc: Shirley Larsen I I I 18- 1 Respons- to comments from the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Comment Number 1 : Comment acknowledged. Comment Number 2: Comment acknowledged. Comment Number 3: Comment acknowledged. Comment Number 4: Comment acknowledged. The design of a sidewalk along N.E. 3rd Street adjacent to the Terrace site will be coordinated with Metro in planning for a future bus zone. Comment Number 5: Comment acknowledged. 1 I i 1 1 I 19- iN, x; p'i` 2061 344-73304e '% 410 'Jest Harrison Street,P.O.Box 9863 Seattle,Washington 98109 rj'Aetttiik 1:' ate..", r, F ... df^;;.*y.,l*'j i:.' i r x. ,".,., July 7, 1981me'er t® f '. N.:,. k nn.Mr. avid Clemens , Acting Planning Director L The City of Renton Municipal BuildBuilding t`.-o 200 Mill Ave . S . Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Clemens : The Terrace-Condominium Project We are submitting the following comments based on -our review of The Terrace-Condominium Project draft environ- mental impact statement. A mo -e definitive statement as to the current carbon monoxide (CO) levels in the project area needs to be made . According to the discussion on page 29 of the report the I . carbon monoxide levels are at or below current _standards" . - Assuming the site is at the current standard, then the anticipated 5% increase in traffic could cause violations of t l e standard. The ' ashington State Department of Transportation has done some CO monitoring in the area, and that data may provide z .information on existing CO concentrations in the area. All mitigating measuresshould be implemented to reduce the impact from construction and transportation activities . ] '' Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 1 COUNTY t 7-"-' `\ 4 70 West Harrison St. F Box 9863 le,98109 344.7330 R. Dammkoehler KITSAPCOJNTY Air Pollution Control Officer Dial Ooerator for Toll F Number Zenith 8385 E oridge Island,98110 ghC344.7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Hess Blwlding 1 ma,98402 f; 1383-5851 SNOHOMISIH COUNTY 206)259.0288 E RD OF DIRECTORS - CHAIRMAN Gene Lobe,Commissioner Kitsap County; VICE CHAIRMAN'James B Haines.Councilman Snohomish County Ron Dunlap.King County Executive: Glenn K.Jarstad.Mayor Bremerton: William E.Moore.Mayor Everett: Mike Parker [Mayor Tacoma I" ey S.Pall.Member at Large: Charles Royer,Mayor Seattle:Joe Slortini,Commissioner Pierce County. A R Dammkoehler,Air Pollution'Control Officer 20- Response to comments from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Comment Number 1t Base upon discussion with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, neit er the Agency nor Departments of Transportation and Ecology main- tain monitoring stations for carbon monoxide within the Renton area as 1 vels are below current standards. Should carbon monoxide levels exce d the standard, stations would be installed to monitor carbon monoxide levels. Therefore, as the site is presently below present stan ards, the anticipated increase in traffic from this project is not xpected to cause violation of the standard. Comment Number 2: Comment acknowledged. Comment Number 3: Comment acknowledged. Mitigating measures to control dust such as water- ing Qf soils and reseeding of cleared areas, cleaning and sweeping of streets are proposed to reduce the impact of construction. Specific measures contained within the transportation section of the draft E.I .S. are propoed to reduce the impact from transportation activities. 21- vMINIM Washington Nave Gas AJY T N June 10, 1981 G JUN 12 i 7^Q,ICr1 1,Mr. David Clemens a _..,..._.,__.f. -_, j ." Acting Planning Director The City of Renton g PPlanninDepartment Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S! Renton, WA 98055 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for The Terrace - Condominium Project Dear Mr. Clemens: On pages 61 and 62 there is some conflicting and misleading inf•1r 4' mation concerning natural gas for your project. On page 61 in .he top paragraph, I would suggest that you replace the whole para- I graph with the following: _ I A arge portion of natural gas comes from Canada, but Wash initon Natural Gas is increasing the amount of gas that we get from domestic supplies so that the long-range plan is lo be self-sufficient for all firm natural gas sales. Our ' II domestic reserves represent nearly 30 years of supply for approximately 50% of our firm and interruptable requ.iremen s.- - Washington Natural Gas has the capacity to serve this proj:'ct - -- - all the natural gas they could use without jeopardizing th:' existing supply- system. On the flame page, 61, the third paragraph under "Impacts" shoul•, be chan ed to the following: Th Washington Natural Gas Company indicated that adequate Z.g i P Y q supplies of natural gas would be made available for the pr posed develorment. i On page 62, under "Utilities Existing Conditions", should be changed to say: Washington Natural Gas Company indicated that natural gas ''s -6. not present on this project but will be made available for all the natural gas that this project could require. Refet- ence operational map 208.80. 1 815 Mercer Street(P.O. Box 1869), Seattle, Washington 98111, (206)622-6767 i, 1 22- 1 Mr. David Clemens June 10 ; 1981 Page 2 Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of our operational map 208.80 showing an 8" supply gas line in N.E. 3rd Street and 2" mains i the vicinity of the site that would be expanded to serf'& this project. Please call if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, 1J{ I, W. L. Fry Technic 1 Services Representative WLF/tld Enclosure cc: Will Flaherty 23- 1 83 w z o8 . o• 1 tLij ti N G vr''f 21' ) N 1472 r rje i 4 b ND R E- Fri .-,a, / P l r.Ex/r_ . LJ• ` - _ 7 .,..s. 2 c 2` I 4 1 ii,1,/,at" 8 cJ NE 3 `tom% 5 '9503 yy C / CoeCtie f. - 7921 w 67E I• kB .' "LIVE- WI`4 _/' - t.. r). zumanzla.' i1s%f t- 411/-/ f 6 "`` IPENTON r CiTYri.. I./MITS I 21 . )3( tWI 1 d it rjO W er-I OH„, _ . i • , 1 f J.,i 0,1 f 4 a, 0,' / Response to comments from Washington Natural Gas Comment Number 1 : Comment acknowledged,' Comment Number 2: Comment acknowledged and impact noted. Comment Number 3: Comment acknowledged. Washington Natural Gas will be contacted by the proponent to coordinate the extension of gas to the project site, once a determination has been made by the proponent regarding the feasibility and practicality of gas service to the proposal . Comment Number 4: 1 Comment acknowledged, 25- 12 , y41z.9 :3 OV: :.L..., t...'4',.', . I 1 JMM Y UTER POOL 1 July 2, 1981 v i i 1..; Lf l:r'_- - 1- - VANPOOLs i ii h David Clemens ActingPlanningDirectorausooLs PIDEMATCHING City of Renton Planning Department XIBLE WORK NG HOURS unicipal Bualding i:;, r r,, 00 Mill Avenue South ARK NG MANAGEMENTenton, Washington 98055 F.TEER;NG 307.'t.1!TTEE Dear Mr. Clemens: I District Administrator ashincton stale e Seattle/King County Commuter Pool has completed review of the'-• f•...---. aa cr r of T ,soo tat i raft Environmental Impact Statement for the Terrace multi-family c•n-: --- Pu !:c Works Director omini= project. From our perspective as a regional agency concer 'ed 1``l "' ith miniming the various adverse impacts of commuter travel in I'zi Traffic Engineer ingle occupant vehicles, we would like to commend .the project spon Or or his intended efforts to mitigate anticipated traffic impacts by Director of Public Works holdingg car.pool and transit information sessions. Manager of I 1 Trans;:Deloament Due to the fact, however, that I-405 and major east - west travel corridors in the Renton vicinity are presently at capacity during t 'e ... _ — Transr ortar,on Engineer Peak hours, and that the "Terrace" project will most likely further ggravate this problem,. we feel that more assertive mitigating rafficEncineer measures on the part of the sponsor are appropriate. Specifically aZ• ould like to suggest that the proponent consider purchasing one or wo 12 passenger, vans which would operate as vanpools originating a, errace during the weekdays. The vanpools could be administered bY1 ommuter Pool or the Terrace Homeowner's Association and be made I available. to project residents for recreational purposes on evening_' _, and weekends. ommuter Pool will be happy to assist the project sponsor in'any wai possible. Please contact me or Jan Aarts at 625-4651.I Sincerely, 6,_„e:LY •ZZ&-\-- r - ---,,......x_,____ William T. Roach' Program Manager • TR/JA/mm 1 I I EATTI_E KRJG COUNTY 1 C JMMt.tU[ER POOL rnti building Room 600" 04 Third A;enure es,ttle '.Val;Morton 98104 I 1 l i 62.5 4651 1 1 26- Response to comments from Commuter Pool Comment Number. 1 : Comment acknowledged. I I Comment Number 2: Comment acknowledged. Further consideration of van pools will be coordinated between the proponent, the Homeowners Association and Commuter Pool . I j I I j 27- r S 1 King County Conservation District 35 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 July--8 ,. 1981 - Mr. David R. Clemens, Acting Planning Director City of_Renton 200 Miii Ave. South Renton, WA. 98055 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for The Terrace Condominium Project Dear M . Clemens: After inspecting the site for The Terrace and reviewing the test pit logs, we concur with the conclusions and re- 1 i• _ commendations of James Eaton in the Earth Sciences report -- in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We recommend that a Temporary Erosion-Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) 2. which uses the erosion-sedimentation control practices of the King County Conservation District (KCCD) be implemented. Please L contact the KCCD at 226-4867 if we can provide furthe assistance. i Sincerely, Robert T. Gavenda Water Quality Planner cc : file 1' J c(.1 i' 1 28- Response to comments from the King County Conservation District Comment Number 1 : Comment acknowledge CommerrL Number 2: Comment acknowledged. A Temporary Erosion-Sedimentation Control Plan TESCP will be implemented as part of the proposal . 29- OF R4, AEtk. • ° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055153 0 94rFo sEP1E4' P INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM BARBARA Y. SHIN OCH MAYOR Date: June 11 , 1981 To: David R. Clemens, Acting Planning Director From: Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Subject: The Terrace DEIS We have reviewed the subject documents and believe that it is adequate for us to evaluate- the anticipated impacts. As you know, it would be our desire that Edmonds Ave. be con- . stricted from N.E. 4th St. to N.E. 3rd St. Furthermore, we I. sug est the proonent participate in the cost of the proposed improvements at. N.E. 3rd St. and Sunset Blvd. N.E. If you have any questions, let me know. Thank you for the opp rtunity to review this document. 6c c., i r GN:jt cc: Richard Houghton jttA 11 l9al 30- Response to Comments from the Renton Public Works Department/ Traffic Engineering Division Comment Number 1 : Comment alcknowledged. It is apparent from the information presented in the Draft E.!.S. that the future consequences of growth and development in this general icinity and easterly on the East Renton Plateau will continue to ". impact traffic circulation, as well as produce secondary impacts associated with increase noise, vehicular emissions, energy utilization and impacts to the local economy. I East-west traffic flow in east Renton has become one of the primary traffic problems for the City as it has for other communities that are located east of I-5 a d I-405. As residential development occurs east of Renton in King County, hese problems should be expected to become more severe. Without j - the prof ct it is therefore expected that the level of service at the N.E. 3rd Street/Bronson Way N.E. intersection will drop to LOS D by 1982 assuming the non-project traffic forecasts are correct. Likewise, future non-project traffic conditions at the Sunset Boulevard/N.E. 3rd Street intersec ion are lik ly to be at LOS D or reduced to LOS E .(capacity) . Addition 1 volumes generated by the Homecraft project (approximately 1550 trips pe day) are not expected to noticeably decrease these levels of servi e any furt er as volume generated will be less than 5 percent of the total projecte volume. Residents who use N.E. 4th Street west of the site will i notice a increase in; the traffic volumes because this proposal .is likely to generate between 70 to 120 vehicles per hour during the evening peak hour , In total , this appears to be a substantial volume, yet over a one hour time span, this will convert to about two to four additional cars each time the signal at N.E. 3rd Street and Bronson Way changes . There appears to be morel, than a sufficient amount of left-turn storage and number of acceptable gaps in the eastbound traffic flow such that even simple retiming of this-signal -• - does not appear to be warranted. Accordingly, the impact of the traffic volumes enerated by this project do not appear to be significant. i The question of whether to limit future development is both an environmental and policy i sue. This and other E.I .S. 's can assess the level of environmental , impact. However, a decision as to whether the cumulative impacts are sufficllent to warra t the denial of permits for future development is a policy issue ano must be made by the appropriate legislative body.1 I 31- MEMORANDUM i_ 'l• FROM THE DESK OF 11 June 10, 1981 %1• JIM MATTHEW FIRE MARSHAL TO: Dive Clemens, Acting Planning Director RE: E S Draft for the Terrace In regard to the comments on page 54, there should be_a correction to the statement of "Existing Conditions." The minimum acceptable-response time tO any project inside the city is four minutes. Any time over that !. minimum would have to be mitigated. Present data indicates that response time to the area of proposed developments to be closer to three minutes.-..._._ _ I noticed that the same phrase is continually used in all EIS statements referring to the station components. "The stations have a full complement of pumpers, ladders and aid vehicles with full-time personnel on 24-hour call." This can be misconstrued to mean that the complement of equipment L. and personnel is adequate in all cases. _.I would suggest that in the futuie, - -- equipmeht and its staffing be itemized so that' the impact of a particular development may be addressed. Present y, the City's only aerial ladder is staffed on a regular basis with one individual, and for all practical purposes, will have only limit l- ed use antil recall personnel can be called to a scene, which could be a matter of an hour or more. Specifically regarding fire pretection for this project: 1) All buildings 12,000 sq. ft. or more are required' to be sprinklered. 2) All water mains and hydrants to be installed and serviceable prior to any building framing.1' 3) Site access and interior roadways to be developed to meet fire department requirements prior to framing. 4) Building construction to meet all applicable building/ fire codes and City Ordinances.. At present, the site of this proposed development has limited access for ' heavy fire apparatus responding from the Mill Avenue Station. N.E. 4th is a steep, windingnarrow street, and p __ A provides a slow response-route.onse route. This cold be elivated be providing the additional access proposed in alternate #2 on page 50. 32- may h yi3 Mo L RE: EIS Draft for the Terrace cont. i Presently, our aerial ladder cannot negotiate N.E. 4th without damaging the apparatus. N.E. 3rd would provide a more direct route to the develop- ment. Please indicate these comments in the final EIS for this project. d/ . 1 k ?",, DAMES F. MATTHEW ' 1 Fire Marshal JFM/j b I 1 33- I i I i Response to comments from the Renton Fire Marshal Comment Number 1 : I, Comment acknowledged. The response time to the project site is with the city four minute standard. Comment Number 2: Comment acknowledged. Comment Number 3: Comment acknowledged. Comment Number 4: Comment acknowledged. The project will comply with the Renton building/ fire codes and City Ordinances . Furthermore, throughout the development of this proposal , coordination will occur with the Renton Fire Depart- ment to assure compliance with applicable codes , ordinances as well as the specific concerns of the Renton Fire Department. Comment Number 5: Comment acknowledged. The provision of additional access wi-11 be coordi- nated with the Renton Fire Department. II I 34- INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date July 8. 1981 TO: Dave Clemens 1 i 16 - FROM: Richard Houghton SUBJECT:Terrace E. I.S. I I have n t received all the comments from staff as yet but to spped up the process I will .commeht: 1 : _ There are some basic areas of concern - 1 . Alignment off Edmonds Ave. N.E. 2. Sanitary seWer capacity downstream 3. Storm drain (offsite) capacity"- 4. Traffic As we discussed, we want the intersection that will be created by this deve .op- ment and ERADCO to b on the same location. Where Edmonds Ave. N.E. hits l 1 . N.E. 3rd St. now or west of there where the private road comes into N.E. 3r St. , 'ei her location, not both. Widening for left turn pockets will be require. . Analysis of the sanitary sewers and storm sewers will have to be done for 2 , capacit downstream. Gary Norris, I think, has already commented on the traffic section. I have' 3 not see his report as yet. J_,!-A I I 35- Response to comments from Dick Houghton, Renton Public Works Director Comment Number 1 : Comm nt acknowledged. Comment Number 2; Comment acknowledged. Analysis of the sanitary sewers and storm sewers will be made and the. design of each system will be coordinated with the Renton Public Works Department. Comment Number 3 Commnt acknowledged. Reference June 11 , 1981 memorandum from Gary Norris. I 36- OF R4e Z THE . CITY OF RENTON45Q`MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 sal BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR PARKS and RECREATION 0 940 Q,` O' JOHN E. WEBLEY - DIRECTOR 235 256047-ED SEPZ February 6, 1981 I -- Raymond S. Wiltshire 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 260 Tukwila, WA. 98188 Dear Mr. Wiltshire: After reviewing the recreational amenities proposed in the Homecraf t Short Plat Preliminary- Plan, it would appear that you are attempting to meet on-site recreational needs in-a number of ways. . I do have some difficulty in assessing the plan without benefit of the final topographic plan or a scale to apply to the facilities. Final land- scaping plans would also help as would projected demographics as the facilities should reflect the needs of the residents. I realize that I- — as the plan goes forward there are likely to be other changes that affect the recreational elements, however, I would recommend that where possible you consolidate the usable active recreation space lawns) to maximize potential uses. The stream, for example tends to divide usable space up. The elements you are programming in are generally those which receive considerable use in our parks, however it would be nice to see a combination tennis/basketball court on-site. I look forward to seeing your final plans at which time I will make some definitive recommendations to you. Thank you for the opportunity to co ent at this time. Sincerely, ohn E. Webley Director Parks & Recreation JEW:mc 37- Response t,o Comments from the Renton Parks Department Comment Number 1 : As stated in the Draft E.I.S. , the project proposal to construct a "mini-park" - on-site with facilities for both active and passive recreation to meet the needs of the project's residents as well as to mitigate the need for off-site"'I recreation facilities.i The area devoted to recreation use comprises an acre for open space for free play, a sidewalk pathway system, a meandering stream and picnic tables and barbecue grills interspersed through the central area of the project. These are provided for passive recreation:- A swimming pool is included or active recreation as well as a recreation room and bath house, jaccuzi , a half basketball court, volleyball court on grass and a tot-lot. The inclusion of these features within the development will mitigate the _ recreational impacts.. 38- I WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS, COMMUNITY GROUPS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND RESPONSES. TO COMMENTS LETTERS NOT REQUIRING RESPONSES a, JOHN SPELLMAN IACOB TNOtit 1S Governor Director STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 111 West Twenty-First Avenue,kL-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (2L );53-4011 July 10, 1981 Mr. David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Renton Planning Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Log Reference: 239-C-KI-13 Re: The Terrace DEIS Dear Mr. Clemens: We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement and find there are no historic or archaeological properties on the State or National Register of Historic Places, or the Washington State InventoryofHistoricPlaces, that will be impacted by the project. In the event that unknown archaeological resources are inadvertently unearthed during construction activites, please notify the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, and the Washington Archeological Research Center in Pullman., Washington. Sincerely, Sheila A. Stump Archaeologist R-6 1 a ill 0"!"•: Seattle-King County/DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC HEALTH 7: 400 Yesler Way Seattle, Washington 98104 206) 625-2161 JESSE W.TAPP, M.D., M.P.H. Director of Public Health June 24, 1981 Renton Environmental Review Committee Muni ciRai Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: David Clemens Dear Mr. Clemens : Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for The Terrace - Condominium Project This department has reviewed the above draft environmental impact statemett and does not foresee any adverse effects on environmental health' as a result of this proposal. Very truly yours, ilet-' 7"- 0drohnP. Nordin, R.S. Chief, Environmental Health Services GDI:mla T , L: 5 DISTRICT SERVICE CENTERS: CENTRAL NORTH EASE SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST Public Safety Building 105011 Meiidisn Ave.N. 2424.158Ih Ave.N.E. 3001 N.E.4th St 10821 8 Ave.S.W. Seattle 98104 Seattle 98133 Bellevue 98007 Raritan 98055 Seattle 98146 625-2571 363-4785 885-1278 228-2820 244-6400 42- I I O 3 m Bellevue ,; e' Post Office Box 1768 • Bellevue, Washington • 98009 9skiI NGc July 7, 198"I David Clemens, Acting Planning Director- Municipal B ilding 200 Mill Av nue South Renton, WA 98055 re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Terrace Dear Mr. Clemens, Thank you fir the opportunity to review the above-referenced E.I .S. I - The City of Bellevue has no comments. Sincerely, fi i I Diane T. White Environmental Coordinator DTW:NT:mcp 1 rri-`f-!ii/N ' r" 1 J r !_r r C' ..- i. J I 11 City of Bellevue offices are located at Main Street & 1 16th Avenue S.E.C y e c s e 43- King County,State of Washington Ron Dunlap,County Executive A 1. it -, c Department of Budget and Program Developm nt r. Tro 4` i' Room 400 King County Courthouse i t 516 Third Avenue r. Seattle,Washington 98104 i:.. . - - John M.Rose,DirectorY' 206)3443434 j July 15, 1981 Renton Environmental Review Committee t Municipal Building 200 Mi1lAvenue South Renton, !A 98055 Sir: The draft EIS for the Terrace has been reviewed by several King County departments and we have no comments to offer. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal, and we apologize for the lateness of the response. Sincere y, John M. Rose, Chairman Environmental Impact Committee JMR/pt I I P,FA r• 1 JUL 16121 fi s%\ Z 44 1 l Summary of Mitigations 1 i 1 Note: hose mitigations which are proposed to be implemented by the roponent are noted with an asterisk (*) . i Earth i l* All he recommendations of the Soils Engineer will be followed (refer tol DraftE. I.S. , Appendix B) A Temporary Erosion Control Plan will be implemented during construction, incliding the use of strawbale check dams and sedimentation. ponds. 9' A pe manent storm water control system will be installed in accordance - --- with Renton requirements and standards. A la dscape plan is proposed to provide additional on-site erosion control aft r construction. Air Impl mentation of construction measures to control dust such as watering! ofsoil, and reseeding of cleared areas, cleaning and sweeping of streets. , _ Water Storm water system will be designed to retain and release water runoff a pred velopment rates. Oil eparators and. sedimentaton sumps will be installed to remove . part'culates and prevent entry into drainage courses. Impl mentation of a Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan during cons ruction. Coordination of design of Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan and final storm water design with Renton. Implementation of a landscape plan to further reduce potential on-site eros on after construction. Flora Impl mentation of a landscaping plan. Fauna Intr?duction of dew species of flora within open areas may serve as futu e potential habitat or migration corridors. 45- Noise Restriction of construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Light and Glare Supplemental vegetation to be introduced on-site. Street lighting to incorporate glare shields. Land Use Project construction to be completed in three phases. Conformancy with local plans and ordinances. Population & Housing Construction of the project into three phases. o Consistency with local population forecasts, plans and policies Transportation/Circulation Maintenance of two entranes off of N.E. Fourth Street to provide multiple resident and emergency access. Design an internal road loop system so in the event of an emergency, vehicles have an alternative route if one route is blocked. If practical , following occupancy, the Homeowner Association sponsor transit/carpool information sessions. - Construct internal pedestrian lanes with the site. North side of the site along N.E. Fourth Street should match N.E. Fourth Sttieet as it exists east of the site. Sidewalk to be installed along N.E. Third Street property boundary. Prohibit parking and storage of recreational vehicles as part of proposal . o Construction of a "T" intersection at N.E. Third Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. o Construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. Third Street to N.E. Fourth St Beet. Provide an emergency access offf of N.E. Third Street for fire and police. o The project sponsor and/or Homeowners Association work with Metro Transit to establish a route and bus shelter along N.E. Third Street. 46- I Public Services 1. Fid^e Conformancy with UBC and City of Renton requirements. Installation of smoke detectors. Adequate water supply to meet fire flow requirements. Coordination with Fire Department during-the construction phase. 2. Police Internal security system. o . Participation by residents in a crime prevention program. Io Additional tax revenues offset service costs. 3. Parks & Recreation Facilities A variety of on-site recreational facilities such as a swimming pool , jacuzzi , half-court basketball area, tot-lot recreation building and open area would be provided by the Developer. 4. Mapntenance of Facilities Facilities will be maintained by the Proponent during the construction phase and stbsequently by a Homeowners Association. Energy Ene1'gy-conserving construction techniques and building materials. Energy conservation by residents. Utilities 1. Power Energy-conserving building materials to be used. o Practice of energy-conservationby residents. Installation to be coordinated with Puget Power. Underground installation. 2. Telephone Coordinatiori with Bell Telephone Company. Installation of telephone and electrical wires underground. 47- 3. Water . Review of system design by City of Renton.. j Fire flow analysis by Fire Marshall . 4. Sewer Coordination of design and installation with the City of Renton. 5. Stor Drainage Implementation of a Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan. Instal.lation of a permanent storm water system designed in accordancel'- — with Renton standards and requirements. k 6. Solid Waste E courage recycling of solid waste. Aesthetics Imple entation of a landscaping plan and quality control of architecture 7 — and m terial.s compatable with surrounding development. Recreation Provi ion on-site by the proponent of a "mini-park" containing various ameni ies within one acre. Archaeol gy o Futur- notification of potential discoveries. II 48- BE4NIIk T OF FILE FILE TITLE ilk ICq?op, 4, HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. = PARTIES OF RECORD: Ray Wilishir4 Homecraft Land Development, Inc. 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 William Snel Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1530 Bank of California Center' 900 Fourth A enue Seattle, WA 98164 Steve Clark, Stepan & Ass ciates 930 S. 336th, Suite A' Federal Way, WA 98003 David Markle Transpo Group 23-148th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 Joel Haggard Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1530 Bank of California Center:: , 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Gary Norris Traffic Engineer Morgan Llewellyn 677 Strander Blvd. , Suite A-C Tukwila, WA 98188 kbkkZ FKcks 26 r( N E Lit/4 S4• x t w.6,w WA °l 8 o SL 2/ c6\ THE CITY OF RENTON 4,4 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 z o m w ''• CI3 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER Ap FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 94TFD SEP'(E January 25, 1984 Mr. William Snell Haggard. Tousley & Brain Attorneys and Counselors at Law Suite 1700 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101-1861 Re: Terrace/Homecraft - Satisfaction of Conditions (SA-010-81) Dear Mr. Snel : I have read your letter proposing to satisfy the intent of Condition #6 in the above entitled matter and my response follows. Your suggested satisfaction of the condition appears to fulfill the requirements of the condition if van pooling had ultimately worked for the subject site and environs. The conveyance o two vans to the Commuter Pool would appear to satisfy the conditions as this would have been the belt result if the van pooling had proved successful. If this office can be of any rurther assistance, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 4-1.4.4a Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner F JK:se cc: Traffic Engineering Building & Zoning Department City Clerk toe 0411E 116) ph) N I V, BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 2- February 1 , 1984 Mr. Cook, PSPgL and the City an.oJse bnom th.i)s 4.c tuat,Lon. It wad bun the unden.6tood that the .i.mpn.ovemen e bon S. 7.th would go to the eat.e'ty 'side ob the driveway on Mr. Cook'4 pnopetc ty. It was noted that when ae.t ob these d•i,d cua4.Lons wee heed the pnu end 4ta$6 was not .involved and wee not awatce ob the ts-c tuatLon. The Cha(rman buhthe noted that .ib Mn. Cook and PSPgL can wotck the matte athe by e.a4ement ot dome o.thet means the CA_ty would have no pnobtem with it. Andy Padvon.c Lnbotuned.the Board tha-_h. _ had 4poken with Mt. Cook and that .it wowed be ob beneb-i t bon- PSP L to negottio to with him and -thee ways the pods.ibit y ob PSPgL gnantLng a no-change easement bon the anew. MOVED by CLEMENS SECONDED by NELSON, that the Board extend the debenlcat untie the 14t Board meeti4g .in June (June 6, 1984) 4ubjeat to the updating ob bon 1.4 MOTION CARRIED d. Regi et Lou. Debetvcat San-itany Smelt and Stotun Drainage lmprovement4, C.tv.hn.ich, Inc. (Haze. Rucke, owne) , 520 Union Ave. N.E. D.izcu64.ion ensued. Cha.iuman Houghton expta%ned that the 4ewen. L.Lne was a "dry" tine. Mr. Monaghan advised the 4totrm drainage was retention 45y4tem bon three •tom and that zidewaekd and paving wou.td have to be inceuded .in .duck a debe-vtae. Mn. Clemens asked Mn. Monaghan how tong it would ac tua ey take to .inataUe said improvement6 and Mn. Monaghan nep.P,ied appnoxJ,matety 6 weeks. MOVED by NELSON, 4econded by CLEMENS,that a "deb.ined'' List ob .exactey what. debetviced .i nprovemen o C.taAitr ich waz nequating is to be burn 4hed the Board ob Pub!Lc Works before a c nceuts.ive des ins Lon L6 reached. MOTION CARRIED 6. NEW BUSNESS: None 1 7. OLD BUSNESS: Homecraft - Status: Ron Nelson advised that U.S. Homes sold the property aid that Titan Construction was the new owner. It was the consensus of the Board that inasmuch as it is a new company/owner the existing deferrals would not apply. Ron Nelson indicated he would contact the new owner. Chairman Houghton suggested that the bonding be checked an• that Building Department notify the new owner of improvements required before any occupancy could be implemented. Dave Clemens suggest that, per gaps, tie Board requirements did not apply to this situation in any event. 8. COMMENT$ AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 9. AD'JOURNLIENT: The meting adjjourned at 9:40 a.m. Patricia Porter Secretary 1 I , OF R4 a,BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 4 RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR z y 0 9CZCZN co0) MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o 235-2540 9.' D SEPS-" BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR January 31, 1984 _ Tom Ismon Titan Construction Corp. 1201 Market Street Kirkland, WA 98033 I I RE: Terrace/Homecraft Requirements for Development cA5-to Files: SP-876-76; SA-010-81; SH. PL. GJ; and SH. PL. 040-82 I Dear Mr. Ism?n: We have reviewed various files pertinent to the subject proposal and have determined that the following items shall be required for the subject proposal: 1.The applicant is required to rehabilitate areas of the property not developed. The rehabination shall consist of landscaping approved by the landscape architect and of the same size or 'extent as existing landscaping on the portions of the property previously developed. The applicant, concurrently with the building permit, willpostabondsubjecttoapprovalofthecity's landscape architect in an amount sufficient to provide the rehabilitative landscaping. The bond is to be released in propordion to the amount of work accomplished either as a result of completion of further) phases or further landscaping. 2.All recreational facilities and other common areas must be completed prior td occupadcy. (One acre to meet needs. Facilities include swimming pool, bathhouse,Ihalf-court basketball court, unassigned lawn area, tot-lot, and a pathway throughout the development. See EIS.) 3.Extension of sidewalks from site to Bronson Way N.E. 4.Extension of sidewalks from site to N.E. 3rd STreet. I I I I, Tom Ismon Titan Construction January 31, 1984 Page 2 5.Applicant shall r•vide monthl asses for residents for Metro transit to th Homeowner's Assobiation in each phase of the development. The Traffi Engin Bring Division shall monitor the effectiveness of this condition by reasonabl mean (including usie of consultant), the costs to be borne by the applicant. Th Traffi Engineering Department shall report to the Hearing Examiner on th effectiveness of the conditions and recommend whether to make modifications t? the c nditions or entirely delete the conditions for Phase II and III if the conditio does n t effectively promote transit use. 6.The r quirement fortI van pooling has been modified by the Hearing Examiner as o Janua 25, 1984 as follows: The applicant is required to provide title to tw 12-pa senger van/pool vehicles to the Commuter Pool at the time the occupanc permi is issued. TFe applicant shall also provide a central information center at conve lent location within the Terrace, providing information on the availability o the vns and encouraging their use for commuting. The city's Traffic Enginee itshallorkwithCommuterPooltoassurethatthevanswillbemadeavailablefo use al ng the Sunset Avenue N.E./N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th corridor with special emphasi on ava lability to tenants of the Terrace. 7.The ap licant is responsible for five percent (5%) of the costs of improvements o the intersection ofl Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.F. 3rd Street. Timing of improv ments decided by the Board of Public Works. 8.The B and of Public Works, on December 30, 1981, reviewed the request for deferral of off-site improvements. The Board granted a deferral in two parts: onepartfoEdmondsAvenueN.E. to be completed by the occupancy of Phase I and the second part is the intersection improvements subject to resolution by the Examiner and covered by appropriate bonds (in two pieces). (NOTE: The original motion was to defer construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and the other, the installation of the signal eferral, is only good for the short plat and foundation permits. A bond has been post d for the intersection improvements. The Bo rd of Public Works will again be reviewing the project regarding extension of the ond. 9.The Land Use Examiner on April 2, 1982, determined that the applicant was vested under yarous ordinances and regulations in effect on May 7, 1981. Thus, the decision of the Builfing Official to require signal plans as part of the building' applica ion was reversed and the Hearing Examiner determined that the permit to build b: issued. I r tiA Tom Ismon Titan Construction January 31. 1984 Page 3 10. The short plat on tale subject site still needs to be recorded. The plat expires onJuly1. 1985. Before the short plat is recorded. the applicant must either install all required improvements or receive additional deferral of the improvements by tha Board of Public Works. The above conditions are in addition to those noted in the FEIS. pages 45 to 48, that the applicant has agreed to. Sincerely. e4-c,lpAz, 1,orc v _ Roger J. Blay ock Zoning Administrator RJB:se:cl 0637Z OF R4, art. ' ° THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 980 15 nail _ ',=.a FP.BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR G LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER09. 0 r O P FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235-2593 9•' 1) SEPI January 25, 1 84 Mr. William S ell Haggard, Tou ley & Brain Attorneys and Counselors at Law Suite 1700 720 Olive Wa 1 Seattle, WA 918101-1861 Re: Terrace)Homecraft - Satisfaction of Conditions (SA-010-81) Dear Mr. Snell: I have read your letter proposing to satisfy the intent of Condition #6 in the above entitled matt6r and my response follows. Your suggestd satisfaction of the condition appears to fulfill the requirements of the condition if Van pooling had ultimately worked for the subject site and environs. The conveyance of two vans to the Commuter Pool would appear to satisfy the conditions as this would ha)e been the best result if the van pooling had proved successful. If this office can be of any further assistance, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 6.4......,S()61.....6.-iN................---11 Fred J. Kauf an Land Use Hearing Examiner FJK:se cc: Traffic ngineering Building & Zoning Dep rtment 1 City Cle ,14 0411E Lt HAGGARD, TOUSLEY Sc BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 4 ... !, RUSSELL .TOUSLEY SUITE 1700 JOEL E.H GGARD 720 OLIVE WAY CHRISTOP ER I.BRAIN WILLIAM N.SNELL• SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-186I TELECOPIER WILLIAM H BLOCK** 206) 624-5299 206) 624-6959 JAMES S.14,EINHARDSEN*"• MICHAEL G.FULBRIGHT KIM D.STE HENS OUR FILE NO TIMOTHY T BLACK SARA LEM E-voN AMMON ALSO MEMBE OF MONTANA BAR January 23, 1984•• ALSO MEMBE OF DISTRICT OF COLJMBIA BAR yTT 2 21 0 0 1 ALSO MEMBE OF CALIFORNIA BAR li HAND DELIVERED PYFredKufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Munici a1 Building o r/ OF iENTON 200 Mii1 Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 JM4 28 1984 qrRE: Terrace Project DEVELOPMENT 1)PVI. Dear Examiner Kaufman: We represent U.S. Home Corporation, which requests modification of the van pool condition that you impose as part of the site plan approval for the 280-unit Terrace Project ( "Terrace" ) . The Terrace is located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street and west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. U.S. Home's proposed modification would remove the uncertainty and vagueness in the present condition by providing the title to two 12-passenger van pool v hicles to the Seattle/King County Commuter Pool Commuter Pool" ) to be operated in the Sunset Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th corridor. This request for a modification is based on a substantial change in circum tances since the date of the approval of the Terrac in September, 1981. The Terrace was originally designed as a condominium, but will now be operated as an apartmnt building and there will be no homeowners association to oierate and maintain the van pools vehicles as originally contemplated. Consequently, the most efficient way for the van pool vehicles to be operated and maintained is through the Commuter Pool. In addition, this mOdificatiori would provide the best assurance to the City that the intent, of the van pool condition would be met. Background In your decision, dated September 8, 1981, on the site a proval for the Terrace (File No. SA-010-81 , Enviro mental Review Committee January 23, 1984 Page 2 ECF-013-81) you imposed the following condition: 6 . The applicant shall provide to the homeowners' association three vehicles to serve as van pools and provide in covenants to be executed by the homeowners for a maintenance and replacement fund for said vehicles. A copy of your decision is enclosed as Attachment 1. Subsequently, you issued a clarification of Condition No. 6 , which basically provides that the homeowners' association at the completion of each phase of the three-phase development was to provide a one-year lease for one vehicle to serve as a van pool. Traffic Engineering was to monitor the effectiveness ofthe condition and to determine whether it should be modified or deleted and report its findings to the Hearing ExaminIr. (A copy of the Examiner' s Modification, dated October 1, 1981, is enclosed as Attachment 2. ) Traffic Engineering, in a letter, dated October 9, 1981, requested certain modifications to Condition No. 6 , which would have provided for the van pool vehicles being given to the Commuter Pool. (A copy of the letter from the Public Works Department is enclosed as Attachment 3 ) . The fact that there will be no homeowners' association to operate the van pool vehicles is a substantial change in circumstances that provides good cause for modifying Condition No. 6 . Proposed Modification Based on the considerations outlined in the preceding paragraphs, we recommend the following proposed wordin' for Condition No. 6 : Applicant shall provide title to two 12-passenger van/pool vehicles to the Commuter Pool at the time the occupancy permit is issued. Applicant shall provide a central information center at a convenient location within the Terrace providing information on the availability of the vans and encouraging their use for commuting. Environmental Review Committee January 23 , 1984 Page 3 The City's Traffic Engineer shall work with Commuter Pool to assure that the vans will be made available for use along the Sunset Avenue N.E./N.E. 3rd/ N.E. 4th corridor with special emphasis on availability to tenants of the Terrace Expedited Review. We have discussed the proposed modifications with Gary Norris of Traffic Engineering and he has no objections . In fact the proposed modification is similar to the October 9 ; 1981, letter from Public Works Attachment 3 ) . U.S. Home may sell the Terrace and it is critical that we have some indication By January 25, 1984 , as to whethei or not the modification to Condition No. 6 will be acceptable. In the event you believe it is necessary to obtain comments from Traffic Engineering prior to modifiying the van pool condition, we would request some preliminary indication from your office as to the acceptability of the proposed modification. Sincerely, HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN illiam Snell WNS/mc 3119E Enclosures cc: U.S. Home Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Dave Clemens, Planning 0;41/Yr- `--- ' 'I 4b30X.SEP 101981 Vj 718 9 PAI September S, 1981 OFFIC OF THE LA D USE HEARING EXAMINER i,i TY OF RENTON 1 REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT APPEL NT) :Homecraft Land Development, Inc.FILE NO. SA-010-81 ECF-013-81 LOCATION: Betireen N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUES Site Approval : The applicant requests site approval for a 280 unit multiple family housing project. Appeal : Appeal filed by the applicant of a decision of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) , acting as a responsible official under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the City of Renton with regard. to the extent and nature of the mitigating conditions imposed on the Terrace Project File No. ECF-013-81).JMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Site Approval Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval with conditions.. peal)Hearing Examiner Decision: Reversed in part and modified in part. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on July 29, 1981 . On July 29, 1981 , an appeal was received from the applicant regarding the mitigation conditions isslued by the ERC. To expedite the process, the site approval hearing scheduled for August 4, 1981 , was continued to August 18, 1981 to be heard concurrently with the appeal . PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report and the lett r of appeal , examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surroundin area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subjec matters. Minutes o f the pub.Uc homing mitt be mated .to oil panties o f n eeon d upon comp ee i on ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter,. the Examiner now makes and ent rs the following: The applicant/app llant filed a request for site plan review pursuant to Section 4-2303(2) (C) of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance and prepared an Environmental Impact Statement EIS) for the proposal . The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) aft r review of the EIS conditioned approval of the site plan upon institution of certain mi i- gating measures. The public hearing on the site plan was scheduled for August 4, 19811 The item was cont nued after receipt of an appeal of the Environmental Review Committe is decision. To exp date consideration of the two related items, they were scheduled to •e heard together on August 18, 111981 . The items were then joined in one proceeding as all parties indicated that the facts and issues presented would be similar for the two hearings and consolidation would eliminate redundant testimony. FINDINGS: 1. The subject property is located on the north side of N.E. 3rd St. immediately east of the Edmonds Ave. right-of-way and south of N.E. 4th St. The site is approximate) 8.4 acres. 2. The subject s to is relatively level except for two areas on the east and west bo ders of the site ere elevation differentials of about 20 feet occur. Drainage occurs to the north or a majority of the site toward N.E. 4th St. A small portion of t e site drains t7o the southwest toward N.E. 3rd St. Special Permit SP-876-76. While th-tevegetationunder3. The site was leaved of most g permit limite the amount of property subject to the permit and required certain protective measures, the then property owner violated the conditions of the Planning. Commission. The Planning Department indicated that those violations should not b=li considered at the present proceeding. ATTACHMENT 1 SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Pag= Two 4. The subject property is zoned R-4 (high density multi-family) , which could permit 'up to about 440 units on the subject site depending on the mix of studio, and one an. two bedroom units. The applicant has proposed constructing 280 mixed units on th site or about 33.3 units per acre. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that area in which the site i located is suitable for the development of high density multi-family units. 5. The environmental , social and economic impacts of the proposed 280 units are disclosed in the environmental impact statement, but certain impacts are summarized below. The proposal is expected to increase the population of the City by about 700 persons 2.5 per unit) ; increase the school age population by about 70 students (.25 per unit) ; and increase the daily vehicle trips by about 1 ,500 to 2,000 trips. 6. The Environmental Review Committee indicates in its July 20, 1981 , letter to Ray nd S. Wiltshire the following mitigation measures: a. A significant adverse impact on the environment will occur due to traffic im- pacts and associated secondary environmental impacts because of traffic incre ses on N.E. 4th Street from this proposal , the Schneider Hilltop development (170 units, 1, 00 trips) , the Mastro 4th and Monroe and 4th west of Union developm nts 544 unit , 3,200 trips) , the ERADCO project (425 units, 2,500 trips) , and th proposed ascadia development (500+ units, 3,000 trips) . Therefore, the City Council m st determine in the approval process that these impacts can be miti gated by he proposal or that overriding social , economic or environmental considerations make approval of this PUD. appropriate. b. Edmonds Avenue N.E. shall be extended as a public roadway from N.E. 3rd to N. . 4th Stree s. c. Channeliz tion, street widening, and signalization shall be provided at N.E. 'rd and Edmonds Avenue N.k. to provide for left turns from 'N.E. 3rd. d. Any operational improvements necessary to accommodate traffic at the N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard intersection, including widening, paving or signal modif - cations, shall be provided by this development. e. An analysis of the downstream sanitarysewer and storm water capacity shall bYPY completed, and plans for accommodating this development in these systems shal be approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Item #5 concerning sewer and storm water capacity has been satisfied, and that is ue is no longer in contention, although the separate issue of the capacity of the Me ro Renton Treat nt Plant was not addressed. 8. The question of sufficiency of recreational facilities was raised. The impacts o, parks and re reation are covered in the EIS. The applicant proposes providing approximately an acre of ground to support the p oj- ect residents' recreational needs. The facilities include a swimming pool , bath house, half- urt basketball court, open unassigned lawn area, tot-lot and a path ay throughout the development. 9. The applicant submitted a landscape plan, which appears to provide reasonable scr'en- ing of the subject property from adjoining uses and roadways. 10. A variety of uses are developed in the vicinity of the subject site. East of thesub- ject site is the Vantage Point multi-family condominium development. Directly north of the site is the Windsor Hills Park. The areas north of the park, including ar as to the east nd west, are developed with single family homes. Gravel and quarryi g operations a e located east and south of the subject site. The Mt. Olivet Cemetery is located t the south. The Monterey Terrace community is located southwest of the site. The oposed ERADCO residential complex is located to the south. 11 . The major ea-t-west arterials and/or roads serving the subject site or area are the N.E. 3rd St. Corridor and N.E. 4th St. Access to the proposed site is proposed via direct acces onto N.E. 4th St. and via a southerly extension of Edmonds Ave. N. to provide a-cess to the eastern portion of the subject site. 12. The intersections which will be impacted by the proposal are the N.E. 3rd/Sunset .Blvd. and the Bron on Way/N.E. 3rd St. intersections to the east as well as the entrant ramps to 1-4.5. The levels of service (LOS) for these intersections are currently calculated at an LOS D/E for the .E. 3rd/Sunset intersection and LOS C for the Bronson/3rd intersection. r SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page hree The project is expected to increase the daily vehicle trips through these inters ctions by about 1 ,100 vehicle trips per day and about 130 vehicle trips during the peak hours. The level of service for the above intersections is expected to drop to LOS E for N.E. 3rd/Sunset and LOS D for Bronson Way/N.E. 3rd by 1982 without the project (Traffic report, Dra t Environmental Impact Statement) . 1 405 is operating at capacity, and the subject proposal will further aggravate this problem (Pg. 26, 27, Final Environmental Impact Statement) . 13. Metro Transit operates two routes in the vicinity of the subject site. Some residents of the proposal would be expected to utilize these routes for commuting purposes. Sidewalks connecting the site to the bus routes are lacking between the site and ', Bronson Way. Express bus service along N.E. 3rd St. has been proposed, and sidewalks providin access to N.E. 3rd would be required to allow the residents easy access to the b' s routes (Traffic report, DEIS, Pgs. 17-19, FEIS) . 14. Van pooling as coordinated by the Computer Pool decreases the amount of single occu- pancy vehicles by providing vans capable of carrying up to about 12 people. 15. The information contained within the environmental documents except as modified herein is incorporated by reference. 1 16. The Fire Department's ladder equipment can't be taken up N.E. 4th St. without being damaged. CONCLUSIONS: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to "substantial weight" (RCW 43.21.C.090) . Therefore, the determination of the Envi- ronmental Review Committee, the City's responsible official , is entitled to substan- tial weight, and the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination was in error. 2. The condition of the Environmental Review Committee requiring approval of the site plan by the City Council was contested by the applicant as being contrary to th express ordinances of the City which specify the procedure for processing various permits. S ction 4-3010(A) (6) indicates that in site approval permits the Examiner shall enter"a decision which shall represent the final action on the application, unless appealed.. ." It is clear that the requirement of the Environmental Review Committee that the City Council review the proposal is contrary to law. The Examiner after a public hearing and review of the record, including the EIS, must determine whether the project should be approved and, if so, under what circumstances (i .e. , what conditions, 'iif any, should be imposed on the project to allow it to comply with ordinance require- ments) . Therefore, since condition number one of the ERC is contrary to the express require- ments of the ordinance, it should be deleted. 3. The improvement of Edmonds Ave. N.E. , a dedicated but unimproved public right-of-way adjacent and to the east of the subject property, was required by the ERC. The 'ERC required the improvement as a method of mitigating the impact of the proposal . While the ERC did not indicate the reasons for this measure (that is, whether it was to mitigate the impacts of the proposal on general traffic problems encountered on roads in the area or whether it was to provide access to the N.E. 3rd St. arterial) , the condition may be superfluous in light of Sections 4-101 , 102, 103 and 302(a) of the Renton Building Code. But, it should be noted at this point that the Fire Department has indicated th-t the aerial ladder cannot negotiate N.E. 4th St. without damaging the apparatus (Pgs '32 and 33, Final Environmental Impact Statement) . That Department considers alternati e two of the draft environmental impact statement the preferred way of providing emer.ency access. The ERC required that Edmonds Ave. N.E. shall be extended as a public roadway f om N.E. 3rd St. to N.E. 4th St. The sections cited above require the improvement of abutting roadways as pairt of the building permit process. The Edmonds Avenue right- of-way is an abutting roadway. The specific criteria of that section and the SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Four interpretation of those criteria by the appropriate official were not originally raised on appeal , and no determination on that matter is made herein. The ERC's , condition was only to require the applicant/appellant to comply with an ordinanc ; and, therefore, the condition which requires the improvement of Edmonds Ave. N.E is not truly a controversy under this appeal . Further, the approved shortplat of the propertyrequired the improvementPPsubject of Edmonds Ave. N.E. abutting the subject property and, while the short plat has not been filed, the approval is still valid and may be filed pursuant to Section 9-1105(10) . Therefore, two City ordinances require the improvement of Edmonds Ave. N.E. The ERC, therefore, has not required of the applicant/appellant that which is not already required by Ordinance. 4. The meaning of substantial weight has been further defined as whether the decision of the responsible official is arbitrary and capricious (Short v. Clallam County 22Wn. App. 825, 829, 1979) . That is whether it is "willful and unreasoning action in disregard of facts and circumstances" (Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 82 Wn. 2d 109,114,1973) . The record discloses that the existing and/potential problems associated with the existing and/or proposed intersections at N.E. 3rd St. and Sunset Blvd. N.E. and ; Edmonds Ave. N.E. and N.E. 3rd St. are not specifically attributable to the subject property, although the subject property will no doubt increase traffic at these intersections, further exacerbating the existing problems. To require this appli- cant to bear the entire cost of improvement is unreasoning action in disregard o- the facts and circumstances. The traffic analysis indicates that, if Edmonds .Ave. N.E. js opened as a through, street, that more than likely both signalization and channelization will be required to accommodate both through traffic on N.E. 3rd St. and turning traffic from or to Edmonds Ave. N.E. Therefore, using the assumption that the ordinance requirements will be followed and that Edmonds will be improved, both signalization and chann li- zation will Abe required. The applicant indicated willingness to participate in the costs of such improvemi'nts, and the City indicated that such participation would be welcome. The costs of same should not be borne by just the applicant/appellant, as traffic would be divertei from other areas to the proposed intersection and would not be generated solely y the subject property. The applicant should, therefore, contribute a pro rata share of the cost into a fund to be used to improve the intersection. The amount of t 'e contribution is a matter better determined by the ERC; and, therefore, the issue of what is the appropriate level of participation is remanded to the ERC. 5. The subject proposal will also impact the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset Bl d. N.E. , as the majority of the traffic generated by the proposal is anticipated to travel west from the subject site; and, whether they travel via N.E. 4th or N.E. 3rd, they will eventually be traveling through the 3rd and Sunset intersection. Therefore, the applicant should again participate in the costs of intersection improve- ment, and again such costs should be based on a proportionate share of traffic t` e project generates to the total . Condition number four should be modified, and t'le matter again remanded to the ERC for a determination of the appropriate amount o participation. SITE APPROVAL 6. The reuse of the site is governed by Section 4-2303(2) (C) of the Mining, Excavation and Grading (Ordinance. That section provides that "the new use shall be consist-nt with the Co prehensive Plan and compatible with the surrounding area." North and eastl of the subject site are residential developments, and a proposal oP locate additional residential development on the subject site is compatible with, those residential areas. The transmission line on the west serves as a buffer between the subject sitel and the church located to the northwest of the site and other R-4 z.ned but undeveloped property. South of the site are the Mt. Olivet Cemetery, the proposed ERADCO development a d various gravel pits. The proposal is separated from those uses by N.E. 3rd St. , some topographic relief, and internal landscaping. The propose use is compatible with the northerly uses and with adequate screening, which appea s to be provided, can be made compatible with the still operating gravel t 1 SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page ive operations located south across N.E. 3rd St. 7. Since the ap licant proposes developing the subject site in phases and the entir property is subject to the original grade and fill permit, the applicant should rehabilitate all portions of the property. That is, if any of the proposed phas-s which were to follow phase one are abandoned, the remaining portions of the prop rty would remain unkempt vacant lots. The residents of the project should not be su '- jected to such areas and; furthermore, the code requires rehabilitative measures, Therefore, the applicant will have to concurrently with its building permit post a bond subject to approval of the City's landscape architect in an amount sufficie ,t to provide for rehabilitative landscaping commensurate with the landscaping on those portions of the property previously developed. The bond shall be released in proportion to the amount of work accomplished either as a result of completion o ' further phases or further landscaping. All recreational facilities and other common areas also must be completed prior to occupancy, as they are an integral part of the applicant's mitigation of the impact on the existing recreational facilities. 8. The issue then is not the compatibility of the proposed use of the site or surro nd- ing uses, if only the residential character of the use is reviewed. The issue remaining is whether the use is compatible or consistent with the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The map element indicates that the area in which the subject property is located is suitable for high density multi-family uses. The 280 units the applicant has pro- posed for th subject site is consistent with this designation of the map element. 9. The Comprehensive Plan also consists of a number of elements which indicate the hypeofdevelopmentenvisionedfortheCityandthewaydevelopmentshouldbeintegrated into the existing infrastructure. Among these other elements of the Comprehensive Plan are transportation goals and policies and transportation plans consisting of the Arterials and Streets Plan. The Arterial and Streets Plan envisioned certain major improvements to the east west arterials in the area surrounding the subject site. These roads and improvement remain unconrtructed. At page 1 the traffic report indicates that congestionproblems exist and are ueP99, i P 9 at least partly to the fact that the land use plan (Comprehensive Plan) was not cut back to reflect the reduction or elimination of' several planned roadways and high- ways. In other words, the traffic report indicates that the potential density of the Comprehensive Plan was not decreased in accordance with the ability or inability of the existing roads and the cancellation of planned roads to handle increasing ' traffic volunes. It is erroneous to read the Comprehensive Plan in that manner. If the transportation infrastructure which was to support the higher level of density was not provided then the map element must be read in that light. Reference in the traffic report' to density is based on just the map element, which is only a single element. )4Sat map and the land uses reflected by it, reflect only potential areas in which certain types of development may occur. These areas are not deemed suitable. They are deemed potentially suitable, and that potential is based upon other factors such as the capacity of the roads serving the area, sewers, and water as well as the impact on adjacent uses. If the map e ement shows an area is suitable for high density development and even if the area were zoned for such development, other factors come into play. If the roads are at capacity and can't support a proposed level of development, hen development must be held in abeyance until the infrastructure can support the pr posal . 10. Therefore, traffic remains an issue, and traffic congestion raises certain policy matters. The FEIS at page 31 may be quoted as follows: "The question of whether to limit future development is both an environmental and policy issue. This and other EIS's can assess the level of environmental impact. However, a decision as to whether the cumulative impacts are sufficient to warrant the denial of permit for future development is a policy issue and must be made by the appropriate leg s- lative body." 11. The traffic impacts of the subject proposal do not appear overwhelming and have en- erally notbgen considered such by the analysis in the EIS, but the cumlative im acts of the various projects in the area as evidenced by the now deleted Condition #1 imposed by the Environmental Review Committee and as described in the EIS will t x y a 1• SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Six the east-west arterial and street system serving the subject site and surrounding areas. The project itself is expected to increase traffic at the N.E. 3rd/Bronson/ Monterey Terrace intersection by about 33% generally and by about 50% during the PM peak (1982 projection) . The DEIS indicates that the traffic at Sunset and N.E. 3rd is operating at a LOS level of service) D to E. LOS E is considered capacity. Intersections are gen- erally designed to operate at a LOS of C, and Bronson and 3rd is at LOS C. The problems of east-west traffic are expected to become more severe as development increases east of 1-405 both in the City and east of the city limits in King County Pg. 16, traffic report). The LOS at both these intersections are expected to de- crease to LOS E and LOS D, respectively. 1-405 is at capacity (LOS E) and operates at LOS F during many peak hour days. Certain methods of reducing the impact were presented in the EIS, and they should be included as la condition of approval . The Comprehensive Plan also indicates a multi- modal transportation system should be encouraged, and single occupant vehicles dis- couraged. Among the purposes and policies enunciated in the Comprehensive Plan is a transpor- tation goal , which is "to promote a safe, efficient and balanced multi-modal trans- portation system." (P. 15, Goal 7) Through traffic should be routed around residential , commercial and industrial areas Pg 16, Policy 7.C.1) In order to reduce the impact of traffic congestion, alternatives to single occupancy automobile should be encouraged." (Policy 7.A) 12. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 150 additional vehicle trips dur- ing the PM peak hour and a similar amount during the AM peak. Use of Metro Transit by residents would decrease the overall impact on the peak hour transit, as would the use of van pools. The precise decrease is not predictable, but any method to ease the use of such methods, or provisions to introduce and familiarize potential resi- dents with these options, would enhance the prospects of such methods succeeding in reducing the number of single occupancy vehicles originating on the subject site. Therefore, the applicant should provide monthly passes through the homeowners' association during the first six months of occupancy of each phase. This method would have the advantage of introducing the transit system to those who can use it and provide the initial incentive to try the system as an alternative mode of com- muter transportation. Similarly, he ease with which residents can get to the transit areas will induc residents to use the bus rather than single occupancy vehicles. Therefore, side walks shoul4 be provided both to allow pedestrian access to N.E. 3rd St. , and a con- tinuous sid walk system should be provided to allow access between the subject site and Bronson Way. The site should not be isolated as far as pedestrians are concerned. The only method of tying the project to the City should not be solely a roadway sys- tem, and sidewalks connecting to the existing system should be provided especially, as it would ease the route6 transit and help relieve pressure on the roads. The applicant has admitted that the proposal will impact intersections remote fr.m the site; and the impact on sidewalks, or the lack thereof, is not any different. Such off-site improvements are reasonably related to the project and will allow the pedestrian elements of the subject site a safe method of traveling to bus stops somewhat removed from the site. 13. Van pooling is another method which was suggested to relieve the impacts of the development on the arterial and street system. Van pools have the potential to remove up to about 12 single occupancy vehicles from the street system. Therefore, the applicant should provide the homeowners with three vans for use in a van pooh operation. Covenants fdr the association should be drafted to provide a continous source of maintenance avid replacement. Three van pools could decrease the peak hour traffic by op to about 36 vehicle trips or about 25% of the peak hour load of t e development. Such efforts should be coordinated with the computer pool organization. 14. We now come back to the issue of the improvement of Edmonds Ave. N.E. The various ordinances, including the short plat provisions, and the building code provide that the abutting right-of-way must be improved. In addition to those requirements, additional need to improve that right-of-way may be gathered from the fact that the Fire Department's ladde1 truck cannot negotiate N.E. 4th St. without jeopardizing the equipment. Emergency access via N.E. 3rd St. could be severed at the entrance SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page S ven and a diversion to Jefferson would be costly in terms of response times. EdmondsAve- nue would provide a valuable link in the emergency access to the subject site. The Policies Element of the Comprehensive Plan also provides guidance in this mater. Through traffic should be routed around residential , commercial and industrial areas." (Pg. 16, Policy 7.C.1) While the EIS indicates that opening Edmonds Ave. N.E. between 3rd and 4th would divert traffic from N.E. 114th to N.E. 3rd, the major difference would be to cause -n earlier diversion of traffic to N.E. 3rd, that is, traffic would tend to approach; ' the arterial via Edmonds rather than via Bronson. The EIS indicates that such dier- sion would eliminate queuing on neighborhood streets and further states that if t is arterial flow versus residential flow) is an objective, then the intersection of Jefferson/4t11/3rd is preferable. Removing traffic to an arterial is an objective of the Comprehensive Plan. The EIS does not clearly indicate why an upgrade of the Jefferson St./N.E. 3rd inter- section would be preferable to the Edmonds N.E./3rd intersection. The Edmonds route is considered questionable because an extra signal at 3rd and Edmonds is anticipated to cause delay, whereas the EIS does not raise this concern for the Jefferson inter- section, which is only one additional intersection to the east. The diversion would also eliminate heavier traffic usage from the steep grade an sharp curve at Bronson and N.E. 3rd. The ultimate traffic load would be the sam at the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset and would actually increase the distance between stop lights controlling major traffic, if Edmonds Ave. N.E. contained tr iffic farther east along the N.E. 3rd corridor. 15. The conditions imposed are reasonable and are related to the public welfare, health, and safety and are required to mitigate impacts of the proposal . RCW 43.21C.060 provides that conditions imposed as a matter of environmental mitigation be base on policies incorporated into resolutions, regulations, ordinances, plans and co es. Section 4-3014(d) permits the attachment of conditions which may make the projec compatible with its environment and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The conditions imposed are reasonably calculated to carry out these objec 'ives- and "environmental considerations which are not amenable to precise quantification." Polygon Corporation v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59,66,578 P.2d 1309) 16. While this d cision would not ordinarily be reviewed by the City Council , the is ues presented by the environmental impact statement and the concerns raised by the E viron- mental Review Committee about the traffic situation along the N.E. 3rd St. corri or are such that the City Council should be apprised of the matter. Therefore, thi decision is being forwarded to the City Council for its consideration and for such further action as the City Council may see as proper. DECISIONS: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL: i The decision of the Environmental Review Committee is modified, reversed and remanded as follows: 1. Conditio #1 is deleted, and the Environmental Review Committee is reversed. 2. Condition #2 is deleted only insofar as required by the Environmental Review Committee pursuant to environmental review. 3. Conditions #3 and #4 are modified and remanded for a determination by the Environ- mental Review Committee as to the appropriate pro rata share of the improvement costs as ociated with the respective intersections. SITE APPROVAL: The site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The rehabilitation of those areas of the subject property not otherwise impr ved pursuant to the phased development of the subject site per the above conclusions. Such rehabilitation shall consist of landscaping which is subject to approval of the Cityls landscape architect and which is commensurate with the landscaping otherwise employed on the subject site. A bond shall be furnished in an amoLnt to be determined by the City landscape architect to assure said rehabilitation. 2. All recreational facilities demonstrated on the site plan and otherwise indicated SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Eight in the EIS shall be installed prior to occupancy of. Phase I , notwithstanding the failure to complete or otherwise construct any additional phases of the development. 3. The extension of sidewalks from the subject site to Bronson Way N.E. as required to provide a continous and safe pedestrian route to Metro transit stops. 4. The extension of side elks from the subject site to N.E. 3rd St. The applicant shallovide to the Homeowners Association monthlyPPP passes for residents for Metro Transit during the first six months after occupancy of ea. h phase of the development. 6. The applicant shall provide to the homeowners' association three vehicles to serve as van pools and provide in covenants to be executed by the homeowners for a maintenance and replacement fund for said vehicles. 7. Edmonds 've. N.E. sha 1 be improved to City standards between N.E. 3rd St. an• N.E. 4th St as required by ordinance. ORDERED THIS 8th day of S ptember, 1981 . 71;:::k C„„V &... „.Fred J. Ka fan Land Use He i.ng Examiner TRANSMITTED HIS 8th day of September, 1981 , by Affidavit of Mailing to the parti -s of record: Ray Wiltshire Homecraft Land Development, Inc. 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 William Snell Haggard, Tousley S Brain 1530 Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Steve Clark Stepan & Associates 930 S. 336th, Suite A Federal Way, WA 98003 David Markley Transpo Group 23-148th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 Joel Haggard Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1530 Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Gary Norris Traffic Engineer Morgan Llewellyn 677 Strander Blvd. , Suite A-C Tukwila, WA 98188 TRANSMITTED 'his 8th day of September, 1981 , to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Nine Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must tie filed in writ'ng on or before September 22, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling thatthedecisionofheExaminerisbasedonerroneousprocedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgmen , or the di covery of new evidence which could not be reasonable avall- eble at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) dais from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal of the site approval to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing f-eOf $25.00 and meting other specified requirements. Copies 'of this ordinance are avail- able for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cos in said department. An appeal of the environment 1 determination is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , hich requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days frcm the date of the Examiner's decision. 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1. I 1 I 1 i 11 1 i f .OF R ih o THE CITY OF RENTONC. a p z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.8055 ilt: di I BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-259 ono October 1 , 1981 Mr. William Snell Haggard, Tousley S Brain 1700 Daor! Building 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 RE: File No. SA-010-81 , ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development Company; Request for Clarification. Dear Mr. Snell : t I have reviewed your request for clarification and find that the modifications you have suggested are generally reasonable, and the decision will be modified as specified below. Condition No. 5 is to read as follows: The applicant shall provide monthly passes for residents for Metro Transit to the homeowners' association in each phase of the development. The Traffic Engineering Division shall monitor the effectiveness of this condition by reasonable means, the costs of which shall be borne by, the applicant. In addition, the Traffic Engineering Division shall report to the Hearing Examiner on the effectiveness of the conditions, and shall recommend whether to make modifications to the (conditions or entirely delete the conditions for Phases 2 and 3 if the condition is not shown to be effective in promoting transit use. Reasonable means may include the use of an outside consultant selected bye the city. Condition No. 6 is to read as follows: The applicant shall provide to the homeowners' associationl at the completion of each phase a one year lease for one vehicle to serve as a van pool. The Traffic Engineering Division shall monito1r the effectiveness of this condition by reasonable means, the costs of whi:E1i shall be borne by the applicant. In addition, the Traffic Engineering Division shall report to the Hearing Examiner on the effectiveness of the condition, and shall recommend whether to make modifications to the condition or entirely delete the condition for Phases 2 and 3 if it is shown that the residents are not using the van pools. T e recommendation may include conditions to require the applicant to permanently acquire vehicles to serve as van pools for the homeowners' association. ATTACHMENT 2 F. I William Snell Page T October 1 , 1981 Reasons le means may include the use of an outside consultant selected by the city. If the condition proves to be effective, there must be a condition contained within the homeowners' association covenants requiring assessments for the routine maintenance, operation and replacement of said vehicles. The final condition pertaining to the homeowners' association and van pools can benefit the entire development since the lessening of traffic is a benefit to all residents, and participants may not require automobiles, thereby freeing additional parking space. I trust this response is satisfactory. If this office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact•us. Since this response is in the form of a clarification, the appeal period previously established to expire on October 9, 1981 will not be modified. Very trtly yours, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record Attachment (The letter from Mrs. Fricks referenced as an attachment to the applicant's letter was transmitted to all parties of record upon publication of the response to the requests for reconsideration.) 0. OF R r PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1_ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 opAL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.95055 P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR October 9, 1981 TO: ed Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMri,ti.R FROM: Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer OCT 1931 AM P+`4 7,8191I01111121112,3:4,F,,(, SUBJECT: Homecraft Land Development, Inc. file No. SA-010-81 and ECF-013-81 In response to your letter of October 1, 1981, I would like to suggest a modification to condition #6. After discussions with Bill Roach of Commuter Pool, we are proposing the following changes: 1. The proposed vanpools should be given to Commuter Pool for the purposes of marketing and not left with the Homeowner's Association. 2. The vans would be marketed along the Sunset Ave. NE/NE 3rd - NE 4th corridor with special emphasis given to the subject development. 3. The fee charged vanpoolers would be based upon prevailing Commuter Pool van fare schedules. 4. During the lease period recovered fares will be used to provide financial support for the necessary marketing program. 5. After the lease period expires, the .vans should be purchased by the developer if they are successful. Thereafter, the recovered fares will be used to operate, maintain and provide replacement resources for the three vans. 6. Vans shall be acquired which provide amenities consistent with the Commuter Pool van fleet. 7. After a six-month trial period if the vans are proven to be unsuccessful as determined by the Traffic Engineer, they will be returned to the developer for appropriate dispensation. RECEIVED HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTACHMENT 3 OCT 1 31981 AM PM SIy1Iu11111L11 Ic1If15I6 V r 4 • . Fred Kaufma Page 2 October 9, 981 th eIf vans are successful, agreements shall be established which maintain conti ual marketing of these vans in the proposed corridor. If you have any questions, please let me know. L j L, u. GAN:a d 0 cc: William T. Roach AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King i ) 1 Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon 'oath 1 disposes and states: That on the 2nd day of April 1982 , affiant 1 I deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing I a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the partieJ of record in the below entitled application or petition.I 1 I I I I 7- — d-16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 nSubscribedandswornthisA - day of P1 r.,\ 19 %2. 1 4(tX‘jlS._ LI\IN • k3).—cLry I Notary Public in and for tlj, State of j Washington, residing at Ke.Artoll i 1 I Application, Petition or Case: Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; AAD-011782 Thee. nu:nwte contain a £,list o6 the paAtiez ( 1 necond. ) i I April 2, 1982 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION . APPELLANT: Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; FILE NO. AAD-011-82 Terrace Condominiums LOCATION: iBetween N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street west of Edm nds Avenue N.E. (extended) . SUMMARY OF APPEAL: An appeal of an administrative determination issued by the Building & Zoning Department regarding off-site improvement requirements. SUMMARY OF DECISION: The determination of the Building Official is reversed and the permit be issued. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal , examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows : The hearing was opened on March 23, 1982 at 1 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner explained the procedure for appeals of administrative determination, and requested testimony by the appellant. Responding was: William Snell Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1700 Daon Building 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Snell described the appeal of a decision of the Building & Zoning Department to require installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of N.E. 3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue NIE. on the basis of Section 4-103(A) of the City of Renton Building Code. The Examiner noted that the letter of appeal is contained in the appeal file which was entered into the record as follows : Exhibit #1 : File No. AAD-011-82 containing letter of appeal and other pertinent documents Referencing previously approved files for the subject proposal , File No. SA-010-81 and ECF-013-81 , Mr. Snell indicated there was no necessity to review background and history of the matter since the issue before the Examiner is one of narrow scope. He stated that the singular factual question is related to interpretation of which statute was in effect at the time the building permit application was filed, noting a recent amendment to that statute around the time of application. Mr. Snell submitted a hearing brief .to whichwasattachedacopyoftheamendmentofSection4-103(A) , and he requested the Examiner to take judicial notice of that section. The brief was entered as follows: Exhibit #2: Hearing Brief Mir. Snell introduced the following witness to respond to the issue related to completeness of the building permit application, who testified as follows: Morgan Llewellyn Vice President of Purchasing, U.S. Homes 31710 124th Place S.E. Auburn, WA 98002 Mr: Llewellyn briefly outlined his educational background in response to Mr. Snell 's request, and described his duties with U. S. Homes as support for construction activities including acquisition of all permits and licenses for construction throughout various municipalities. He then described his specific responsibilities with regard to the applicant's Terrace Project, noting coordinating with Stepan & Associates, engineering firm, in providinig them with building plans to assist with site layout on the project. Responding to further cross-examination by Mr. Snell , Mr. Llewellyn advised that the environmental checklist and preliminary site plan were submitted prior to building permit applicatioln, and following investigation of Building Department requirements, the building permit application was filed on May 7, 1981 . Responding to Mr. Snell 's question regarding whether tojthe best of his knowledge a complete application was filed, Mr. Llewellyn responded affirmatively, stating that building plans, elevation mmD-011 -82 Page Two drawings, sectional drawings, architectural and structural details and site plans, tc. were included with the application. Mr. Snell entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #3: Receipt for building fee, dated May 7, 1981 Exhibit #4: Cancelled check for building fee Mr. Llewellyn described Exhibit #3, receipt in the amount of $5,537.55, given to him upon submission of plans and specifications for the permit. Responding to Mr. Snell 's inquiries, Mr. Llewellyn advised that he has never been told by the city that the application was incomplete; however, at the city' s request , he properly responded with additional information on structural and architectural clarification, egress and ingress requirements, and additional building details. Responding to Mr. Snell 's inquiry regarding whether Mr. Llewellyn has any reason to this date to believe that the building permit application filed on May 7, '1981 was not a complete application, Mr. Llewellyn responded negatively. The Examiner noted that he did not have before him the previous version of the ordinance. Mr. Snell advised that page 2 of his brief contains the section and additional language which is underlined. The revision includes additional specific off-site improvement requirements which could be imposed. Daniel Kellogg, Deputy City Attorney, inquired If there is a contention that a traffic control device is not required by this development. MT. Snell responded affirmatively. Mr. Kellogg then requested testimony by the city's Traffic Engineer regarding the issue. Responding was: Gary Norris Traffic Engineer Addressing the issue of the 'warrant for traffic signal at the location of N.E. 3rd Street and the Edmonds Avenue N.E. extension, Mr. Norris referenced the manual on uniform traffic control devices, a state and federally adopted document, which specifies wa-rants for installation of traffic signals. Based upon the information presented in the draft EIS for the project, traffic volumes were estimated to be approximately 2,000 to 3,500 vehicles per day on the Edmonds Avenue extension, and on N.E. 3rd Street approximately 26,000 vehicles per day will be generated. Under the guidelines of the above referenced traffic document, a traffic signal is warranted for 15,000 vehicles per day on N.E. 3rd Street and an estimated 2,300 vehicles on Edmonds Avenue N.E. , figures well below the projected volume generated with the proposal . Beyond that, sight distance, topography and congestion enhance the city's fears regarding the operation of the intersection11, and based upon available information, a traffic signal is considered a necessary element of the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to promote a safe and efficient operation of that intersection. Mr. Kellogg inquired if Mr. ;Norris ' opinion is based upon the assumption that Edmonds Avenue N.E. will be constructed. Mr. Norris responded affirmatively. Mr. Snell inquired if in previous testimony Mr. Norris had stated that the improvement of Edmonds was not even required as a result of the traffic generated by this project. Mr. Norris indicated that he had made statements that the traffic generated from the development alone was not even an issue in the necessity of roadway construction, but compliance with the ordinance would require such improvements. Mr. Snell stated that under Mr. Nor -is' approach, if a development just happens to be located on a corner where an intersection is required, the developer must bear the full burden to provide traffic signal improvements. Mr. Norris responded that if the developer is creating a situation which encroaches upon the safety and efficiency of the city's transportation network, that developer is responsible for mitigating that problem, which, in this case, requires a traffic signal . Mr. Snell asked Mr. Norris if he is familiar with the decision of the Examiner, issued in December of 1981 , with regard to the amount of traffic generated by the Terrace Project to the intersection question, and what the percentage figure was. Mr. Norris responded that the percentage figure was approximately 5%. Mr. Snell then requeste• Mr. Norris to justify requiring a full traffic signal in light of the fact that the development will only generate 5% of the traffic utilizing that intersection. Mr. Norris did not believe that was the point in question, rather, the developer is developing the roadway through and creating an intersection that currently does not exist, and the impact of that improvement must be mitigated. Noting reference to previous files on the matter, Mr. Snell requested that both files be entered into t e record. The Examiner compliied as follows: Appeal File, ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development, Inc. by reference) Site Approval File, SA-010-81 ; Homecraft Land Development, 1 Inc. (by reference) 011-82 Page Three The Examiner inquired if there is any contention that the language in the ordinance, water mains, drainage, sanitary sewer and other necessary appurtenances, was applicable at the time the building permit was issued. Mr. Kellogg indicated that he was not conceding the issue. The Examiner inquired if there is any allegation that the permit wasi inappropriate or incorrect. In response, Mr. Kellogg requested testimony by a representative of the Building Department. Responding was : Ji i m Hanson Building & Zoning Department Mr. Hanson discussed the plans submitted for building permit application, noting that the applicant's civil engineering consultant, Stepan & Associates, had been working closely with the Public Works Department prior to application for building permit, and certain plans an c drawings had been submitted for review to that department. Discussions between Mr. Llewellyn and Mr. Hanson had occurred regarding the fact that his particular drawings did not make up a complete application, but it was determined that the drawings i'n question were on file with the Public Works Department as required for prior application for short plat and site approval . The drawings submitted by Mr. Llewellyn were specifically for the building specifications to complete the application. Mr. Snell inquired if Mr. Hanson was saying that the application was incomplete. Mr. Hanson stated that the drawings submitted by Mr. Llewellyn did not include off-site improvements for site drainage, grading, street construction, water mains, and sewer lines. Those drawings had been prepared by Stepan & Associates in coordination with the Public Works Department rather than Mr. Ll ewellyn's firm. Mr. Snell inquired if any drawings were missing when considering submissions to both the Building Department and the Public Works Department! Mr. Hanson stated that he was not aware of any other plans missing; however, plans for a trafficisignal device were not submitted. 1r. Norris commented that the signal device plans were necessary to complete the roadway drawings because they denoted conditions to the power utility companies of the appropriate location for poles and facilities as part of the roadway design. In that sense, Mr. Norris felt that Stepan & Associates had been put on notice that a design of the piroposed traffic signal was required. Mr. Snell inquired if Mr. Norris worked in the Building Department, and if he was aware of the type of plans they require. Mr. Norris responded negatively. Mr. Kellogg requested testimony by David Clemens, Policy Development Director. Mr. Clemens stated that the language of the ordinance is clear that off-site improvements including curbs , gutters , sidewalks and paving are required at the applicant's expense for an abutting street ight-of-way! Application of minimum standards of the ordinance would require improvement of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd Street to N.E. 4th Street, and in accordance with the ordinance, an intersection is created which clearly warrants a traffic signal. Although there is no contention that the signal is required, the question which arises is the responsibility for paying that the facility, and the city's recommendation is that because the proponent is constructing a project which requires the installation of a public street which creates an arterial intersection at a very hazardous location due to both traffic volume and topographical circumstances, the responsibility for payment sould be imposed on the proponent. Mr. Snell inquired regardinglthe ordinance language relied on for imposition of the requirement. MrL Clemens referenced the language in the building code, noting that even if the language in the previous ordinance was relied upon, the requirement states that a person applying for a building permit shall be required to provide certain off- site improvements consisting of sidewalks, curbs, gutters and street paving extending the full distance of such property. Mr. Snell inquired regarding the specific language to put an applicant on notice of a traffic signal requirement. Mr. Clemens stated that in his opinion, the requirement to construct the street would suggest that the improvements, whatever they maybe, should be installed. Mr. Snell inquired if the City Council could not as easily have included the requirement for a traffic control signal device as a specific item. Mr. Clemens responded that he could not speak fortheCityCouncil . Mr. Snelllcalled the following rebuttal witness. Responding was: Ray Wiltshire, Vice President Homecraft Land Development, Inc. 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 i Inquiries by Mr. Snell included the history of development of the subject site, and the date of notice by the city to the proponent that a traffic signal was required. Mr. Wiltshire recallied that notice was given at the completion of the Environmental Imp.ct Statement, and the determination of the Environmental Review Committee as a result if that statement, in mid-July,11981 . Prior to that time, no notice had been given to supply a plan for a traffic signal device when the building permit application was submitted. Mr. Kellogg asked regarding the possibility that Stepan & Associates may have been advised by the city of the necessity of a signal . Mr. Wiltshire supposed that 1 1 1 AAu-Ul1-82 Page Four could have been possible, but in that instance, he would have been informed by his consultants. Responding to Mr. Kellogg's inquiries regarding the date of submissior of the traffic analysis, and the name of the applicant's traffic engineering firm, Mr. Wiltshire stated that the analysis was submitted either at the end of 1980 or early in 1981 by the Transpo Group. He also indicated, in response to further questioning by Mr. Kellogg, that the Transpo Group was hired by the applicant, not Stepan & Associates, the applicant's consulting engineers, and the nature of the working relationship with Stepan & Associates included a continual flow of information, both oral and written to the applicant regarding the progress of the application. Mr. Snell inquired if the probability exists that an element such as a traffic signal requirement would not have been communicated to the applicant by the engineering firm. Mr. Wiltshire responded that it would have been highly improbable, since a traffic study existed which indicated no need for the off-site street, and therefore no need for traffic signalization at a resulting intersection. There was also no mention that street lighting was required, In fact, a requirement which; is a major cost item. Mr. Norris recalled that at a meeting held in October, 1980, for the purpose of reviewoftheproposal , a representative of Stepan & Associates had been informed that a detailed traffic impact analysis would be required to include an evaluation of the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. The report was submitted to Mr. Norris on December 29, 1980, and included was discussion of improvement of a section of the Edmonds Avenue N.E. extension. However, at that point, Stepan & Associates withdrew their analysis of that improvement. In' the meantime, the city had determined through interpretation of the ordinance that the roadway, should be extended 36 feet, which fact Mr. Clark from Stepan was informed shortly after submission of the traffic analysis document. Mr. Norris believed that Mr. Wiltshire visited his office several months prior to submission of the EIS in July, 1981 . Mr. ;Snell inquired if during that meeting any discussion was held regarding the requirement of a traffic signal . Mr. Norris believed there was discussion, but he could not' be certain. Mr. Snell inquired if any statement was issued on behalf of any city official requiring such signal even if discussion or referent to that matter occurred. Mr. Norris stated that during discussion of extension of the roadway, he believed that th;e matter was discussed. I Mr. Clemens cited a memorandum, dated February 5, 1981 , contained in the site approval file addressed to files which contains extensive discussion of the problems foreseen by various city departments relative to three large developments including the subject proposal in the general area of the subject site. Recommendations contained in the Memorandum concern general dlesign standards for the intersection of Edmonds and 3rd. Mr. Clemens assdmed that since the memorandum had been developed, someone would have transmitted that information to Stepan & Associates or directly to Homecraft to make them aware of tIe city's desires to enable them to proceed accordingly. Mr. Snell asked that the document either be introduced or if not, all reference on the document be stricken from the record. Mr. Kellogg also submitted a letter from Stepan & Associates to the Traffic Engineer, datled December 29, 1980, enclosing their traffic analysis which refers on page 18 to the introduction of some additional problems on the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. including additional volume to an already congested N.E. 3rd Street, creation of an intersection which will most likely be required to be signalized, thereby creating an additional stop and delay for vehicles traveling eastbound on the longI pgrade during the evening peak hours. The documents were entered into the record by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #5: Letter to Files from Dave Clemens and Dick Houghton, dated February 5, 1981 i Exhibit #6: Letter from Stepan & Associates, dated • February 29, 1980 with attached traffic analysis by Transpo Group Referencing Exhibit #5, Mr. Snell inquired if a memorandum is addressed to files, wuld it necessarily have been transmitted to the applicant or his agent. Mr. Clemens stated that to the best of his knowledge an item of this magnitude would have been transmitted. Mr. Snell then asked if Mr. Clemens had direct knowledge as to whether or not that memorandum actually had been) transmitted. Mr. Clemens advised that he had not been able to determi a whether or not it- had been sent. Mr. Snell then called Mr. Wiiltshire to respond to Mr. Norris' statements, and inquired if he would comment on any direct knowledge he has regarding prior discussion on the traffic signal . Mr. Wiltshire stated that at a meeting with Mr. Norris, the Public Works Director and the representative of Stepan & Associates, discussion of the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. had occurred, and Mr. Wiltshire expressed his opinion that the extension was not required by ordinance. He did not recall that discussion occurred regarding signalization. Responding to further inquiry by Mr. Snell , Mr. Wiltshire stated that sections of the traffic report prepared by the Transpo Group, dated January, 981 , were taken out of context and the recommendation of the total I I AAA[ 1-82 Page Five report is that traffic generated from the project would not require extension of Edmonds Avenue, that the discussion then of a traffic signal was just one of the elements considered in the total report, and any conscientious traffic analyst would attempt to address all possible issues such as signalization. Mr. Snell inquired if, as a result of reading the traffic analysis, he had concluded that installation of a traffic signal or even extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. would be required. Mr. Wiltshire responded negatively. Mr. Kellogg presented a letter signed by Mr. Wiltshire contained in the site approval file from Homecraft Land Development, Inc. , and asked him to interpret the third paragraph of the letter. Mr! Wiltshire stated that the letter results from discussions held between his consultants and city staff subsequent to issuance of a Declaration of Significance on the proposal , and as an attempt to receive reconsideration of the EFC's decision, Mr. Wiltshire made a substitute proposal in which several items were offered including participation in the cost of signalization at the intersection of 3rd and Edmonds to the proportion determined by the Examiner. Responding to Mr. Kellogg's ijnquiry regarding Mr. Wiltshire's awareness that as of February 25, 1981 , signalization was an issue at 3rd and Edmonds, Mr. Wiltshire responded that he had received that information verbally. i i tr. Snell summarized by stating that although there may be some disagreement between the applicant and the city regarding the necessity of the traffic signal at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue NLE. , the city is requiring such installation and attempting to impose the entire cost upon the applicant. The record and the facts in the case do not justify the applicant bearing the total cost since the Examiner has previously found that the Subject development will generate approximately 5% of traffic utilizing that intersction.I. Citing Section 47103(A) of the Building Code, Mr. Snell indicated that the language does not specify requirement of a traffic signal in its enumeration of required off-site improvements , and the courtsjhave generally ruled that the plain meaning or reasonable interpretation of the ordinance should be applied. One of the rules of statutory construction used by the courts states that if a list of items is enumerated, any item not listed is intended to be excluded. He felt that the argument has even more merit when the ordinance amendment of May 13, 1981 is considered, and the language is expanded to include other off-site improvements such as water mains, drainage, sanitary sewer, ads well as the catch-all phrase, "all necessary appurtenances." The argument would be Unsupported if the requirement for traffic signal was enumerated in the ordinance. r. Snell felt it was also interesting to note that the city's administrative determination did not rely on the language of the previous ordinance which was in effect at the time of building permit application, but instead, relied upon the language pertaining to necessary appurtenances , and further supports the fact that the city has no reasonable evidence upon which to base the requirement. Tlhe vested rights doctrine was discussed by Mr. Snell , which states that the applicant its only subject Co the ordinances in effect at the time a complete building permit application is filed. Testimony by a representative of the Building Department supports the fact that the application was complete, although Mr. Norris, who is not a representative of that department, states that plans for a traffic signal were missing from the applica ion. The showing that a traffic signal was required at the time of building permit application has not been proven, the applicant was never informed that the application was incomplete, and requirement for expensive plans for off-site improvements which are still debatable as to their installation are not required as .art Of the building permit application. Mr. Snell indicated that the record overwhelmingly supports the finding that the applicant has a vested right to be judged by the ordinance in effect at the time he applied for a building permit prior to the May 13, 1981 amendment to the ordinance. A reasonable interpretation of that particular section of the code would be that there ils no basis for extending that language to require a traffic signal . The record is also clear that the Terrace Project generates only 5% of the traffic utilizing the intersection proposed for signalization; and the issue of fairness is the imposition of financial responsibility for that improvement, and even though the applicant is required to extend the street and create the intersection, imposition of the entire cost of the signal is Completely out of proportion to the impact generated. Mr. Kellogg addressed the question of whether or not the traffic signal is required. He stated that since the street must be constructed, an intersection is created, and traffic flow on that street vlill be substantially impacted by the addition of a 5% increase in cross-wise traffic flow. Any additional cross-wise movement of traffic on those streets the developer ils obligated to construct would require that the necessary appurtenances to operate those streets should also be included with the proposal . Although the Building Department relied upon the May, 1981 amendment to the Building Ciode in determining the requirement for a traffic signal , Mr. Kellogg argued that un er either section, prior to May, 1981 or subsequent to the revision, the developer is required to install the streets and the improvements related to the streets as necessary 1 AAu-uil-82 Page Six appurtenances. The previous code requires installation of off-site improvements by the developer which include streets, and street width and standards of construction are to be specified by the Directorlof Public Works or his duly authorized representative. Standards of construction would logically include installation of a traffic signal , and would be further supported by strong engineering and public safety considerations in the matter. Mr. Kellogg raised another issue regarding his interpretation of the code that appeals of Building Code determinations are to be submitted to the Board of Adjustment, not to the Hearing Examiner. However, the city is prepared to waive that effect and stipulate the matter to the Examiner for determination under the provisions of the Hearing Examiner ordinance. There was no response to the Examiner's request for further comments. He then requested an additional welk or 21 days in which to publish a decision regarding the matter. Since there was no objection, the hearing regarding File No. AAD-011 -82 was closed by the Examiner at 2:50 p.m. I FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1,. The appellan , Homecraft1Land Development, Inc. , applied for a building permit on May 7, 1981 . Previously; the appellant had filed an application for a site approval . on February 2, 1981 . After environmental review, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, and public hearings on the site plan review and appeals of environmental determination, the Building and Zoning Department informed the appellant on February 3, 1982, that a building permit for the proposal could not be issued until plans were submitted for a traffic signal and roadway improvements for the intersection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. The determination was grounded upon Paragraph 1 of Section 4-103 of the City of Renton Uniform Building Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 3538. The appellant thereupon filed this appeal . 2. The subject site is located west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. , extended, between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street. 3. The appellant has received site plan approval to construct in phases a total of 280 multifamily dwelling units. 4. Previous dec sions have determined that the subject project will generate approximately 52 of the traffic which will enter the intersection on N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Ave. N.E. 5. The appellant is required and has agreed. to construct Edmonds Avenue N.E. between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. !4th Street under the terms of various city codes and ordinances as a matter of the public health, safety and welfare. 61. The provisions of Section 4-103, which are the subject of this appeal , were amended by a process which overlapped in time the building permit application. The City Council passed the amendatory language on May 4, 1981 . The amendment was to become effective fie days after publication. Publication occurred on May 8, 1981 , a dlay after the application for building permit was made. It became effective on May 13, 1981 , six days after the application for building permit was made. 7. On the date the appellant. filed for the building permit, Paragraph 4, Section 4-103 read as follows: whenever a bwUding permit Ls appti.ed Sot under the ptov.c,b.ions os this Code Sat new conistAuction vs a multiple dwetting, coves-i sti.ng o6 two (2) on mote un i is, public aoa emb.y, comme Lc, a on £nduistic ial? sttuc tune, of atte/Lc t on 06 an exus.,i4g stAuctute os .chid type, .in excess os ten thousand dottana 10,000.010) , then the pews on app.eying Sot such building penmirt ahatt 4.imuttaneous.Py Sohthmi.th a zo make appti.ca Lon Sot a permit, ass an J..ntegtat pant os ouch new cowsttucLLon of the attetati.on th.eteos, gat .he buitd.ing and .i.nstattat,ion os certain oss-z.irte .imptovements conzating os d.idewa,ekb, curbs, gwilteAs and s ce.et paving 4hatt extend the. 6u.1't distance that 4uch ptapenty to be .improved upon .us sought to be occupied ass a buitd.ing site or patlung area Sot the asote.atid bwUding punpasei and which may adjoin ptopeh ty dedicated_a3 la public 4tteet. (The phrase which is at issue is underlined for emphasis. ) The amended language, which the Building & Zoning Department relied on for its original decision, is as follows : AAu-uil-82 Page Seven whenever a bui din g p'etmit .vs app-P,i.ed ion unden the pnavisior1z aS th,iz Code an new conzttuc Lion o S a muttipte dwetting con ting o s .twee (3) of mote uni.tis, pubt i.c abb emb.2y, commetc i.a e on industtiat ztnuc tune, or catenation 04 an ex.iz-,i.ng ztAuctute osl bad type, in exce sb oS twenty-S.i.ve thousand dottaAz 25,000.00) , .then the pecan app.eyting Sot buch bui2dLng peen t bhai b-i.muttaneou3.ey maize application Sot a permit, ab an .i titegra pant oS buch new conztnuction or the atteta ion th.eneoS, Sot the building and .in tattation oS ceAtan oSS-b-i to .improvements cows.vs ,i.nq oS b.idewatkz cunbb, gutter , ztteet pa,l Lng, watelr. Mainz, dnana e, $an..tany bewet and f aU necezbavy appuntenance, extending the Sadie datance oS buch pnopenty to be .improved upon and fought to be occupied ab a building bite of path,%ng area Sot the asonebad buLeding pultpabeA and which may adjoin ptopenty dedicated ab a public £t ee.t. (Again, the phrase which is at issue is underlined for emphasis.) I 8. The appellants urge that the language which is effective for the issuance of their building permit was that of the code prior to the May 13, 1981 amendment. They allege that the vested rights doctrine is controlling and that the language of Ordinance No. 3538 is inapplicable. They also urge, in answer to the city 's further interpretation of the original enactment, that the earlier language should not be extended beyond its ordinary meaning to include traffic signals. 9. The city alleges that the building permit application was not complete when submitted on May 7, 1981 , because To plans for the signal and intersection were provided, and, therefore, the new language would be applicable to the proposal , and even if the amendment were not applicable, the prior enactment would still require the same results. 10. While there was discussion about the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street, such discussion is unnecessary. The record indicates that the creation of the intersection at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds, due to its topography, sight distance, as well as the traffic load which will pass through it, will probably require a signal under the various parameters which are used to make such determination. There is also no question but that due to the application of various codes and ordinances of the city the appellant will be required to improve and open Edmonds Avenue N.E. between N.E. '3rd and N.E. 4th Streets. Such improvement necessarily carries with it the creation of the subject intersection, and pursuant to an environmental determination (File No. ECF-013-81 ) , the applicant is responsible for approximately 5% of the costs of improving that intersection which may include signalization. The issue, therefore, is ,not whether such signal will be needed but whether, if needed, the appellant is 'charged under the language of Section 4-103 with its full installation. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The person or entity challenging administrative action has the burden of demonstrating that the action complained of was improper. The appellant, Homecraft Land Development , Inc. , therefore must demonstrate that the denial of the building permit was erroneous, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary or capricious (Section 4-3011 (B) (1 ) (b) ) . For the reasons indicated below, the appellant has demonstrated'that the determination complained of was contrary to law. 2'. The right to develop a project in conformance with the ordinances in effect on the date that an application lis filed is assured by the Washington court's minority rule of the vested rights, doctrine. Under that rule, the right vests when the applicant complies with the requirements by filing a complete permit application. Generally, th1e permit must be issued before the rights vest, but they may also vest if the applicant has diligently pursued the request for the permit and it was not issued but should have been (Parkridge v Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 465 (1978) ; Norco Construction v King County, 29 Wn. App. 179, 189 (1981 ) ; Mercer Enterprises v Bremerton, 93 Wn.2d 624, 627 (1980)) . I 3' I The issues actually can be narrowed quite simply. The application is valid if tIe various plans submitted by the applicant between February 2, 1981 and May 7, 1981 were complete. If the plans were complete when submitted then the appellant has vested rights to develop the proposal pursuant to the original language of Section 4-103. If, as the city maintains in its interpretation of the original ordinance,submission of plans for the traffic signal and intersection improvements (which were not provided) are required for a complete building permit application, there is ro Amu-01 1-82 Page Eight reason to decide the effects of the amendment because the effects per the city' . analysis would be the same: a traffic signal and improvements would be required , under either version of the ordinance. 1 Removing th, traffic signal and intersection improvement issue from considerati .n for the moment, there were no valid arguments presented which would indicate th- various plaris submitted up to May 7, 1981 were otherwise incomplete; that is, the " plans Were complet . Therefore, again setting aside the traffic signal issue, the applicant would have vested rights to pursue its plans according to the codes in effect on May 7, 1981 (Parkridge, etc.) 4. Therefore, the only determination that must be made is: what is the meaning of he unamended language of Section 4-103? The languag prior to the amendment was "the person applying for such building permit shall . . .also make application for a permit. . .for the building and instal ation of certain ff-site improvements consisting of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and s reet paving. . .". Clearly, the language is an enumerated list of specific improvemen s. The phrase is not modified by any language of expansion such as "including but of limited to". The plain meaning of the provision would lead a reader to infer o ly those items listed would be required. Rules of statutory construction only reemphasize the limitation implied by an itemized list. When a stat to specifically enumerates a list of items and omits other items fr m the list, t en the implication is that the legislative body intended to exclude, the items nit enumerated (State v Roadhs, 71 Wn.2d 705, 707 (1967) ; Washington Natural Gas Company v PIJD No. 1 , 77 Wn.2d 94 (1969) ) . The plans for a traffic signal and intersection improvements would not be part of the required submission because Sec ion 4-103 only required improvements consisting of sidewalks, curbs gutters and street paving and not traffic signals and intersection construction 5. Since such plans were not required under the unamended language of 4-103, the applicant h d on file with the city on May 7, 1981 , a valid application for a building permit, and the determination of the Building Official to deny the building pe mit was contrary to the vested rights doctrine. The appellant 's right to de elop its property were vested under the various codes, ordinances and regulations in effect on May 7, 1981 , and the building permit should have b:en issued. DECISION: The determinati n of the Building Official should be reversed and the permit issued ORDERED THIS 2nd day of April , 1982. 41.4601 .\(#4'34ANI.....N,....... Fred J. Kau an Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of April , 1982 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: William Snell , Haggard, Tousley & Brain, 1700 Daon Building, 720 Olive Way, Seattle, WA 98101 Morgan Llewellyn, U.S. Homes, 31710 124th Place S.E. , Auburn, WA 98002 Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer, City of Renton Llim Hanson, Building & Zoning Department , City of Renton Ray Wiltshire, Homecraft Land Development, Inc. , 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 98188 Daniel Kellogg, Deputy City Attorney, City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of April , 1982 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission jton Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle AAD-011-82 Page Nine Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration mustbefiledinwritingonorbeforeApril16, 1982. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, eror n judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at he prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within foureen 14) days from the date of tie Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth tle specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal is governedl by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days from the date of the Examiner's decision. ii•:-.' -.-.' ..., -.' 7.'''':- LAND,+'USE.:-HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC' 'NEARING: . '- MARCH 23:' , ;1982 ' COMMENCING 'AT .1 30 p.me . . COUNCIL -CHAti1BERS, SECOND''FLOOR,. ff, BUILDING A; AAD-011-82 HOMEGRAFT`LAND. DEVELOPMENT," 'INC S -0? 0-81 Appea.l-.by_ .Willi°am M.: Snell, ,attorney for Homecraft: r a'nd Development Coma , o a .decis_iO rof""`the B.u'il'dinc `and Zoning Depar<tment#Mf or-.th'e`' .0 tz volt_ Renton on F'ebruar 3 1•9'8.2 with' r e and t in.tersc.ti n mproveme'nts -at N.;E ';"3rd :St'reet;:'and. Edmonds'm.ti•W W, .w.+... s«uai:.r.-..m ;::,:,:«.,:.;w...m,s.,,,,,.,p.,,,:.y;•`'__r..,,",,F.,...:i,...::,,:,,,:•;__a,,r • na e ..N.E-• ' as ;a condit,i©n of the 'building permit ':fat :;The ;Terrace +Project:,' `a' 28,0,-unit u rl" :h s'ou .n ro ect 1:' tPoca ed' , . between. N::E;' ar;:3'rd: S.tr_'p... .and •N...'E 4th o .Edmon"ds. •AVenu.e::'''N..Ee' n fi•' i2r +)c i j 1 OF R A ; 0 °z PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Z o TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 oo MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 0 P 9' O SEPSC BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR March 19, 1982 CITY OF RENTON I iir "A 0 VI 11 I. I TO : Ron Nelson,; Building & Zoning Director MAR 191982 i FROM : Gary Norrisl, Traffic Engineer BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. SUBJECT : HOMECRAFT DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to our conversation earlier this week, we have reviewed the forecaste volumes ford the proposed intersection of NE 3rd & Edmonds Ave. NE and made the following ceterminations:1 . The Manual on ,Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifies eight 8) warrants for justifying the installation of a traffic signal . (See Attachment A) These warrants as specified in the attachmentl are based on traffic volume relationships, gap availability and gap acceptance by the driver. 2. According to the traffic study included within the DEIS of Jyne 1981 for ithe Terrace development, it was estimated that traffic volumes on Edmonds Ave. Extension when constructed ale to be approximately 2000 to 3500 vpd. (See Attachment B) Volume on NE 3rd was indicated to be 26,000 vpd within the project horizon. (See Attachment C) 3. Based upon USD1OT Document FHWA- IP-80-12 November 1980 "User Guide for Removal of Not Needed Traffic Signals" page 12 see Attachment D) , the approximate ADT's required for signal installation as per the warrants are provided. As the proposed intersection would have two lanes of approach on the major street (NE 3rd) and one lane of approach on the minor street Edmonds Ave.) an ADT of 15,000 vpd is required on NE 3rd Street and 2300 vpd o'n Edmonds Ave. NE. With these volumes the intersection its well above the requirements for a signal . 4. Sight distance, topography and congestion enhance our fears regarding the operation of the intersection. I I Ron Nelson Page 2 March 19, 1982 This is the extent of the identified need of a traffic signal at this time. If you desire any additional information, please let me know. 7e/7GAN:ad Attachments i-J ' I A chMeat /1- a., n d loll 12 y Gl"' p.-mf h 1TTE - Gthweesi+ a is 4C-3 WARRANT 1, MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 1) /97/ The minimum vehicular volume warrant is intended for application where the vol.81 ume of inter ecting traffic :is the principal reason for consideration of signal'', t: pr, installation. The warrant average day the traffic t is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an w volumes given in the table below exist on the major t or street and on the higher volume minor-street approach to the intersection. 4 ha' wa Minimum Vehicular Volumes for Warrant 1 in n en, Vehicles per hour on Vehicles per hour on higher-volume 4C• Number of lanes for moving major street (total of minor-street approach traffic on e-ch a roach both a roaches wn pp pp one direction only) of ld v Major Street Minor Street kf11500150t I pi2ormore • 1 600 150 2 or more 2 or more 600 200 4 1 2 or more 500 200 1 These major street and the minor-street volumes are for the same 8 hours. Dur-I ing those 8 ours the direction of higher volumes on the minor street may be on one 'appro ch during some hours and on the opposite approach during other I hours. F m. When the 85 percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or or when the 'ntersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated communityll hay having a pop lation less than 10,000 the interruption of continuous traffic is warrant' is 7 percent of the requirements above, in recognition of differences nal in the natur and operational characteristics of traffic in urban and rural en- mer vironments a d smaller m nicipalities . x A I ;`'s the 4C-4 WARRANT 2, INTERRUP1ION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 1 sti The interru tion of con inuous traffic warrant applies to operating conditions .r.ten where the tr ffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor ? prc intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing Si the major st eet. The warrant is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an 1 ind average, day he traffic -Volumes given in the table below exist on the major 1 Man street and of the higherLvolume minor-street approach to the intersection, and ' A Si the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. . req 1 ` is Minimum Vehicular Volumes for Warrant 2 sho 1 A ing Vehicles per hour on Man Vehicles per hour on higher-volume I 4, Sig Number of lanes for moving major street .(total of minor-street approach '''awa traffic on e.ch approach both approaches) one direction only)s' 4C- Major Street Minor Street ' A 1 1 750 75 k;whe 2 .or more 1 900 75 ' veh 2 or more 2 or more 900 100 1I ch 1 2 or more 750 100 tra les 1 i 13 these major-street and minor-street volumes for the same 8 hours. During those he vol- ', 4 8; hours the, direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one -p- signal 1, proach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. n t • "When the 85-percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 miles pel hour, or of when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated collunity having a population less than 10,000, the interruption of continuous traf is warran is 70 percent of the requirements above in recognition of differe ces J; in the nature and operational characteristics of traffic in urban and rur. 1 on enviro ents and smaller municipalities. oach 4C-5 W RANT 3, MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME I nly) The minimum pedestrian volume warrant is satisfied when for each of any hours sA' of an average day the following traffic volumes exist: i a. On the major street 600 or more vehicles per hour enter the int r- section (total of both approaches) ; or 1,000 or more vehicles p-r hour (total of both approaches) enter the intersection on the i major street where there is a raised median island 4 feet or mole . u in width;• and Dur- b. During the same 8 hours as in paragraph 1 there are 150 or .more•ll be a pedestrians per hour on the highest volume crosswalk crossing t e er 4 major str,eet. t When the 85-percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 miles pel hour, rhour or whe the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated co unity munit, ' having a population of less than 10,000, the minimum pedestrian volume wa rant ic is 70percent of the requirements above, in recognition of differences in the ences nature and operational characteristics of traffic in urban and rural envi on- al en- ments d smaller municipalities. x A si al installed under this warrant at an isolated intersection should be. of nPi the traffic-actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is installed at an intersection within a signal sys- tem, i should be equipped and operated with control devices which providitionspropercoordination.minor • , sing Signa s installed according to this warrant shall be equipped with pedes rian of an 4 indica ions conforming to requirements set forth in other sections of this or d Manual. and Signals maybe ins alled at nonintersection locationsow, , }mid-block) provided the requir ments of this warrant are met, and provided that the related crosswalkTi.is not closer than 150' to another established crosswalk. Curbside arkil'P g should ) e prohibited for 100' in advance of and 20' beyond the crosswalk. IPhas- e ing, coordination, and installation must conform to standards set forth i this r on } Ki Manual. Special attention should be .given to the signal head placement . d the t signs and markings used at nonintersection locations to be sure drivers ale oach aware I this special application.i nly) 4C-6 W RANT 4, SCHOOL CROSSING mAtrafficcontrolsignalmaybewarrantedatanestablishedschoolcrossinggwhenarafficengineeringstudyofthefrequencyandadequacyofgapsinIthe vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of school childre at the school crossing shows that the number of adequate gaps in the1trafficstreamduringtheperiodwhenthechildrenareusingthecrossingIllis less th the number of minutes in the same period . . . I III b: 14 4 . ., . "When traffi control signals are installed entirely under this warrant: a 4 a. Pe.estrian indications shall be provided at least for each cross- be wal established as a school crossing. ' 1 i! 1 b. At an intersection the signal normally should be traffic actuated. st As a minimum it should be semi-traffic actuated, but full actuation 1:' wit detectors on all approaches may be desirable. Intersection 4( installations tiat can be fitted into progressive signal systems may 1 A ha e pretimed control.Si aF c. At nonintersection crossings, the signal should be pedestrian actu- as 4 . ated, parking and other obstructions to view should be prohibited 4. ford at least 100 feet in advance of and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk, ll ve an the installation should include suitable standard signs and pa ement markings. Special police supervision and/or enforcement 0, A sho ld be provided for a new nonintersection installation. 3' ch ri 4C-7 WARRANT 5, PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT 1 i . - "Progressive movement control sometimes necessitates traffic signal installa- tions at intersections where they would not otherwise be warranted, in orderkt to maintain proper grouping of vehicles and effectively regulate group speed. 1, The progressive movement warrant is satisfied when: a. On a one-way street or a street which has predominantly unidirection- al traffic the adjacent signals are so far apart that they do not i. provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning and speed control, or b. On a two-way street, adjacent signals do not provide the necessary k?4C de ree of platooning and speed control and the proposed and adjacent I, sig als could constitute a progressive signal system. rau The installation of a signal according to this warrant should be based on the '. to 85-percentile speed unless an engineering study indicates that another speed is s more 'desirable. i; Rel• The install tion of a -signal according to this warrant should not be considere. ' Th4 wherethe res ltant signal spacing would be less than 1,000 feet. fii dol 4C-8 WARRANT 6, .ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE En! n;: tr< The accident-experience warrant is satisfied when: TheRr a. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory ob- tai serwance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency; Itry and rr.of g st, b. Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible of correction s pe7 bytraffic si nal control have occurred within a 12-monthperiod, 1,1 F. g hoc eac accident involving personal injury or property damage to an the apparent extent of $100 or more; and n w The c. There exists a volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less tra th 80 percent of the requirements specified in the minimum vehicu- k; exc la -volume warrant, the interruption of continuous traffic warrant,acc or the minimum pedestrian-volume warrant;. and a c umed. Th signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traf- fi flow.nun Y.' . V. y r1 • 1 isI 3 My raffic signal installed solely on the accident experience warrant ' hould E I, be seiitraffic-actuated with control devices which provide proper coordiiation AI if installed at an intersection within a coordinated system, and normalli d. 1: shout be fully, traffic-actuated if installed at an isolated intersecti n. p ion i 4C-9 ARRANT 7, SYSTEMS WARRANT may A tr ffic signal installation at some intersections may be warranted toI'encour- ! , age c ncentration and organization of traffic flow networks. The syste: tu- war- z rant 's applicable when the common intersection of two aptwoormoremajorroues\has s total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at let walk, ;;. 00 1 vehicles during the peak hour of a typical weekday, or each of any five 'ours of a aturday and/or Sunday. it A ma or route as used in the above warrant has one or more of the folio ing charadteristics: 1 a. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the •rin- cipal network for through traffic flow; • ler b. It connects areas of principal traffic generation; ed.c. It includes rural or suburban highways outside of, entering or tra- versing a city; • tion- ;;; d. It has surface street freeway or expressway ramp terminals. iot i e. It appears as a major route on an official plan such as a majoitrol, street p an in an urban area traffic and transportation study. ; i f y, ry. t, 4C-10 WARRANT 8, COMBINATION OF WARRANTS cent k In exceptional cases signals occasionally may be justified where no single war- rant i satisfied but where any combination of warrants 1,2, and 3 is sa isfied 7 the 4 to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated values." ed is e 11 Review of Warrant Development 0 idered 1 These warrants are developed primarily from work done by the Institute o 'ITraf-fic Engineers through a technical development and research fund. A stud; was tq done br Paul C. Box and Willard A. Alroth and is summarized in the Traffic r Engineering Magazine as noted in the Bibliography. The warrants are base'. onItrafficvolumerelationships, gap availability and gap acceptance by the .river. These factors establish appropriate guidelines for traffic volume figures con- tained in the first four (4) warrants. It was found that typical 24 hour xency; • traffic of from 8,300 to 15,000 vehicles per day would produce minimum volumes of 500 to 900 vehicles per hour for each of the 8 hours of the day on the major street. Minor-street 24 hour volume was found to. be 2,300 to 6,000 vehic esionilperdaytoproduceonedirection, minimum volumes of 75 to 200 vehicles per1, g hour Or each of 8 hours. These are adequate guidelines to use for warrants onzc the volume. conditions in the event specific hourly counts are not available. * Their studies also indicated that the availability of gaps in a main stretass4traffi , flow at an intersection was not necessarily a simple function of Volumezicu- except at' isolated intersections, however the extreme difficulty of obtai ' ingx; mot,i° accurate gap data indicated that gap availability would not easily be mad into a conv nient warrant for use by traffic engineers. Other factors besideslvol- traf- lime ma affect available gaps such as platooning effect from adjacent si. ials, number of lanes, turn traffic, physical conditions and others. Generally peak-t' fR ll L_A-r7-p CH ,E. NIT oS t Pole 1) DEIS- -ME TOR)! A-c.E, Edmonds Avenue NE Extension 3-Un1E5) 1 6 Discussions with the City of Renton Traffic Engineer have suggested they have several questions relative to the extension of Edmonds Avenue p:. l NE from NE 4th Street to NE 3rd Street. First, is Edmonds Avenue NE planned to be used as a primary access for the project? In response, the project sponsor plans to provide all access off NE 4th Street. Second, will the travel demand generated by the project precipitate or create the need to extend Edmonds Avenue NE? Based on the trip gen- eration statistics presented earlier, the Homecraft generated traffic volumes can be served adequately and safely with exclusive access to NE 4th Street and will not need alternative access to serve residents and visitor traffic volumes. Third, should the road ever be extended? If Edmonds Avenue NE were extended, when should this improvement occur and how should road improvements be financed? While the answers to these questions are not as straightforward as the previous responses, this analysis has con- cluded that extension of Edmonds Avenue NE is not advisable at this time and is riot advisable until other significant improvements can be made to relieve the east-west traffic congestion along 3rd Street. A first impression. might suggest the extension of Edmonds Avenue NE is a reasonable improvement because it would complete a link in an area- wide grid network of streets serving this area. More detailed review of the benefits/disadvantage of this street extension tends to suggest otherwise, based on a preliminary review of nearby developable land. It is estimated that Edmonds Avenue NE would carry between 2000 and 3500 vpd -if extended south to NE 3rd Street. Thus, an extension would be used if it were constructed. The benefit of the extension would be to reduce volumes at the intersections of Jefferson Street NE/NE 3rd Street and Bronson Way NE/ NE 3rd Street. Typically, reduction of volumes at adjacent intersections would be a desirable goal . In this case, however, these intersections I: operate substantially under capacity, and at full development of prop- erties in this area, it is likely that they will continue to operate under capacity. Therefore, there is no significant benefit to level of service at these intersections as a result of this improvement. It Boulevard byabout 1500 to 2000 vd. would also reduce volumes along Sunset bo t p 17- 1, , I f:. fill/ftffl1i/v® L- 4 r j V 4\ c ''3 A mi,'; o { 7212117--E ps(l 2 LTnrne /9V MIRTH r r2 0 0 11t1 J S rn PONI b ' .. -N A 3 3/00 i s 3 NE 'TN sr 14Zo ' 4Z" I Q.Zo 17 o 17° W Q 70 z o__w w a' as o - z o w Q lz NE 5TH ST Norj.. 0 QO 537 /700 /7 •S 1 b I %o r 70 I :so NE 4TH ST N m^ ( 9v// „ ,10 y,y PROJECT 1l SITE St 2 lP 5. . 1o) 0 l3 3 o I, CO41 oPP V may' LEGEND S • o ti o° zs are° i' 0 A 3 Ga 33160 33, 301! Z' -3 '1982 1982 gI 3215 , WITHOUT WITH PRODECT 3Z7p I PROJECT 150 DU 300 DU DAILY XXX AAA CCC P4 PEAK YYY BBB DOD i I I Figure 3HOMECRAFT e RENTON 1982 DAILY AND 5TFFIC CONDOMINIUM 1 WITH ANDKWITTHOUTUR PROJECT . @jr0 f) I 11- Table_1. Approximate ADT' s Required—for Signal Installation Warrant Satisfaction LANES/APPROACH WARRANT *1 (Minimun Volume ) WARRANT *2 (Interruption) Ki Major Minor Major St. ADT Minor St. ADT Major St. ADT Minor St. ADT 1 1 8,300 4,600 12,500 2,3002+ 1 10,000 4,600 15,000 2,3002+ 2+ 10,000 6,000 15,000 3,10012+8,300 6,000 12,500 3,100 Major Street ADT is two-way volume level needed to produceminimumvolumesduring8peakhours. ti Minor Street ADT is two-way volume level needed to producehighdirectionminimumvolumesduring8peakhours. p c% 1 7 L_R ,. " ue 4/: Public highways n gt ,1' . all installations upon the right of way at the expense of rei of traffic control signals consistent with the 1 the applicant, which expense May be recovered from the this title for use upon public highways withp' i this s 4applicantbythehighwaycommissionforthestateinSuchuniformsystemshallcorrelatewithan tate.`r ;t y sofaras -any court of competent jurisdiction. [1961 c 13 § 47.32- possible conform to the system current as a170. Prior: 1947 c 201 § 3; Rem. Supp. 1947 § the American Association of State Hi hw proved b f" x 'j 6402-52.] g y Officials't ;raa and as set out in the manual of uniform tra c control j-cit4l.ii devices for streets and highways. [1961 c 141P',10 020. Prior: 1937 c 53 § 50; RRS § 6400-50; rior: 1927;Chapter 47.36 c 309 § 6; RRS § 6362-6.]M -'i i T AFFIC CONTROL DEVICES J ::2i 1+Sections 4 >:,;i 47.36.030 Traffic control devices--S ificati ' ;y,y ;}47.36.010 Rest ration of United States survey markers. to be furnished to counties and cities. The hi ons -.. Y;f +,47.36.02o Tra c control signals. mission shall have thepower and ' g aY corn-'- v i B w Y P-ti f,47.36.030 Tra c control devices—Specifications to be furnished it shall be is duty 'V"'3"-4 4r._to t,to unties and cities.adopt and designate a uniform state stands d for the `a=`:47.36.040 Com ission to furnish counties and cities with traffic manufacture, display, erection and location o all signs, 5"'de ices. signals, signboards, guideposts and other tra47.36.050 Duty to erect traffic devices on state highways and rail-Via"c devices 'A r d crossings. erected or to be erected upon the state high 'ays of the 3pz`„. : 47.36.053 Gene al duty to erect and maintain traffic devices on state of Washington for the purpose of furnis 'ing infor- .' 5'' rf,r_ sta a highways and railroad crossings.mation to persons traveling upon such state hi47.36.060 Tra c devices on county roads and city streets. highways `, ,,j-= - regarding traffic regulations, directions, distan es,47.36.070 Failure to erect signs,prociedure. points ,;;.47.36.080 Signs at railroad crossings' of danger and conditions requiring caution, a d for the 'irk::;;,vi: 47.36.090 Cooperation with United States on road markers. purpose of imposing restrictions upon persons operating '.;..tt„, fir,,c... 47.36.095 Establishment of continuing system for designation of vehicles thereon. Such signs shall conform as nearly as 1higways—Signs. practicable to the manual of specifications for the man- ' €,14-I, , :: 47.36.097 Establishment of continuing system for designation of P hi ways—Filing ufacture, display, and erection of uniform tra c control 'K':; ; g ys—Filing designations with secretary of h;?" v l state and county auditors. devices for streets and highways and all am'ndments 't, • 47.36.100 Direc tonal,caution,and stopsigns.w;t.„,, ,,: B corrections and additions thereto. The highwa commis- 1447.36.110 Stop igns, Yield" signs Duties of persons using sion shall prepare plans ands ecishighway—Presumption.p fieations of th' uniform s47.36.120 City 1 mit signs.state standard of traffic devices so adopted nd desig- YAKra%ill g_ „,,1'jE;47.36.130 Meddling with signs prohibited.nated, showing the materials, colors and desig 's thereof, ,,4, 4. 47.36.180 Forbidden devices—Penalty.P1',•.i and shall upon the issuance of any such plans nd speci-4g..V3 47.36.200 Signs or flagmen at thoroughfare work sites. rtsw< g fications or revisions thereof and upon request, urnish toi47.36.210 Signs pr flagmen at thoroughfare work sites—Compli- a ed s Ail an enjoined.the boards of county commissioners and the overningn='] 47.36.220 Signs r flagmen at thoroughfare work sites—Drivers body of any incorporated city or town, a cop thereof. kti liti.z x of v hicles engaged in work must obey signs or Signs, signals, signboards, guideposts and of er trafficAUt; ,, flag en.devices erected on county roads shall confo in`;;„ c 47.36.230 Signs r flagmen at thoroughfare work sites Penalty. .in all c respects to the specifications of color. .n anlocation `iss"-i': 47.36.250 Dangerous road conditions uirin special tires,chains PeqBP or t ction equipment!Signs or devices—Penalty. devised by the highway commission.. Tra devices v,-'3i Countyroads, Sins, signals, guideposts—Standards: RCW hereafter erected within incorporated cities a d townsg 3r.,... 36.86.040.shall conform to such uniform state standard of trafficRangeareas,signs:RCW 16.24.060. f° ' devices so far as is practicable. [1961 c 13 § 41 .36.030.S `"' Rules of the road:Chapter 46.61 RCW.N1 pPrior: 1945 c 178 1, part; 1937 c 53 §E'`r' 48, p rt; Rem.Townships to erect uideposts:Chapter part; 1923 c 102 § 19 7 78 5.68 RCW.Supp. 1945 § 6400-48, part; prior: 1931 c 118 1, part; :, 6308-1, 1, part;c § 1:t- RRSl47.36.010 R toration of United States survey mark- 1, part; RRS § 6303, part.]tit: ers. It shall be t e duty of the highway commission to fix yr*:1? permanent mo uments at the Original YI` : positions of all 47.36.040 Commission to furnish counties nd citiesUnitedStatesgovernmentmonumentsattownshipcor- with traffic devices. The highway commissi n, upony ;`s.:ners, section corners, quarter suction corners, meander written request, shall cause to be manufactured! painted ':corners,and witness markers; ;;F.,- ads originally established and printed, and shall furnish to any board df county 1.;F s ;x; by the United States government survey whenever any commissioners or the governing body of any incorpo- ,such original monuments or markers fall within the right rated city or town, directional signboards, guide boards :, .7;of way of any s ate.highway and to aid in the reestab- and posts of the uniform state standard of color, shape ,_'lishment of any such corners, monuments or markers and design for the erection and maintenancethereofte by '-'destroyed or obliterated by the construction of any state the board of county commissioners or the g' verning;.,..,highway by per fitting inspection of the records in the bodyof any incorporated city or town upon t e roadsofficeofthehighwaycommission. [1961 c 13 § 47.36- and streets within their respective jurisdicti O. Such :,.(010. Prior: 193?Ii c 53 § 42; RRS § 6400-42; 1931 c 117 directional signboardsi'' § 1; RRS § 6830-1.] guide boards and posts 'shall be manufactured and furnished, as aforesaid, pur uant to written request showing the number of signs des red and yA1," 47.36.020 Ti ffic control signals. The highway com- the directional or guide information to be printedmissionshalladptspecificationsforauniformsystem •thereon. The highway commission is hereby authorized 1. ,; [Title 47--p 821 jTl i. , 7..:,-S:' t t.'-,v}.af,' Traffic Control Devices 47.36.090 t 8 r Z and directed to fix charge for eac signboard, guide towns having a population of over fifteen thousand board and post manufactured and furnished as aforesaid, according to the latest federal census, shall adequately based upon the ulti ate cost of such operations to the equip with traffic devices, streets which are designated as s I highway commission and the board of county commis- forming a part of the route of a primary or secondary i sioners, from'the county road fund, hand the governing state highway and streets which constitute connecting Ibodyofanyincorpoiatedcityortown, from the street roads and secondary state highways to such cities and fund, shall pay the charges so fixed for all signboards, towns. Such traffic devices, signs, signals and mar ers I guide boards and sts so received from the highway shall comply with the uniform state standard for the11 I commission. [1961 c 13 § 47.36.040. prior: 1945 c 178 § manufacture; display, direction and location thereo as 1, part; 1937 c 53 § 48, part; Rem. Supp. 1945 § designated by the state highway commission. The de ign, 6400-48, part; prio : 1931 c 118 § 1, part; RRS § location, erection and operation of traffic devices and 1 6308-1, part; 1923 c 102 § 1, part; 1917 c 78 § 1, part; traffic control signals upon such city or town st eets I j{ RRS § 6303, part.] constituting either the route of a primary or secon s ary s state highway to such city or town or connecting st eets I 47.36.050 Duty t erect traffic devices on state high- to the primary or secondary state highways through i the I ways and railroad crossings. It shall pe the duty of the city or town shall be under the direction of the •tate highway commission to erect and maintain upon every highway commission and if such city or town fail: to state highway in the state of Washington suitable and comply with any such directions, the state highs ay II proper signs, signals signboards, guideposts and other commission shall provide for the design, location, .rec- I I traffic devices according to the adopted and designated Lion,,or operation thereof, and any cost incurred the efor state standard of de ign, erection and location, and in shall be charged to and paid from any funds in the, I' the manner required by law; it shall be the duty of the motor vehicle fund of the state, which have accrues or highway commission o erect and mai intain upon all state may accrue to the credit of such city or town and l the highways appropria e stop signs, darning signs and state treasurer shall issue warrants therefor upon vo ch- II school signs. Any pe son, firm, corporation or municipal ers submitted and approved by the state highway •om- i corporation, building owning, controlling or operating a mission. [1961 c 13 § 47.36.060. Prior: 1955 c 179 § 4; railroad that crosses any state highry at grade shall 1939 c 81 § 1; 1937 c 53 § 52; RRS § 6400-52.] construct, erect and maintain at or near each point of crossing, or at such point or points as will meet the 47.36.070 Failure to erect signs, procedure. W en- approval of the high ay commission, a sign of the type ever any person, firm, corporation, municipal corpor.tion known as the saw b ck crossing sign with the lettering or local authorities responsible for the erection and i railroad crossing" nscribed thereon, also a suitable maintenance, or either, of signs at any railroad cro sing inscription indicating the number of tracks; said sign or point of danger upon any state highway fails, neg ects must be of standard design that will comply with the or refuses to erect and maintain, or either, such sig 1 or i I plans and specificati ns furnished by the highway corn- signs as required by law at highway—railroad g ade i I mission. Additional safety devices and signs may be crossings, it shall be the duty of the utilities and tr ns- installed at any time when required by the utilities and portation commission upon complaint of the high ay i transportation Comm ssion as provided by laws regulat- commission or upon complaint of any party intere ted, ing railroad-highwa grade crossings. [1961 c 13 § or upon its own motion, to enter upon a hearing in the 47.36.050. Prior: 193 c 53 § 49; RRS § 6400-49; prior: manner now provided by law for hearings with respe't to 1931 c 118 § 1, part; RRS § 6308-1, part; 1923 c 102 § railroad—highway grade crossings and to make and s 1, part; RRS § 6303 part; 1919 c 146 § 1; 1917 c 78 § enforce proper orders for the erection or maintenan e of 2; RRS § 6304. FO MER PART OF SECTION: 1937 such signs, or both. [1961 c 13 § 47.36.070. Prior: 1937 c 53 § 51 now in RC 47.36.053.] c 53 § 54; RRS § 6400-54.] I 47.36.053 Gener I duty to erect and maintain traffic 47.36.080 Signs at railroad crossings. Wherever it is devices on state hig ways and railroad crossings. The considered necessary or convenient the highway om- 4 highway commission shall place and maintain such traf- mission may erect approach and warning signs upo ,the fic devices conformi g to the manua I and specifications approach of any state highway to a highway—rail oad adopted upon all sta e highways as i shall deem neces- grade crossing situated at a sufficient distance there rom sary to carry out th provisions of this title or to regu- to make the warning effective. The highway commi Sion y, late, warn, or guid traffic. [1961 c 13. § 47.36.053. may further provide such additional or other high 'ay— I`: Prior: 1937 c.53 § 51; RRS § 6400-51. Formerly RCW railroad grade crossing markings as may be considered r 47.36.050, part.]to serve the interests of highway safety. [1961 c f 3 §t 47.36.080. Prior: 1937 c 53 § 57; RRS § 6400-57.] I 47.36.060 Traffic devices on county roads and city 1 i, streets. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions 47.36.090 Cooperation with United States on oad s shall place and maintain such traffic devices upon public markers. Standard federal road markers shall be pl ced 1!highways under their jurisdiction as are necessary to on state highways in the manner requested by the carry out the,provisi ns of the law o local traffic ordi- department of commerce of the United States. The Y;} nances or to regulat , warn, or guide traffic. Cities and highway commission of the state of Washingto is q towns, which as us in this section mean,cities and authorized and empowered to cooperate with the se eral i i Title 47--pl 831 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 23, 1982, AT 1 : 30 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITION: HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. , AAD-011-82 Appeal by William M. Snell, attorney for Homecraft Land Development Company, of a decision of the Building and Zoning Department for the City of Renton on February 3, 1982, with regard to intersection improvements at N.E. 3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. as a condition of the building permit for The Terrace Project, a 280-unit multiple family housing project located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. (file SA-010-81 ) . Legal descriptions of the file noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITION ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 23, 1982, AT 1 : 30 P.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: MARCH 8, 1982 RONALD G. NELSON BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I, STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the 5tn day of March, 1982. SIGNED: oht;:eqZ;We040‘04nfsb. Aft C. O1' k IIA ITY OFUw o MUNICIPAL BIIDIvf11G 200 ILAVE. SO. R{Ulm ® l l 98055WASH. r i» BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINERO 90 P FRED J. KAUFMAN. 23 -2593 9-$ 0 SEP1°.' February 22, 1982 Mr. William N. Snell Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1700 Daon Building 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 RE: File No. AAD-011-82; Appeal of Administrative Determination by Building & Zoning Department; Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; Terrace Condominiums. Dear Mr. Snell : In response to the referenced appeal , a public hearing has been established on March 23, 1982 at 1 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of ih Renton Municipal Building. Enclosed is a copy of the procedure which will be followed at the hearing. Please feel free to contact this office if further information or assistance is required. Sincerely, Fred J. Kau man Hearing Examiner cc: Building & Zoning Department y' y OF ! N A 1. THE CITY OF RENTON ,hti) MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 9 055 n o ammo BARBARA Y. SHIIVI'OCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EA MINER 9O P FRED J. KAUFMAN, 23 -2593 9RTFD SEP1° 5 February 22, 1982 TO: Ron Nelson,. Director, Building and Zoning Department FROM: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RE: Appeal of Administrative Determination by the Building Department; File No. AAD-011-82; Homecraft Land Development, Inc. An appeal of an administrative determination regarding off-site improvement requirements has been received by this office and is attacl1ed for your information. A public hearing will be scheduled on March 23, 1982 at 1 :30 p.m. to review the matter. Please forward all relevant correspondence to this office no later than 51:00 p.m. March 5, 1982. Attachment REC VeoCITYOF ' 11 ENT1 HEARINGONE,AMI;LI'; 2 AM FED i 1982 3 71819110in 1 Nvi BEFORE THE CITY`OF RENTON ?'r ',1'i15"6 4 HEARING EXAMINER 5 PPEAL OF HOMECRAFT LAND 6 DEVELOPMENT INC. FROM A STATEMENT OF APPEAL D CISION OF THE BUILDING 7 ND ZONING }DEPARTMENT 8 9 On behalf of our client, Homecraft Land 10 D velopment Inc. , we appeal the decision of the Building 11 a d Zoning epartment ( "Department") requiring the 12 i stallatioi of a traffic signal at the intersection of 13 N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue N.E. as part of the off site 14 i provements for the Terrace Condominiums. Attached and 1 15 -marked as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the decision of the 16 Department, dated February 3, 1982, imposing the 17 signalization condition. 18 Language Relied Upon By Department Is Not Applicable 19 Under Vested Doctrine Rights 20 In its decision the Department cites Section 21 4-103 (A) of the Renton Code, which provides in part that 22 t e applicant: 23 make application for a permit, as an integral part of such new construction. ...for; 24 building and installation of certain Off-site improvements consisting of 25si,dewalks, curbs, gutters, street paving, 26 water mains, drainage, sanitary sewers, and all necessary appurtenances. . . . " (emphasis 27 supplied) 28 Statement of iAppeal 1 HAGGARD,TOUSLEY&B-AIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS T LAW I \ 1700 DAON BUILDING 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 901 1 1 The Department decision relies on the phrase"all - g , necessary appurtenances" in imposing the traffic 3,. signalization condition. . However, this phrase was. not , 4 . part of Section 4-103 (A) , until May 13, 19810 The permit 1 5, application for the Terrace Condominiums was filed on May 6 7 :1981 and thus predated the amendment. Therefore, under 7 t e vested rights doctrine the amendatory language is not 1 8' applicable to the Terrace Condominium permit. See Hull vo 9. • Hunt, 53 Wna2d 125 (1958) . 10. Language In Section 4-103 (A) Does Not Provide A Basis 11 For Requiiring Traffic Signalization 12 The language in Section 4-103 (A) that was effect 13 at the time the permit application was filed contains no 14' • reference to! "all necessary appurtenances" or any other 15 language that would justify the imposition of a traffic . 16 ' signalization condition. Ordinances are to be' given their 17 plain' and ordinary meaning. It is evident from the a j 18 ' review of the language in Section 4-103 (A) that there is ' 19 . no reference either express or implied with regard to : 20 traffic signalization. Consequently, there is no •legal ' 21 ' basis for imposing the condition requiring traffic 22 signalization at NE 3rd and Edmonds Avenue NE. 23 .We appeal the Department 's decision for the 1 1. . , 24 . fo egoing reasons and further allege that the decision is 1 - 25* arbitrary and, capricious, clearly erroneous, unreasonable I 26 and contrary to law. As the Examiner is readily aware .. 1 27.' • from the ' numelIrous hearings that have been held (reference 28 Statement of .Appeal 2 r', 1.; 1 1 1 File ECF-013-81) with regard to this proposal that the Department has repeatedly attempted to require the a plicant to make offsite improvements far in excess of the impacts identified in the Environmental Impact 5 Statement. On December 8, 1981, the most recent decision 6 of the Examiner required the applicant to make , a five f 7, percent contribution to the cost of the intersection 8 improvements at NE .3rd and Edmonds, yet the Department now 9 seeks to circumvent this decision and read into Section 4 103 (A) the authority to require the applicant to bear . , 1 the full cost. We request the Examiner to expeditiously•, ' 12 schedule a hearing so that this matter can be resolved and 13 needed housing. constructed. 14' 15 j Respectfully Submitted, 16., HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN f 17.• G 18° William N. Snell 19 2435B 20 21. 23- 24 27 ,• . Statement: of Appeal 3 I Mu1M)S ORDINANCE N• . 3215 3216 3217 3212 3218 3275 I CITY OF RENTON, WASH INGTM ORDINANCE NO . 3538 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE IV (BUILDING REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO . 1628 ENTITLED "CODE OF CENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON" RELATING TO ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF UNIFORM BUILDING CODE , PLUMBING CODE , NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE , UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL CODE , UNIFORM HOUSING CODE AND UNIFORM ICHANICAL CODE THE CITE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON , DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I : Existing Chapter 1 of Title IV (Building Regulations) ofOrdinance No . 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" is hereby amended to read as follows : Section 4-101 , as amended: ADOPTION : The "Uniform wilding Code , 1979 Edition , together with "Uniform Building Code Standards 1979 Edition, as issued by the "International Conference of Building Officials" , of which not less than three (3) printed copies in book form have leretofore been filed and are now on file in the office of the City Clerk and made available for examination by the public , are hereby adopted as the "Uniform Building Code" and the "Uniform Building Code Standards" by the City of Renton, and said Codes may be hereafter designed as the "City of Renton Uniform Building Code" and "City of Renton Uniform Building Code Standards" . Section 4-103 , as amended : Section 302 (a) of the j I City of Renton Uniform Building Code" is hereby amended to read as follows : 1- RECE IV E DHAGGARD, 1OUS EXHIBIT 1 Ey & BRAIN M FEB 17 982 718191I0r11r1r1 r r:ir415 I I Whenever a building permit is applied for under the provisions of this Code for new construction of a multiple dwelling consisting of three (3) or more units , public assembly , commercial or industrial structure , or alteration of an existing structure of I I said type, in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25 ,000 . 00) , then the person applying for such building permit shall simult n- eously make application for a permit , as an integral part of s ch new construction or the alteration thereof, for the building and installation of certain off-site improvements consisting of sidewalks , curbs , gutters , street paving , water mains , drainage, sanitary sewer and all necessary appurtenances extending the full distance of such property to be improved upon and sought to be occupied as a building site or narking area for the afore aid building purposes and which may adjoin property dedicatedas a publicublic street . All such sidewalksshall be constructed to City stand rds and conform to standard specifications for Municipal Public Works Construction , commonly known as APWA Standards . Street width and standards for construction shall be specified by the Director of Public Works or his duly authorized repre- sentaItive . All plans and specifications for such improvements are to be submitted at time such application for a permit is made . 2- A11 oermit! I -quired for the construction of these improvements shall be applied for and obtained in the same —.trier, fees and conditions as specified in Chapter 8, Title IX (Public Way and Property) of Ordinance No. 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" relating to excavating or disturbing streets , alleys , pavement or improvements . The Board of Public Works may waive the requirements for hese off-site improvements in those areas where total compliance with the terms of this requirement would not be in harmony with the City' s six-year street im rovement program, or wherever said construction, addition or alteration is located is an isolated area or where the adjoining or abutting street in unimproved or substandard. The Board may require the posing of bond in sufficient amount to insure the completion 'of these improvements should the Board grant a deferral in their installation SECTION II : Existing Chapter 1 of Title IV (Building Re lulations) of Ordinance No . 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of th City of Renton" is hereby amended by adding the following new sections : 1. Section 202 (f) of the "City of Renton Uniform Building Code" is hereby amended to read as follows : Liability Claims . The Administrative Authority or any employee performingduties in connection with the enforcement of this Cod and acting in good faith and without malice in the performance of such duties shall be relieved from any personal liability for any dam ge to perso s or property as a result of any act or omission in the 7 discharge of such duties , and in the event of claims and/or litigation arising rom any such act or omission , the City Attorney shall , t the frequestof and on behalf of said Administrative Authority or employee , investigate and defend such claims and/or litigation and if the claim be deemed 4 the City Attorney a proper one or if judgment be rende ed against such Administrative Authority or employee , said claim or judgment shall be paid by the City. 2. Section 203 of the City of Renton Uniform Building C de is hereby repealed and in its place the City has previously adopted Chapter 21 of Title IV. I 3- 1 3 . The Appeals Board for purposes of Section 204 of the City of Renton Uniform Building Code shall hereafter be the Board of 1 Adjustment . I 4 . The following Chapters from the Appendix of the Uniform Building Code and thel Washington State Energy Code , of which not less 1 than three (3) printed copies in book form have heretofore been filed and are now on file in the office of the City Clerk and made available . for examination by thle public , are hereby adopted as the "Uniform Building Code" : A. Chapter 12 , Pages 662-664 , "Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition" entitled "Existing Buildings" I B. Chapter 32 , Pages 666-667 , "Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition" , entitled "Re-Roofing" . C . Chapter 49 , Page 672 , "Uniform Building Code, 1979 Editioln" , entitled "Patio Covers" D. Washington State Energy Code as adopted by the State Legislature in June of 1980 E. Chapter 55 , Pages 679-681 , "Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition" , entitled "Membrane Structures" 5 . Chapter 53 of the "Uniform Building Code" is hereby amended by deleting the section entitled "Energy Conservation in N-,w i Building Construction" . 6 . Foundation Reinforcement Requirements , see Table 29-A-1 attached . SECTION III : Section 4-201 of Title IV (Building Regu- lations) of Ordinance No . 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" is hereby amended to read as follows : I Section 4+201 , as amended : UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE ADOPTED : The "Uniform Plumbing Code, 1979 Edition" as issued by the International 1 Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials" , of which not •less than three (3) printed copies in book form have heretofore been filed and are now on file in the office of the City and made available f r examination by the public , is hereby adopted as the "Uniform Plumbing I Code" by the City of Renton , and said Code may be hereafter designated as the "City of Renton Uniform Plumbing Code" . I SECTION IV : Existing 4-203 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No . 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" is hereby amended as follows : 1 I I 4 - l Section 4-203 - AMENDMENTS 1 , Any and all amendments , additions or modifications to !aid Code , wh n printed and filed with the City Clerk of the City of enton by authorization of the City Council from time to time , shall be considered and accepted and constitute a part of such Code , as a ended, without he necessity of further adoption of such amendments , mo ificatioi or additions by the legislative authority of the City of Renton r by ordinance. 2. Section 401 of the Uniform Plumbing Code is amended by substituting the following for subsection (a) a) , as amended: Drainage pipe shall be cast iron, galvanized steal , glavanized wrought iron , lead, copper , brass , ABS , PVC or other approved materials having a smooth and uniform bore, except (1) that no galvanized wrought iron or galvanized steel pipe shall b used underground and shall be kept at least six (6) inches (152 . 4uuu) above ground. (2) Approved ABS or PVC drain , waste , vent pipe (DWV) a d fittings are acceptable for DWV installations in buildings of combusti le construction not to exceed four (4) stories in heigh . All drain waste and vent piping in non-combustible buildings Types I and II construction as defined in the Building Code) and all piping in any building exceeding 4 stories in height shall he of approved metallic DWV piping materials . Exception : Approved non- metallic chemical drain waste and vent piping may be installed where the integrity of fire walls and floor penetrations or separations will be maintained or protected as approved by the Building Official . Exception: Approved DWV non-metallic piping may be installed i accordance with standards established by the building code to p otect the int grity of fire walls and floor penetrations or separatio s apprved bythe BuildingOfficial in fullysprinklered build 'ng .as 3 . Section 503 of the Uniform Plumbing Code is amended b substit ting the following for subsection (a) 5- I a) , as amended: Vent pipe shall be case iron, galvanized steel , g- lvanized wrought iron, lead, copper , brass , ABS , PVC or other approved materials except : (1) That no galvanized wrought iron r galvaniz-d steel pipe shall be used underground and shall be kep at least six (6) inches (152 . 4mm) above ground. (2) Approved ABS r PVC drain, waste, vest pipe (DWV) and fittings are acceptable for DWV installations in buildings of combustible construction not to exceed four (4) stories in height . All drain waste and vent pipe in non-combustible buildings (typE I and II construction as defined in the Building Code) and all piping in any building exceeding 4 stories in height shall be of approved metalli DWV piping materials . Exception: Approved non-metallic chemical drain, waste and vent piping may be installed where the integrity of fire walls and floor penetrations or separations will be maintained or protected as approved by the Building Official . Exception: Approved DWV non-metallic piping may he installed in accordance 7ith • standards established by the building code to protect the integr' ty of fire alls and floor penetrations or separations as approved y the Building Official in fully sprinklered buildings . SECTION V: Existing 4-301 of Title IV (Building Regulatio s) of Ordinance No . 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of th City of Renton" is hereby amended to read as follows : Section 4-301 : ADOPTION : The "National Electrical Code , '981 Edition" issued by the National Fire Protection Association, of which not less than three (3) printed copies in book form have heretofore een filet in the office of the City Clerk and made available for examinati n by the public, is hereby adopted as the "National Electrical Code" for he City of enton, which Code may be hereafter designated as "City f Renton Electrical Code" ; and any and all amendements , additions r modifications thereto when printed and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton by authorization of the City Council from tim- to time shall be considered and accepted and constitute a part of such Cede without the necessity of further adoption of such amendments , 6- modifications or additions by the legislative authority of the C' ty of Renton or by ordinance . In addition to the National Electric 1 Code , a city electrical permit is required before any electrical work commences . SECTION VI :. Existing Sections 4-401 and 4-402 of Title IV Building Regulations) of Ordinance No . 1628 entitled "Code of G 'neral Ordinances of the City of Renton" are hereby amended as follows : , Section 4-401 , as amended : UNIFORM CODE ADOPTED : Said"Uniform Swimming Pool Code , 1979 Edition" as issued by the "International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials" , of which not less than (3) printed copies in book form have heretofore been filed .:nd are now on file in the office of the City Clerk and made availab e for examination by the public , is hereby adopted as the "Uniform Swimming Pool Code , 1979 Edition" by the City of Renton and said ' Code may be hereafter designated as the "City of Renton Uniform Swimm ng Pool Code, 1979 Edition" Section 4-402 , as amended: FENCES : For the protection of he citizens and general public , all swimming pools constructed shall be completely enclosed by a substantial wall or fence of not less tan Six feet (6' ) in height and such wall or fence and the swimming pool shall be under the same ownership or control . Any wall or fence shall he so constructed as not to have openings , holes or gaps 1 rger than two inches (2") in any dimension , except for doors and gate . All openings in such wall or fence shall be equipped with gates having a self-latching, self-closing device with the latch on the inside of the gate not readily accessible for children to operate , and such gate shall be securely locked when the swimming pool is' unatten ed or uncovered; provided , however , if the premises of the residence in which said pool is located is enclosed , then this provision may be waived by the Building Department upon inspection and app oval of the residence enclosure ; provided further that swimmin pools already constructed and in operation shall comply with this Se tion within ninety (90) days after the adopted of this Chapter. The Buildin Department may make modification in individaul cases upon showing of good cause , with respect to the height , n ture 7- I of lo9ation of the fence , wall , gates or latches or the necessity therefor provided the protection as sought hereunder is not redu ed thereby. The Building Department may permit other protective de ices or structures to be used as long as the degree of the protection afforded by substitute devices or structure is not less than the protecti n afforded by the wall , fence , gate and latch described herein, All private swimming pools shall be constructed or placed so as to have a side yard of not less than six feet (6 ' ) feet in width on each side, a rear yard of not less than six feet (6 ' ) in widt , and a front setback of not less than thirty feet (30 ' ) . No person shall maintain an outdoor swimming pool on his premises without providing adequate supervision at all times whe the swimming pool is in use so that no person may be injured or drowned therein. SECTION VII : Existing Section 4-901 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" is hereby amended as follows : Section 4-90i1 , as amended: UNIFORM HOUSING CODE ADOPTED: The "Uniform Housing Code , 1979 Edition" as issued by the "International Conference of Building Officials" , of which not less than three (3) copies in book form have heretofore been filed and are now on f' le in theoffice of the City Clerk and made available for examination y the public , is hereby adopted as the "Uniform Housing Code" by the ity of Renton, and said Code may be hereafter designated as the "City of Renton Uniform Housing Code" SECTION VIII : Existing Section 4-1701 of Title IV (Buil ing Regulations) of Ordinance No . 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" is hereby amended as follows : S ction 4-1701 , as amended : A ADOPTION : The "Uniform Mechanical Code , 1979 Edition" , as issued by the International Conference of Building Officials" , of which not less than three (3) printed copies in book form ha e 8- I heretofore been filed and are now on file in the office of the City Clerk and made available for examination by the public , is hereby adopted L the "Uniform Mechanical Code" for the City of Renton , which Code may hereafter be designated as "City of Renton Uniform Mechanical Code" ; and any and all amendments , additions or .modif' cations thereto when printed and filed with the City Clerk of the City o Renton bj authorization of the City Council from time to time sh.. 11 be considered and accepted and constitute a part of such Code witho t the necessity of futher adoption of such amendments , modificatio s or additions by the Legislative authority of the City of Renton sr byf Ordinance. B. Any and all amendments , additions or modifications to aid Code , when printed and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton b authorization of the City Council from time to time , s all be considered and accepted and constitute a part of such Code wi hout the necessity of further adoption of such amendments , modificati ns or additions by the legislative authority of the City of Renton or by ordinance . C. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to duly authenticate and record a copy of the abovementioned Code , toget er with any amendments or additions thereto , together with an authe ticated copy of :this Ordinance . D. This Ordinance shall not be construed to relieve from sr lessen t e responsibility of any person owning , building, alteriig , construe ing or moving any building or structure as defined in tie afore- said Code; nor shall the City of Renton or any agent thereof be held as assuming such liability by reason of inspection authorized herein or a Certificate of Inspection issued by the City or any of its agencies . D. Amendment to Section 304 . 1 of Uniform Mechanical Code : The sum of six dollars ($6 . 00) shall be the fee for the issuance of each permit . 9- SECTION IX: Any and all ordinances or parts of ordinanc s in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION X: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its pass ge , approval and five days after -its publication . PASED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 4th day of May , 19 1 . De ores A. Mead, . ty C . rk AP "ROVED BY THE MAYOR ?nth day of May 19 1 . Richard M. Stredicke, Ma or Pro tF Approved as to form: Lawrence J . 4arren , City Attorney Date of Publication : May 8, 1981 (Summary Form) r SECTION IX: Any and all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION X: This • .rdin .nce shall be in full force and effect upon its passage , approval and five days after its publication . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 4th day of May 198L . De ores A. 14ead,/11 rk APP OVED BY THE MAYORPE% 4th day of May 1981 . i.1 .-J _ ct,‘..,-mot_ Richard M . Stredicke, Mayor Pro to Approved as to form: 2 C- Lawr'ence J . arren , City Attorney Date of Publications May 8, 1981 (Summary Form) I` TABLE 29-A-1 REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED FOR FOUNDATION WALL SUBJECTED TO NOT MORE THAN 30 PCF EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE NOR SURCHARGE WHEN LOCATED IN SEISMIC ZONE NO. 3 For Placement of Steel See *** F.N.3) See Footnote 4) Height of Sill Plate Req. Reinforcing Material I Minimum Wall 1 Type Unbalanced Thickness Anchorage Backfilll F.N.1 Vert. Horiz. i I 1/2" A.B. 0 6' # 4 @ Hollow 4' or less 8" o.c. Fill voids Masonry @ 4' o.c. 4' o.c. over 4' 8" Design Req. Design Design Req.Req. None one Concrete 3' or less 6" 1/2" x 10" A.B. (Refer toNUBC Under @ 6" o.c. TABLE 29-A) Wood 4' or less 8" 1/2" x 10" A.B.None #4 at Cripple I A 6" o.c. a wall Wall) Not Allowed Unless Special Design is Submittedover4 and Approved 4' or less 6" 6/ ; x 10" A.B. None =4 at ConcretIe o.c. rg mt Supported F.N. 2 of ward at Top by 5' or less 8" 1/ 2' o.1 A B. None o land Floor F.N. 2 o?ttO 1 System 7' or less 6" 1/2"_x10" A.B. `4 @ 16" "-4 at and at a *F6 N. o2c.o**F.N.3 16 o.c. Bottom by I 1/2" x 10" A/B. =4 @ 16" ;-4 at Slab) 8' or less 8"@ i' o.c,* F.N. 2 N. 3 16" o.c. 9' or less 9" 1/2" x 10" A.B. =5 @ 18" 45 at @ *Fo.c. 2 o.c.18" o.c. F.N. 3 5/8" x 10" A.B. 45 @ 16" 45 at 10' or less 10" @ 2' o.c. o.c.16" o.c. F.N. 2 F.N.3 over 10' Not Allowed Unless Special Design is Submitted and Approved F.N. 1 Floor diaphragm must be completed before backfilling. F.N.2 Solid block first two joist spaces adjacent to anchor bolts where floor joists are parallel to the wall. F.N.3 Vertical steel shall be placed within the inside half of the wall and not closer than 3/4" clear from the inside face of the wall. F.N.4 All footings minimum 2 #4 continuous. OF RF db BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR z I o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 o 235-2540 9, o to oR r O P February 3, 1982 EO SEP-C BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH II MAYOR U.S. Home Corporation 31710 - 124th Place S.E. Auburn, Washington Attention: Mr. Morgan Llewellyn Subject: Off-Site Improvements For the Terrace Condominiums on N.E. 4th Street, Renton I Gentl eni The City of Renton Building Code Ordinance Section 4-103,A, requires that off-site improvements, including all necessary appurtenances, be installed when a new building is constructed. A determination has been shade by our Traffic Engineer that a traffic signal is necessary at the new intersection of N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue N.E. The installation of this signal and intersection construction will be xequiied as part of your construction and •must.be completed prior to occupancy. Please submit plans for the signal and intersection construction -- --- -- -- ourur office for approval. We will be unable to approve the building permit until the signal plans are approved. Sincerely, James C. Hanson Assistant Building Director JCH/mp cc: Homecraft Land Development Co. , Inc. 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 RECEIVED HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN FEB - 5 1982 EXHIBIT 2 AM PM 718,911fi,h,t21114,..),•.i15,6 r I L .,,i. . 711/4.', ' f '' .' • ..‘?' •" 4-:',,‘,t':- .''', 1::'1!,:-...,:':.'4. i;..,,,,,, 0,.,4„,,,,...,:ce,;,,,,,,, Whenever a building permit is applied for under the provisions W',.fc,':W.e-Ti4 i• ,. : ,`. ';',-f; of this Code for new construction of a multiple dwelling, consisting of two (2) or more unitS,...public'assemblY, „domMencial' OrindUstrail structure, or alteration of an existing structure of said type, in excess of ten thousand dollars (810,000.00), then the person applying for such building permit shall simultaneously forthwith also make appication for t permit, as an integral part of*such new construction or the alteration thereof, for the building and installation of certain , off-site improvements consisting of sideWalks, curbs, gutters and street paving shall extend the full distance that such property to be Iimproved upon is sought to be occupied ae...a, buildhg site or parking area for the aforesaid building purposes and which may adjoin property ded.cated as a public street. All such sidewalks required to be constructed under the provisions of this Section shall be of a minimum eight feet (8' ) in I width and shall be constructed of Portland Cement concrete; sidewalks, curbs, gutters and street Paving shall otherwise conform to Standard 1 . ., Specifications 56r Muhicipal Public Works Construction, commonly known as APWA Standards. Street widths and standards of construction shall be specified by the Director of Public Works or his duly authorized O representative. All plans and specifications for, such iMprovements to d submitted at time such application for a permit is made. All permits required for the constructioh of sidewalks, cur s, gutters and street paving shall be applied for and obtained in the same manner, fees and conditions as specified in Chapter 8, Title IX (Public Ways and Property) of Ordinance No'. 1268 entitled aide of 'General Ordinances of the City of Renton", relating to excavating or :disturhing btreets, alleys, pavement or improvements. coP I.,,-, ,:p.,;•.:.. ,.,,, i-„;;:.J ,-,*.:.:',,, ,,..,,,. ,,,y.:,..:,-,:i, ,,, f!,: l. ,,k..;:,,,,y,.. t,,z ,irX.,',at'e,,,,,v ,,f,' ,,:r,r. i:, - s,:;: ,'')3',',,i,f,:',v ,ii.;' '..'',,:':i;'1:''3`,. .';'1',4':',',;:! .:v06'.;:;:;.V.51t1 .y•:,r, -,,iNz,--4Nt:'•:'','''',:', ,,',, q;:;-;:*,,„',.,' -:,.:,:::_,ii.: ,:,•,-' ,:v::,.-':y, 1:1:,',;:':',:;',"..,°:;;;'!: ::'''- ';''',Z'i?':::'i,:: :Y;1, 1''':Ti .'';' ,'i': ',, 6: :ff,g,,•41,,:: ::11:',::t';!,),, ;'i.::,:'1'i,N;V,tii,:',!.,-4,:ti':::;,24,5:4A'',:':,:,,gt,R:i',: ;,, ,:;V:;':',:*]':'?;: ,'::,:''');',',:: ::V;i:,1%. ',:-,':y::,:.:':;: !:':'!' FORM 115 BUILDING DIV'TS''ION CITY OF`RENTON WASHINGTON PPi:ICATION-, FOR BUILDING PERMIT; TO BE:FILLED OUT IN DETAIL BY APPLICANT OR PERMIT, CANNOT. BE ISSUED Owner: U. S. ,- OC ri: C01kvA $EATTti.0 W.4w•JOB`,Addressr . I 7,/,:'' qT1 1174- ..CY 6616'C' . Ad ress: -lair. 13, p;.t BIk:; Subdivision 1 Telephone:t J Va e, of Com leted World', $ OC`iQOO. cQEsluF 40 De cript.ion of Work Qr:.uT _ c:ON :.Mr rv &. - A('ELT aon st.1 c, oY' Tw a:,iNc s wi.rrt.: N, S .a"7 :-k. i..oc Rcrc.1..pr G=N?2-04%6.- ca, r YI4!R;p I _ - c.6146 1.6Ti nits ' t S 4G.6=2'7 E•••Ji . eo..ra-i-= :fr I '1 e9.1 w\• C:-tZ 1 V::://)-,1)'' s'-' frzi- - • , , , 7 _re,:fl- c,-;--, c-7---6 - :-,- --' i,.) Contractor: V 5..: 1 10;:M I' ce+1ftp'-: SaITC` -r1N' Q41s/• State License No. Address: IL Bus Li'c. No Telephone 57J CONSTRUCTION'` Fire Resistive Heavy ;Timber Roof Covering.'.`, . .• '3CXa'* CGMPCSI T1 7?-6°Ordinary Masonry 1 We@ 'Frame X No ' -of Stories: 3 No. of Units Un rotected Metal H • How Heated o-=C..-r.ic- C Plans,'Submitted: Yes: . Na ?d SETBACKS:: Front. Yard Rear Yard Side"Yard Side Yard 1) •This application; does not :constitute a permit to' work.;:"„Wo'rk is not to commence until building '.permit is posted 'on,-premises' where' work ie .to be ,..performed.a 2)' Certification 's 'khereb"y, rendered-.;thatr no work is., to be done:.except as described and that all''work'.sha'll conforn;to`the applicable codes. : 3) Work: in public ri'ght:-o`f-w -, .`and/or utility,:easements° is not authorized under this application. ., ,. ,--, ‘:.,-..:...;,..',...„: :-.:2;:;`-f: ..'1, ':,.„:..:,'''''..."';'''''' ,;'* ,;,'::''.!:`:''',::',::•,:i'',:%:..-.,:. ''-':'' '''';'' ENCLOSE A. SELF-ADDRESSED, -STAMPED ENVELOPE if requesting permit`be returned by mail. Ttpta.l .Fee Enclosed $ :'S b'J7 Signature 1 Date S- 6"1 NO-E: • Make checkpayable .to City of`• Renton r - t;i ts.f cM r February4.'3' a1982 K F.aM. 1 U.S. Home Corporation 1- a 31717 - 124th Place S.E. n 1. Auburn,_Wasgi.ngtan' : . Attention: Mr. 'Morgan",Liewellyri,:' Subj ct.: Off-Site Improiremeiits,For'the. Teri/toe', Candominiums' ori,.LE. .,4th`.Stree1*t, . 1:*ton Gent emen i 1: 1' The City of Renton:'Building Code Ordinance .Section`.,44iO3,'A,, requires that off-site improvements,.: ;including all necessary appurtenances,, be' , ., ;. inst lied.when .a ziew building`'`is.conistruc ted". ` A.deterrmination 'ha.s C`` ' been made by,our+,Traffic`Engineer.t_tbit.'a,;taraffic.;,signai'is-.nec_essary at the new' intersection,..of':N':E.:'.:3rd:arid,Edmonds`Av aue::.N:E'. t. f The installation'of this''"eie l`,and..,i nterseation-:•Construet'lon:will be required as:part',ofr your'`ctan x'truction and must'.be completed .prior to : occupancy. Please submit.plans for the":signal ud_aintersection :construction to.. our afflee`for approval We.':will bs unable to',`approve.the`building permit until the signal 'plans'„are.:approved. Sincerely; James C,, Hanson Assistant Building Director f JCH/ f C cc: Homecraft Ladd Devvelopnent- to.,:lna';. 320 Andover{Park E'. ,. 'Suite .100 I Tukwila';'''Washington 9RZS8 .. . 303 UNIFOI' ILDING CODE I ,lied1>.or in violation'of an .ordinan`p y_ - ce:or regulation or any;of the provi- I • sionsiof this code Fees Sec 304 (a)Permit Fees The tee for each permit shall be as set forth in • Table No 3 A,. >,J 1 Th6.d etermination,of value or valuation,under any;of the provisions of this.'otode shall be made by'the',building official •The value to;be used,in computing,the building permit'and building plan review fees-shall be the I totalvalue of all construction'work,.for which the permit is issued as well as al 1...'.sh work,painting,roofing,electrical,plumbing,heating,-air.con-. „_, ditioning elevator's; fire-extingiiishing systems and any,other permanent equipment.., b)Plan Review.Fees,:When'a plan or other data'is'required.to be submittedbySubsection(b)of Section 302,a plan review fee shall be paid at the. time .of,submitting,_plans,`and specifications.,for' review. Said plan reiew fee shall be,65•percent:of.the building'permit fee.as shown in TableNo.3 A Where plans are incomplete,or changed so as'to require additional plan revie ,'an additional plan review fee shall be charged.at the rate shown in Table'No.3-A, c) Expiration of Plan Review, Aplications for which rio`pemit is "' iueii wi tiin"'1'80 days'r"fotlowinttie date,,of_applPall.. on shapepire by`;"-`'-y 1iliniit ttionand+pl,anandofh[adatanbiiiittedtfor;ei wlliria'ythereafter bem returned ito!lheeapplicantodes.royedbyfheebuilSingofflcial. The building official•may;extend,the;time,;for'"action•by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days;upon'request by_the applicant showing that circuiiistances beyond the control of the applicant have.prevented action from being taken..No application',shall,be extended'.more than once. In order to renew.action,:on an;application,;after expiration,,the•applicant shall•resubmit plans and pay.a new plan.review fee,. ; 4:;:;;. d)Investigation Fees Work,Without a Permit. I.,Investigation.When- ever;any:.work'.for which a permit:is required by this.code'has.been.c• om- menced without first'obtaining said permit;a special investigation shall be' made.before a permit may be issued'for such work: ;• 1.:, Fee,An investigation fee,'in addition to the permit fee, shall be col JJ lected whether or not a permit is.then or,subsequently issued.. The in vestigation fee;shall be;equal;to the•amount',of the permit fee required by a hveiatinfeeshall: be•;th e same s theTmin' u t'this-. 1. o e.` h i ,-'in s acdamm minimum fee set forth in 3= The• a ment of s`T bl .N j uch investi•'aae. o, , ,p y g 4. .. pon fee'shall not exempt,any,person,from compliance with all•other:provi= .. sions:of this Lode;nor from any penalty prescribed by law e)Fee Refunds. 1.:The.building,official may authorize refunding of any feQe paid hereunder•which was erroneously.paid or collected: : . 2•:'The building official may authorize,the refunding of not.more than 80 percent of the'permit;'fee'paid,when no work has been done under a permit 30 S" t' • 1 4 t f X u - 7 'F\ta. t• 1, + t,+ .,if f t ' r. F ® If f i ij 5 M1 w } b L 'V. f f! fl i 410?ht,e) OF I lv 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 oail r BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930,9 TFD SEPS0,0 January 14, 1982 I I David R. Clemens Policy Development Director City of Renton RE: File No. ECF-013-81'; -Homec"raft Land Development,_ Request for Clarification. Dear Mr. Clemens In response to your request for clarification, dated January 13, 1982, the Examiner's decision was made after an appeal of an environmental detelrmination. It is therefore presumed that the ERC limited its determination to1environmental factors pursuant to Sections 4-2803 and 4-2810(C) . The decision of this office concluded that the level of impact from the project on traffic at the intersection of N.E. 3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. identified by the environmental documents, i .e. the environmental impact statement, was about five percent. The determination was made only on environmental factors. No 4terminationjwas made as to the effects of other ordinances or regulations concerning this matter as the sole issue was the ERC's ability to impose conditions related to identified environmental impact. The ERC1does not administer areas governed by those other ordinances, i .e. the Building or Subdivision Codes. The request for clarification will not affect the running of the appeal period which expires 20 days following the response to the request for reconsideration issued on January 4, 1982. Very truly yours, Fred J. Ka fman Nearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record CITY OF RENTON JAN 141982 POLICY r , DEVELOPMENT Dom'. I, I hsv 0 T E1HE .0CITY' OF .R 'ITT O IoT 2 Z MUNICI'PAL BUILDING; :200'MILL AVE,SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 n BARBARA Y. SHI,"POCH;„MAYOR ' • . LAND USE HEARING EXA 'INER O P r., • .,.To BRED. J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 41? SEP e9 1 1,, January 4, i982.:;` :', J/4N David R. Cl mens igIENTPolicy .Development Director'' City of Ren on RE: Fit No. . ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft :Land :D velopment, Inc. ; Request for Reconsideration ' .'. Dear Mr. Clemens I. have reviewed :the request, for reconsideration in the above entitled matter, and for the:: reasons'.stated -.below::.the."deci s ion,of December„8;.::1981 is affirmed. The extension: of :Edmonds':Avenue- from N`.E-_,3`rd: Street' E`.•- 4th Street is re uired . various c`itqby ylI::•'ordinances :'including., but not n'ecessar i lv limited to, the Subdivi ion „Code and--.:the 'Building-.Code ;In both:, instances, an applicant i s requi red ,as., a' resul t .of those ..separate approva,l:s, ao improve. right-of-way.. adjacent ,to the proper t ;.,which. is th`e subject-:1°of tfie approval;_ request, whether that re ues is` fora regular lat -'short, lat sin le fami 1 home or mul'tifamiq9P . P 9 Y Y apartment c mpl..ex The number f veh"i cl e`s','`un i is or tr:i ps generated by the,-property i s. not factoree i n, covered by nor 'spec i f'.i.ca'l ly_.included within those or.d i nances. The. .. improvements are necessary simpl..y because the;ordinances require them:.' Actual construct ion`of impr-.overents.aupon ..the property. is unnecessary under the plattinoi ordinance; the- mere-.;fact ,ofpla•tti,ng carries with;'i,t :the requirementto cons.tru•'t improvements. The appl ication for :,a building permit brings into play the workings of `the separate ordinance. (1fr-1 O3A) rand:this.ordinance again:.doses';not d i st i ngu ish between sing1efamil,y or multifamily improvement If the applicant had 'app1ied'' for permits to:.build thr ;e single family ;:homes on the property., the result woul . not have been any, d"i fferent Edmonds`Avenue,woul d have;,'hadi to.;be constructed per code requirements .and;;teh ..,number;of.;;trips ;would :hsave been,;;irrelevant. The testimony and the EIS prepared for :the 'project didn't d i;scl:ose' a' unique traffic '. related need for. .Edmonds Avenue N E: to be extended The city's Traffic Engine=r stated the roadway;was not necessary because of traffic generated by the 'Subject property. The "EIS prepared ':by the city reveals semi lac facts and was."substan- tiated ,by the: appli Can t':s' traffic engineer The fact that the,.{road can serve.the Fire Depa`rtment. ' •' separate 'matter and one :unrel,ate' to .traffi`c generated.by the project.'-:~-The'other".fi rid ings cited ':_ were considered :but:they:wer.,e;:not' decis;:i':ve: .:' The decision: d ; not 'necessarily negate the n edfor atraffic..signal if';Edmonds:Avenue ' i,d N.E.that ' is a dec i s i o .; to be=made 'by city offofficials and'..i s based .on a number. of cons i derat i o s;wh i,ch.?mus be made to determine .whether -a''s i gna l i zed 'intersection s OF RA, A 0 THE CITY OF RENTONU ` Q" z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 980 5 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXA INER 94 o FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-'5930, 91' eo SEPTAts January 14, 1982 David R. Clemens Policy Development Director City of Renton E: File No. ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; Request for Clarification. Dear Mr. Clemens: In esponse to your request for clarification, dated January 13, 1982, the Examiner's decision was made after an appeal of an environmental determination. It is therefore presumed that the ERC limited its determination to environmental factors pursuant to Sections 4-2803 and 4-2810(C) . the decision of this office concluded that the level of impact from the project on traffic at the intersection of N.E. 1 3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. identified by the environmental doc ments, i .e. the environmental impact statement, was about five percent. The determination was made only on environmental factors. No determination was made as to the effects of other ordinances or regulations concerning this matter as the sole issue was the ERC's ability to impose conditions related to identified environmental impact. The ERC does not administer areas governed by those other ordinances, i .e. the Building or Subdivision Codes. The request for Flarification will not affect the running of the appeal period whlich expires 20 days following the response to the. requ st for reconsideration issued on January 4, 1982. Very truly yours, 04APN'''''. - Fred J. Ka fman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record OF R 4. 4 ,0 o THE CITY OF RENTON U `$ 0 ' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 9:055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235- 2550 e- 94TED SEP1 MEMORANDUM January 13, 1982 TO: Fred J. Kaufman L nd Use Hearing Examiner 1 /1 FROM: Da id R. Clemens Policy Development Director RE: QUEST FOR CLARIFICATION: LETTER OF JANUARY 4, 1982. F LE ECF-013-81, HOMECRAFT The Envir.nmental Review Committee has attempted to determine the effect of your .ecision on our request for reconsideration. A response to the, following, we believe, will greatly assist us: Question: Is the Examiner's decision based upon. the determination that the proponent's responsibility for bearing the full cost of the initiall signalization is not prescribed by ordinance 4-103A and 9-1102-9.2 and 9-1105-6)? or - Is the decision based upon a finding that the signal and its cost to the proponent is not timely with the initial develop- ment phases and may be appropriate prior to the final occu- pancy of the development? We would also appreci to clarification of the date on which your decision will be inal. Thank -yo DRC:wr cc: Environmental Review Committee Gar Norris RECEIVEDCHE4iNGERENTONxAMINER AM JA N 1 31982 7i8i9r10,11 1211,9 c, PM li 11k BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 2- December 30, 1981 problem because they have 42' of R/W and 18 additional feet out of the paving, plus a problem with funding for any widening in the foreseeable future. Moved by NELSON, seconded by CLEMENS, that the deferral be granted per Building Depart- ments recommendations, i.e. , sign set back 1' back of property line and a height restriction of 10' . MOTION CARRIED b. Application for Home Business License, 107 Main Ave. S. #402, Cedar River Photographics. Discussion followed as to this not being a home business license technically under the City Ordinance. Moved by CLEMENS, seconded by NORRIS, that this be referred to appropriate City Departments for their action. MOTION CARRIED. c. Application for Home Business License, 1705 Pierce Ave. S.E. , Sewing Consultant. The application was read and determination made that there would be customers or clientele. Moved by NELSON, seconded by CLEMENS, that the application be denied on the basis of there being customers on the site which is not allowed as home business usage. MOTION CARRIED d. Deferral Off-Site Improvements, Homecraft Land Development Co. , Inc. , btwn. N.E. 3rd F, N.E. 4th Sts. , West of Edmonds Ave. N.E. Moved by NORRIS, seconded by MATHEWS to postpone this matter until the ERC requested review has been reconsid- ered. CLEMENS call for discussion and asked that Mr. Snell, who was present, be given time to explain why this item was before the Board. Mr. Snell advised he was with Hazzard Tousley F, Brain who represented Homecraft. He went on to say that the motion made had no particular bearing upon their request as the Hearing Examiner in his statement said that any question of deferral of improve- ments to Edmonds should be referred to the Board. He stated that they have a short plat that needs to be filed and that they can not get the plat recorded unless they obtain a deferral or have the improvements installed. Also they need to have the short plat recorded the first part of the new year. Chairman Houghton clarified that this request really had nothing to do with Homecraft per se but that they were going back to the original short plat and in order to have it recorded they must have a deferment of improvements and post bond. Mr. Clemens explained that the problem would be the extent of the deferral and stated that the key question would be whether the Hearing Examiner would agree or disagree as to whether the intersection would have to be improved. He went on to address that fact that if the proponent was willing to bond for the full improvement of the intersection, a two piece bond - one for street improvements, the other for intersection, then if the Hearing Examiner disagreed and the City ultimately does not prevail and would have to go to Court, at least the deferral would be insured. Ron Nelson asked about the length of the deferral which the applicant had originally requested, that of a 3 year period. He explained that the Fire Department had doubts as to access for emergency purposes, especially in that time frame. Jim Mathews advised that they had no problem with access but with access routes as addressed in the Environmental Review, i.e. , response routes. He went on to say that their approach is one of consistency, i.e. , on projects of larger scale, they have required full access roads to be installed. Mr. Clemens asked the applicant for an estimate and he responded with a 100,000 figure. Mr. Nelson reminded the Board that there was a motion before them on postponing this matter. Jim Mathews withdrew his second to the motion before the Board. Moved by MATHEWS, seconded by CLEMENS, that the deferral be granted in two parts, one for the construction of Edmonds Ave. N.E. , the other y ../ BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 3- December 30, 1981 the installation of the signal, conditional only that the deferral is goodIfor the short plat and at most the foundation permits. CLEMENS clarified moti'n: deferral be granted in two parts, one part that Edmonds Ave. N.E. be completed by occ pancy of the 1st Phase; second part is the intersection improvements subjec to resolution by the Hearing Examiner and covered by appropriate b' nds in tw pieces) . MOTION CARRIED. 6. NEW BUSINE S - None 7. OLD BUSINE S a., Off-Si a Improvements, Bowen Short Plat. Discussion ensued as to what was required of Mr. Bowen as he had come into the office relative letter sent him instructing him tolput in the improvements. Moved by CLEMENS, seconded by NELSON -- that the Board notify Mr. Bowen that the improvements be installed by May 1, 1982 and th t the Board will review this at the first meeting in April to revi 1w whethe they will call the bond in. MOTION CARRIED b. On-Sit Improvements, Church of the Nazarene, 850 Union Ave. N.E. Chairm n noted that bond expires in June 1982 but deferral is up January 22, 1982. Moved by CLEMENS, seconded by HUFNAGLE, that the Board notify the Church that they install the improvvements by the first of June 1982 and also the Board will review at the first meeting in May 1982 to decide whether they will pull he bond. MOTION CARRIED. 8. COMMENTS D ANNOUNCEMENTS: a. Ron Ne son commented on the fact that Gordon Miller, 405 S.W. Langston Rd , had not complied with policies governing use of right of way permit. This-has to do ith a fence that was there prior to Board's decision. Mr. Nelson Temarked that t is is only one of many that come up from time to time that have not followed proced res. The Board asked that Building Department write this party. b. Mr. Ne son advised that a deferral had been granted to Farwest Furniture and nothinlg had happened since. A letter was written, resulting in the applicant advise g that they would re-apply for deferral around the first, of the year. Moved y CLEMENS, seconded by HUFNAGLE, that the Board send them a letter advising of the expiration of the deferral and if no response it will be turned ov-r to the Ci y Attorney kor handling. MOTION CARRIED 9. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m. c?,9--.: :"-/ "7/. 9- , Patricia M. Porter Secretary APPROVED:') %,4„.47rup,1-- ){ 23/, 8/ Date 1 R . OF 4 IQ 4k, AS n, o H THE CITY OF RENTON V G 4 ,MUNICIPAL BUILDING ZOO MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.980'5 z usii. r -; c I o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAA IINER 9p Qom.FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 d?.. iTFD SEPtE January 4, 1982 David R. Clemens Policy Dev lopment Director, City of Rerton RE: File No. ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; Request for Re onsideration. Dear Mr. Clemens: I have reviewed the request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter, and for th reasons stated below the decision of. December 8, 1981 is affirmed. The extension of Edmonds Avenue from N.E. 3rd Street to N.E. 4th Street is required by various city ordinances including, but not necessarily limited to, the Subdivision Code and the Building Code. In both instances, an applicant is requirec, as a result of those separate approvals, to improve right-of-way adjacent td the property which is the subject of the approval request, whether that requet is for a regular plat, short plat, single family home or multifamily apartment complex. The number of vehicles, units or trips generated by the property is not factored in, covere by nor specifically included within those ordinances. The improvemen s are necessary simply because the ordinances require them. Actual constructidn of improvejments upon the property is unnecessary under the platting ordinance; the mere fadt of platting carries with it the requirement to constrict improvements. The applic tion for a building permit brings into play the workings of the separate o dinance (4-103A) and this ordinance again does not distinguish between single family or multifamily improvement. If the applicant had applie , for permits! to build three single family homes on the property, the result would not have b en any different.. Edmonds Avenue would have had to be constructed per code r quirements dnd the number of trips would have been irrelevant. The testimony nd the EIS prepared for the project didn't disclose a unique traffic- related ne d for Edmon s Avenue N.E. to be extended. The city's Traffic Engineer stated the roadway wasI not necessary because of traffic generated by the subject property. The EIS prepared by the city reveals similar facts, and was substan- tiated by he applicant's traffic engineer. 1Thefactthat the road can serve the Fire Department is a separate matter and one unrelalied to traffic generated by the project. The other findings cited were considered but they were not decisive. The decision did not necessarily negate the need. for a traffic signal if Edmonds Avenue N.E. is extended, that i is a decision to be made by city officials and is based on a number of considerations which must be made to determine whether a signalized in'tersecti n David R. Clemens 0PageTwoI January 4, 1982 is "warranted." The decision was based on a challenge to the imposition of costs on the applicant related to a signal installation and the methodology used to determine a proportionate cost. Based on the testimony and the EIS, those costs were determined to be excessive and the decision so indicated. In response to the comments of James F. Matthew, Fire Marshal , no determination as to the time framelor phasing of improvements was made. The determination was that the proper agency to make that decision was and remains the Board of Public Works, which body may grant or deny a deferral of the required improvements. The information supplied by Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer, again only lends credence to the fact that an intersection will be created and that there will be a probable need for a traffic signal , but does not bolster the methodology used to determine the applicant's fair share. The objections to the "vanpooling" requirements are untimely and were not in any way part of the subject review and hearing. Under the circumstances enumerated above there is no reason to modify the decision in the above entitled matter. If this office can be of further assistance do not hesitate to call . Very truly yours, Fred J. Ka fman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record OF R4, b A. 0 THE CITY OF RENTON Z o POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 O OMB MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.9805- 9 ccr • Ao9grFo SEPl,M`` Q December 21 , 1981 RECEIVE illCITYOFRENONBARBARAY. SHINPOCH HEARING EXAMI ER MAYORA DEC22 198i Fred J. Kaufman 7lS19 IO,II,j 11213 415P6 Hearing Examiner City of titanRenton, Washington 98055 RE: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, FILE ECF-013-81 , HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. (THE TERRACE) , DECISION DATED DECEMBER 8, 1981 Dear Mr. Kaufman: The EnvirIonmental Review Committee respectfully requests reconsideration of -.he Examiner's decision in the above- referencep case in which the Examiner determined that the ERC was incorrect and that the appellant should be liable for only % of the costs of the improvements of the intersection of Edmond Avenue NLE. and N.E. 3rd Street. Specifically, the ERC r quests that the Examiner determine that Homecraft Land and evelopment Company, as a result of The Terrace residenti 1 development, should be responsible for the initial installat 'on of the- intersection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd treet and that 39% of the cost of this intersection should ultimately accrue to The Terrace development. The following discussion is intended to show that the Examiner' s conclusio' that the ERC was arbitrary and capricious in its determina ion of the recommendations specified above is erroneous and, furt er, that ny such' finding clearly has no basis in fact o' law. Prior finings given insufficient consideration: 1 . The Environmental Review Committee' s decision deserves substant 'al weight. " 2. The extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th is a City ordinance requirement of development of the property (See conclusion 4 and condition #7 of the site plan approval dated September 8, 1981 . ) 3. The extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to N.E. 3rd Street will create an intersection requiring sub- stantial modifications and signalization' improvements: Fred J. Kaufman December 21 , 1981 Page Two a. The intersection will be located in an arterial street (N.E. 3rd) with substantial non-project traffic volumes related to general development of the East Renton Plateau area. (Draft EIS, Exhibit B, and testimony in the August 18, 1981 , public hearing) b. This intersection location has extremely poor site distances due to the close proximity of the crest of the N.E. 3rd Street hill. c. Subject intersection will require both signaliz- ation and channelization. (Draft EIS, Exhibit B) testimony of Transpo and the City's Traffic Engineer on August 18, 1981 , and December 1 ; 1981 ) d. The Fire Department ' s ladder truck apparatus cannot negotiate access to the site via the Bronson Way/N.E. 4th corridor (final EIS, conclusion #3, 'of September 8, 1981 ) . It must, therefore, be concluded that fire apparatus of this type will access the site via the NJE. 3rd and Edmonds intersection. I Based upon the foregoing, the following can be determined: Without development of the property known as The Terrace development; there is no current requirement for the construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th. Secondly, without the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Ifrom N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th, no intersection will occur at the projected location of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. Therefore, no intersection improvements (channelizatiion or' signalization) would be requiredlat the location in question. Development of the property known as ,The Terrace development is required both by ordinance and the Examiner's decision of September 8, 1981 , to construct Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th. (Such construction will create a hazardous intersection at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds 'Avenue not in the public interest or' providing for the public safety or welfare unless both public street improvements and signalization are accom- plished concurrently. ) Both EIS and public hearings on the subject matter confirm these determinations. In attempting to distribute the cost of traffic through an intersection, two separate and distinct circumstances may exist. The first circumstance relates to an intersection Fred J. aufman December 21 , 1981 Page Thr e which is pre-existing (prior to construction of a development utilizing the interlsection) ' in which case the cost of utilizing that intersection Should be analyzed upon the percentage increase in the. trffic, activity passing through, or turning within t e intersection. In the case of this project, the Environm ntal Review Committee endorsed, and the Examiner agreed with, its analysis that the cost for improvements to the _itersection of N.E. _ 3rd and Sunset Boulevard North should b reflective of the percentage increase in total traffic passing through the intersection. The alternate condition, as in the current case, is a condition where as a result of developing land a new arterial street/minor street intersection} is created. The Edmonds and 3rd intersection does not accrue benefit to persons using the arterial street. In fact, the arterial street accrues a net negative impact in that improvement of the intersection and installation of signals will disrupt the normal traffic flow along the segment of arterial street in question. In this case, the new benefit accruing from the construction is directly related to the nimber of t affic, trips entering or crossing the arterial street trough the newly created intersection. The Environmental eview .Committee in its examination of the bene it applicable to this project concluded, that the fraction of the total peak hour traffic from the project which wo ld make turning movements onto or from the arterial street (0.E. 3rd) should control. As stated in the ERC' s letter of October 19, 1981 , the total percentage of potential traffic which could pass through the subject intersection represents 39% of all traffic projected to be utilizing the N.E. 4th/Bronson Way corridor. As further noted, these findings are consistent with the turning movements projected by the traffic report and contained as Exhibit B in the draft EIS. The traf gisturnin movements projected onto Edmonds Avenue from N.E. 3rd range from 36% in the AM peak hour to 44% in the PM p ak hour. Although 39% of the cost of this intersection may be substantial to the proponent, the current decision places 95% of the cost upo the general population. If the project awaits public construction of Edmonds., the Environmental Review Committeewould agree that the project' s cost, is reasonably related to its impact upon the total system (i.e. , all trips utilizin the intersection) . We must conclude that the current decision represents an improper requirement to expend public funds fo private gain. The cost of the subject intersection should be considered an "opportunity cost, " which should properly be borne by the proponent and future land development in the immediate vicinity. Fred J. Kaufman December 21 , 1981 Page Four We believe that the current circumstances provide for only two solutions: 1 . construction of, the intersection, its improvements and signalization with the initial connection of the street as required by ordinance, or 2. denial of the project until such time as the inter- section improvements are required or can be financed by the City. Without the project there would be no need for the intersection. Just as properly, if there is a project, the intersection should be adequately improved. Based upon the foregoing, the ERC must conclude that the Examiner's decision of December 8, 1981 , was incorrect and should be modified. The ERC, therefore, recommends that the .Examiner revise his determination and require the immediate installation of he improvements including signalization at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds upon the construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to its intersection with N.E. 3rd. Such initial cost should be borne by the proponent of the subject project. The result of the Examiner modifying his decision will insure that the creation of the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Edmonds will not be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare through the creation of an unsafe traffic condition. Very truly yours, Envir nmental:R ' w Committee B . David R. Clemens Policy Development Director DRC:wr Attachments cc: Mayor City Attorney ERC OF RA,A. IT OF RENTONTHECCITY 0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYORua C$ f - ' z Wf FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING / 211 MILL AVE. S. / RENTON, WA. 98055 • 235-2642 a, 94T A?' CHIEF: DICK GEISSLER Fp SEPSE December 21, 1981 TO: Dave Clemens, Policy Development Director FROM: ames Matthew, Fire Marshal RE: Reconsideration Hearing on E.I.S. for the "Terrace" It is our understanding that the hearing examiner has ruled Of construction of Edmonds Northeast on the first phase f this project. This office would like to be recorded as hpposing this action. Under Phase I, three buildings would be constructed, each with 20 units. They would be provided with a single access roadway from Northeast Fourth. This is not acceptable with the Fire epartment. There are similar developments of this scope pre- 1 ently being constructed in a phased program where we have re uired full development of all access roadways and utilities. In this way, it assures fire vehicle accessibility and required fire flow from the water mains. At present, Northeast Fourth is an especially difficult street to maneuver with fire apparatus. It is our response route for first-response equipment, located at Station #11, 211 Mill Avenue South. (See comments in E.I.S. statement) I would urge the hearing examiner to reconsider the appropri- tteness of constructing Edmonds Northeast from Northeast Fourth o Northeast Third Extension, in light of the need for an im- proved response route to the construction site. This should be completely developed full width roadway with improvements to allow apparatus to safely cross in front of approaching traffic, westbound on Northeast Third. (Signalization with opticon control.) I 7raee,,XeevP" AMES F. MATTH G ire Marshal JFM:mbt OF RA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 z ..LL • o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 9, 0 o. O Q 9- ED SEP1 ', ARBARA Y. SHIN-OCH MAYOR December 22, 1981 TO : Environmental Review Committee. FROM: Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT : Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; 'File No. ECF-013-81 Based up7n my review of the.above, I would request your appeal of the December 8, 1981 , Hearing Examiner decision on the subject development. The base of my recommendation is as follows: 1 . Without the development, the extension of Edmonds Avenue would not be made at this time. Consequently, there would be no intersection at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 3rd Street. 2. According to the Renton City Code Section 4-103A, whenever a developer constructs a new roadway section, they are also required to construct all "necessary appurtenances." Because of sight distance and existing signal warrants at the inter- section of Edmonds Ave. and NE 3rd Street a. traffic signal would be determined to be a necessary appurtenance. 3. The applicant's' traffic analysis proposes volumes up to 3500 vehicles pet day on Edmonds Avenue intersecting with NE 3rd's volume of 22,300 vehicles per day. These volumes are substantially greater than the daily volumes required for signal installation. Furthermore there are sight distance problems entering NE 3rd with the extensive grade. Without traffic signal installation we will create a safety hazard and unnecessary congestion aswell as the resultant noise and air pollution. We note hat one of the conditions in your December 8, 1981 , decision V requires that Traffic. Engineering monitor the effectiveness of vanpools and Metro pass subsidies. We would respectfully suggest that such activities are beyond the purview of our city staff operation; even if we had the in-house capability of accomplishing such work items, we most definitely Environmental Revie.. ..ommi ttee Page 2 December 22, 1981 do not have sufficient personnel to allow for this added encumbrance. We would appreciate your timely review of these matters. It is obvious that significant impacts will be generated by this development. It is your position to insure that they are mitigated. LA 1 GAN:ad 1 1 I 1 1 b- AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King Mari l n J. Peterseny being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 8th day of December 19 81 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Arh L / J Subscribed and sworn this $ day of pCevvAoe, ' , 191,1 • Iztxvol_ Notary Public in and for tc Stateate of Washington, residing at Application, Petition or Case: Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; ECF-013-81 The min eb contain a ti/st ob .the panne of necond. ) O.F 46 THE CITY .OF, ,RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 n MUNICIPAL BUILDING.. 0M.ZO MIl.LAVE:SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 , 09AO o 9gTFp e , e ' December'. 21", 1981: RECEIVERsEPCITYOFRENTOBARBARAY. SHIN"OCH HEARING N Ex,an N ''R MAYOR C 9 2 1 fiM M rt7I. O,Jt,LtJi2y9813i4i5Pr6FredJ. Ka fman Hearing Ex-miner:.', City of. Re ton Renton, Washington .:98Q55 r RE•. FREQUEST .:FOR.- RECONSIDERATION, FILE EC01.3-81 , jHOMECRAFT'.:LAND.;:_DEVELOPMENT, .:INC`..: (THE :TERRACE) , pECISION.-'DATED .DECEMBER''.8,`•.1981 Dear Mr.... K ufman:' The Enviro mental;:.Review 'Committee respectfully' requests reconsider Lion.of the_Examiner'.;s_:'deci,:s ion in the above referenced case in .:which, the Examiner determined that the ERC' was incorrect::'and .that.. the :appellant :'shou'14-be'-liable for only ,5% of., the:costs of" the•',improvements .'of::the:intersection j of Edmonds Avenue N:t. :and N.E. 3.r.d Street.:..- Specif ically, the ERC -requests:;that;:ah:e.--Examiner determine :that' .Homecraft Land and D velopment' Company, `: as', a.."result of 'The: Terrace residentia development', should''be responsible for the '.initial installati n.;of `the kntersection 'of Edmonds .Avenue 'NE.: and . N-.E. 3rd Sreet .`and;that 39% 'of .the ".cost of this intersection should ultimately accrue to The Terrace .development, The following. discussion is intended to 'show that, the Examiner' s . conclusion that,'the`.JRC :was arbitrary and'capricious in. its determination of the recommendations specified above is erroneous and, -furth' r, that .any such. f:inding`.'clearly _has no basis in fact or law Prior find 'ng's 'given insufficient consideration: 1 .he Environmental Review Committee''s decision deseres sub:start:ial. weight. " 2, he "extens` on of Edmonds' Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd 'to 1'• N:EC." 4th .:is, a C1ty ordinance requirement , bf development ,of the property '"($ee, ncoclusion- 4,., acid 'condition: #7 of the site °p Ian,,approval dated eptember" 8",::1981 )'. 3.treett'wil"1createdanndnwenue N.E:,`;,to N:E.' 3rd . .. r,section. requiring.: sub tantiai modifications.,' and .';signai:i'zation improvements: Y ..F`r J auf•man. December 21 , ° 1,981 Page Two The intersects n :w 11 be loccated -in, arterialan street (N.:E..• 3rd) with substantial non-project traffic--.volumesrelated,;to general development of the East Renton Plateau• area' (Draft. EIS, . . Exhibit, B, . and testimony in the, August 18, 1981 , ;publ id;:hearinng)b. This intersectio :^location has extremely poor s, tiedistances 'd.1.1p.close ..proximity the;,:crest of.- the N.E . • 3rd Street hill. c. Subject.;;intersection 'w 11 require both signaliz atid'n' and,;.channel 'zation.;;. (Draft" EIS," Exhibit B, and:::the .-City'sTraffic . Engineer on :August 18," 1981 , and December 1 , 11981 ) t d. The,,iF" re "Department's ladder- truck apparatus Bronsonn.Way/NaE'e access 4th ;corro the .site i'dor,: finalvEIS, conc:lusion #3, of September: 8, 1981 ) . It must, therefore, be concluded :that. fire apparatus of this type will ;access the site via the N..E: •_3rd and.; Edmonds intersection.: . Based up•n the foregoing, the following ;can bey ;determined: Without development' of thelproperty known .as The. Terrace development,: _there is no current requirement .for the con true`tion' cf.{Edmonds Avenue N.E.. from N.E.' 3rd to . N'..E. 4th .Secondly : without the :extension of Edmonds will occur'at. .the': ro`ecdedQ NE. 4.th,,;". no .:intersectionAveuefrom' N.:E::,.: p j location o€: Edmonds . Avenue N.E. and N.,E : 3rd'< Street. Therefore, no intersection imp lovements ..,(channelizatiipn or:.signalization) would I be required at .the• location in :question... Developm nt of.:the .'property,: known ,as' The :Terrace development: is required both by :ordinance and<• the.:Examiner's: decision of Septe er 8, 19811 ,to bonstruct ;,'Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd to N.E; 4th. (Suchconstruction will create ahazardousl intersec ion at 1V:j 3rd and Edmonds Avenue not in the public interest or',providiing for the public .safety, or ;welfare unless both public: street improvements `and `SAgnalization . are accom- plished doncurrently. ) Both EIS and public hearings on the subject matter confirm:"these 'determinations': In attem tin : to distribute'.Jthe:.`:cost .'of '•traffic-through .,anPg,., intersection, two 'separate °and„',distinct`.Circumstances may . .; exist. The first circumstance :relates to anintersection: III Fred J. Kaufman December •21,.,,. .1981 . Page-three which is p e-existin (prior to construction of a development utilizing he intersection) in which case ,the cost of utilizing that 'inter ection should be analyzed upon the percentageincreaseithe . traffic. `activity passing through, or turningwithinthe. intersectiion. In:. the case, of this project, the Environmental :; committeeommittee endorsed, and the.. Examiner. agreed with, ..its anal,sis that :the:, cost, for improvements to the intersection, of...•N. . 3rd.<and Sunset Boulevard North should be,, reflective .of the: percentage :increase; in total traffic passing"throu• Yi' -the' intersection:. The alternate condition,;??:,,as :in the ;current case, is a condition where as a result',:of., developing, .land a,.new.arterial street/minorstreetintersectioniscreated'. ' 'The Edmonds and 3rd intersection does not accrue ',benefit •.to persons".using the arterial. street.In fact,. th' arterial''street- ,accrues a.'•':net. 'negative. imp act•in that imp ovement. of, ,the- intersection,:,,ar d .installation of signalspill-disrupt the normal..::traffic. flow "along, thesegmentofarterialstreet "in question. In_ this Case; the new benefit -accruing from the.,construction is directly .,relatedtothenumbr 'of, ':traffic .trips ,entering-;or 'crossing the. arterial Istreet .thro gh'; the:newly ,created...intersection:- .':; The Environ ental.=Review Committee in its examination of the benefit appaicable;-,to` this;. project,;concluded,. :that. the fraction of the :-total peak hour" traffic ,from the project which would •make;'.turning.,.movements -onto ;:or from :the arterial .. street (N.E. 3rd) should':control. As stated in :.the. 'ERC' s letter of 0 tober.:19, ' 198,1 ,' the. total: percentage of potential`1 . traffic whi h could pass through, the subject -intersection represents 9% of all traffic: proected .to .'be utilizing the' .N.E. 4th/Br nson Way .corridor.'.` -As further noted, these: findings' are consistntwith` -the turning movements projected by the traffic rep rt and contained as: Exhibit B::in the draft EIS... The traffic turning movements''projected. onto- Edmonds Avenue he ,AI I `peak hour.'to,'44% in the from PM peaks our rom.:•• 36 in t Although 39% of the cost of.; ehis intersection .may be substantial ' 11tothepropoent, the current decision places' 95% of ,the .cost upon th . general;population.'. : If' the- project,.awaits public construction of. Edmorids,:'. the::::Environmental Review Committee wo ld agree, that the: Jpro 'ect' '. cost`.is : srelatedtoi impact upon.the' total ' s reasonably system (i.e. , all ;trips utilizing the inter.section),.," .' We must Conclude that the current decision represents, •an. improper requirement to expend public I.funds for pr. vate gain ,,, The cost of the subject intersectionshouldbecosldered :aia'; "opportunity .cost, " which should properly be borne by ,the proponent and future. land developmentintheimmediatevicinity: ; ° Fred J'. Kaufman December 21 , 1981 Page Fou We' belie e ahat the :,current `;circums ances,ovide. only : : 17,.,, .,s.,two solutions z;• 1 . const'ruct;ion of the intersection, its;'improvements and .s gnalization''with, the,' initial connection of the:'street :as>:,require'd''-by_',ordnance,,: or 2.. . ' denial .of,:;:the.:project. .until'; such time as the inter-' section limprovements are required~or can be; financed b the..City.Y; Without the' projec°t''-a.. . :wool d`;be`'no'nee ii;:ffor the intersection. Just as roperly, f there: is :project, the 'intersection hould e; 'adeq.uatelyimproved: Based u on the.' forego.i:ng, the ERC "must conclude that the Examiner' s<- decision of, December...:8, .•1981 ,' was incorrect and should be" modifie The" :ERC,: :therefore, recommends that the Examiner reviss,e:.'his' determinat' on, and, require the immediate installation `0 ,.. e ;improvements :,inclu'ding:.°signalization at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds;,upon the construction of`...Edmonds Avenue N.E. .,t'o ;its ntersection', with N:E. 3rd Such initial cost sh uad':°be:[':;borne: ,by.`;the ,proponent.::of 'the subject project:q 1E .a y gThe ..resu'lt of, the.. ,,Exam net.'-_•modif. t . h':f decision , will insure E. E 3rd :and Edmonds that t, 1 creation:: of the :intersection of N. will not be adver e to ;the 'public health, ;.safety,' and welfare through the' G'r:eat.on' .of ,an °°unsafe ,traffic condition x. , very 'tr ly:, yours;, Envir.nmental <R=. w•i Committee ljwdBDavidR: .Clemens Policy Development Director DRC:wr r Attachm nts ;.,. cc: ..'Mayor t C ltIy Attorney.: ERC r OF R THE CITY OF RENTON do 0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR FOE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 0 SP 0 MUN ClrAL. BUILDING / 211 MILL AVE. S. I RENTON. WA. 98055 g 235-2642 9 0 947, CHIEF: DICK GEISSLER 0 SEF1 December 21, 1981 TO: Dave Clemens, Policy Development Director FROM: Jame S Matthew, Fire Marshal RE: Reconsideration Hearing on E.I.S. for the "Terrace" It is our understanding that the hearing examiner has ruled against constuction of Edmonds Northeast on the first phase of this project. This office would like to be recorded as o posing thisilaction. Ulder Phase three buildings would be constructed, each with 20 units. . They would be provided with a single access roadway from Northeast Fourth. This is not acceptable with the Fire Department. . There are similar developments of this scope pre- sently being constructed in a phased program where we have re- quired full.development of all access roadways and utilities. I1. 1 this way, it assures fire vehicle accessibility and required fire flow from the water mains. At present, Northeast FoUrth is an- especially diffidult street to maneuver with fire apparatus'. It is our response route for first-response equipment, located at Station #11, 211. Mill Avenue South. (See comments in E.I.S. statement) I would urge the hearing examiner to reconsider the appropri- ateness of constructing Edmonds Northeast from Northeast Fourth to Northeast Third Extension, in light of the need for an im- tved response route to the'construction site. This should be . a completely developed full width roadway with- improvements to allow, apparatUs to sagely cross in front of approaching traffic, westbound on Northeast Third, (Signalization with opticon control.) jAMES F. MATTH L Fire Marshal JFM:mbt- OF R v $ - z PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT w : i TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 O rn MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE..S O RE NTONON WASH. 9805555 O 9gTED FTE O SE B RBARA Y. SHINPeCH.' ; MAYOR December 22, 1981 I TO :.. Environmental Review Committee 1 FROM : Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT : Homecraft Lana. Development, Inc. ; File No.: ECF-013-81 IBaseduonmpy" revie:w of the above, I would request `your appeal of the f December. 8 1981, HeaHearing Examiner decision on the subject development.The basis f my recommendation is as follows : 1 . Without the de1velopment, the extension of Edmonds Avenue wouldnOtbemadeailthistime.= Conse uentlY therewo uld be noirtersectionatEdmondsAvenueNE_'and;'NE 3rd Street: 2: According :to"the Renton City. `Code Section 4-_103A, whenever adveloperconstructsanewroadwaysection, they are alsorequiredtoconstructall. "necessary appurtenances." Because iIofsightdistanceandexisting .signal warrants at the inter- Isectionof. Edmonds Ave._ and NE 3rd Street a traffic signal would be determined: to be a necessary appurtenance. 3. The app1 icant'S traffic analysis. proposes volumes :up 'to ,3500 vehicles per day on Edmonds. Avenue i ntersecting with .NE 3rd:s 1 vo time of 22,300 vehicles. per day.i p y These volumes,'are substantially I grater than the daily volumes required for signal installation.Furthermore,.;there'.are .sight distance problems entering NE 3rdwiththeextensivegrade. . .i Without a traffic signal installation we will create a safety hazard and unnecessary congestion s well as the resultant noise and air pollution.. We note that one of the- conditions in";your. December 8, 1981 , decision'. requires tht Traffic Engineering monitor the effectiveness, of 'vanpoolsandMetropasssubsidiesWewould. respectfully suggest that suchsactivi-ties are. beyond tlhe. purview- o f our city staff operation; .even, if we had thein-house ca ability of accomp l i sh ing,such- work items, we` most definitely Environ ental. Revi ;ommittee Page 2 December 22, 1981 do not h ve sufficient personnel to allow for this added encumbrance. We would appreciate your timely review of these matters. It is obvious that significant impacts will be generated by this development. It is your position to insure that they are mitigated. I i GAN:ad v I I i r i l I I OF R4, 1 `` :A ° THE CITY OF RENTONU >e r )ts- z z POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ® 235-2552 va e' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9, 0 co' o' 9grFp SEP E OP December 21 , 1981 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton, Washington 98055 RE: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, FILE ECF-013-81 , HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. (THE TERRACE) , DECISION DATED DECEMBER 8, 1981 Dear Mr. Kaufman: The Environmental Review Committee respectfully requests reconsideration of the Examiner ' s decision in the above- referenced Ease in which the Examiner determined that the ERC was incorrect arid that the appellant should be liable for only 5% of the costs of the improvements of the intersection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. Specifically, the ERC requests that the Examiner determine that Homecraft Land and Development Company, as a result of The Terrace residential development, should be responsible for the initial installation of the intersection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street and that 39% of the cost of this intersection should ultimately accrue to The Terrace development. The folio ing discussion is intended to show that the Examiner ' s conclusion that the ERC was arbitrary and capricious in its determinaion of the recommendations specified above is erroneous and, further, that any such finding clearly has no basis in fact o law. Prior fin ings given insufficient consideration: 1 . The Environmental Review Committee' s decision deserves substantial weight. " 2. The extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th is a City ordinance requirement of development of the property (See conclusion 4 and condition #7 of the site plan approval dated September 8 , 1981 . ) 3. The extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to N.E. 3rd Street will create an intersection requiring sub- stantial modifications and signalization improvements : Fred J. Kaufman December 21 , 1981 Page Two a. The intersection will be located in an arterial street (N.E. 3rd) with substantial non-project traffic volumes related to general development of the East Renton Plateau area. (Draft EIS, Exhibit B, and testimony in the August 18 , 1981 public hearing) b. This intersection location has extremely poor site distances due to the close proximity of the crest of the N.E. 3rd Street hill. c . Subject intersection will require both signaliz- atioi and channelization. (Draft EIS, Exhibit B, testimony of Transpo and the City's Traffic Engineer on August 18 , 1981 , and December 1 , 1981 ) d. The Fire Department ' s ladder truck apparatus cannot negotiate access to the site via the Bronson Way/N.E. 4th corridor (final EIS, conclusion #3, of September 8, 1981 ) . It must, therefore, be concluded that fire apparatus of this type will access the site via the N. E. 3rd and Edmonds intersection. Based upon the foregoing, the following can be determined: Without development of the property known as The Terrace development, there is no current requirement for the cons ruction og Edmonds Avenue N. E. from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th. Secondly, without the extension of Edmonds Avenue N. E. from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th, no intersection will occur at the projected location of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. Therefore, no intersection improvements (channelizatiion or signalization) would be required at the location in question. Development of the property known as The Terrace development is required both by ordinance and the Examiner ' s decision of September 8 , 1981 , to construct Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th. (Such construction will create a hazardous , intersection at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue not in the public interest or providing for the public safety or welfare unless both public street iimprovements and signalization are accom- plished concurrently. ) Both EIS and public hearings on the subject matter confirm these determinations. In attempting to distribute the cost of traffic through an intersection, two separate and distinct circumstances may exist. The first circumstance relates to an intersection 1 Fred J. Kaufman December 21 , 1981 Page Three which is pre-existing (prior to construction of a development utilizing the intersection) in which case the cost of utilizing that intersection should be analyzed upon the percentage increase 4n the traffic activity passing through, or turning within the intersection. In the case of this project, the Environmental Review 'Committee endorsed, and the Examiner agreed with, its analysis that the cost for improvements to the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard North should be reflective of the percentage increase in . total traffic p ssing through the intersection. The alternate condition, as in the current case, is a condition where as a result of developing land a new arterial street/minor street intersection is created. The Edmonds and 3rd intersection , does not accrue benefit to persons using the arterial street. In fact, the arterial street accrues a net negative impact in that in}provement of the intersection and installation of signals will disrupt the normal traffic flow along the segment ofII arterial street in question. In this case, the new benef4 accruinglfrom the construction is directly related to the number of traffic trips entering or crossing the arterial street through the newly created intersection. The Environmental Review Committee in its examination of the benefit applicable to this project concluded, that the fraction of the total peak hour traffic from the project which would make turning movements onto or from the arterial street (N.E. 3rd) should control. As stated in the ERC' s letter of October 19 , 1981 , the total percentage of potential traffic which could pass through the subject intersection represents 39% of all traffic projected to be utilizing the N.E. 4th/Bronson Way corridor. As further noted, these findings are consistent with the turning movements projected by the traffic r port and contained as Exhibit B in the draft EIS. The traffic turning 'movements projected onto Edmonds Avenue from N.E. 3rd range from 36% in the AM peak hour to 44% in the PM peak hour. Although 39% of the cost of this intersection may be substantial to the proponent, the current decision places 95% of the cost upon the general population. If the project awaits public construction of Edmonds, the Environmental Review Committee would agree that the project ' s cost is reasonably related to its impact upon the total system ( i. e. , all trips utilizing the intersection) . We must conclude that the current decision represents an improper requirement to expend public funds for private gain. The cost of the subject intersection should be considered an "opportunity cost, " which should properly be borne by the proponent and future land development in the immediate vicinity. Fred J. Kaufman December 21 , 1981 Page Four We believe that the current circumstances provide for only two solutions : 1 . construction of the intersection, its improvements and signalization with the initial connection of the street as required by ordinance, or 2. denial of the project until such time as the inter- section improvements are required or can be financed by the City. Without the project there would bep no need for the intersection. Just as properly, if there is a project, the intersection should b adequately improved. Based upon the foregoing, the ERC must conclude that the Examiner ' s decision of December 8, 1981 , was incorrect and should be modified. The ERC, therefore, recommends that the Examitner revise his determination and require the immediate installation of the improvements including signalization at N. E. 3rd and Edmonds upon the construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to its intersection with N.E. 3rd. Such initial cost should be borne by the proponent of the subject project. The result of the Examiner modifying his decision will insure that the creation of the intersection of N. E. 3rd and Edmonds will not be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare through the creation of an unsafe traffic condition. Very truly yours , 1 h Envir nmental R i2w Committee 4BDavidR. Clemens M /: Policy Development Director DRC:wr Attachments cc : Mayor City Attorney. ERC III s OF R4 Aa THE CITY OF RENTON U 40 O BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR v% ap NAL • FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERSo go MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1211 MILL AVE. S. I RENTON, WA. 98055 / 235-2642 0,6 SEGO CHIEF: DICK GEISSLER SEP December 21, 1981 TO: D.ve Clemens, Policy Development Director FROM: J mes Matthew Fire Marshal RE: R consideration Hearing on E.I.S. for the "Terrace" I is our understanding that the hearing examiner has ruled a ainst construction of Edmonds Northeast on the first phase , or this project. This office would like to be recorded as opposing this action. Under Phase I , three buildings would be constructed, each with 29 units. Thy would be provided with a single access roadway fkom Northeast'Fourth. This is not acceptable with the Fire D4partment. There are similar developments of this scope pre- s ntly being constructed in a phased program where we have re- giired full development of all access roadways and utilities. In this way, it assures fire vehicle accessibility and required fire flow from;the water mains. A present, Northeast Fourth is an especially difficult street t maneuver with fire apparatus. It is our response route for f rst-responseiequipment, located at Station #11, 211 Mill Avenue Sfiuth. (See comments in E.I.S. statement) I would urge he hearing examiner to reconsider the appropri- a eness of constructing Edmonds Northeast from Northeast Fourth t? Northeast Third Extension, in light of the need for an im- proved response route to. the construction site. This should be a completely developed full width roadway with improvements to a low apparat>s to safely cross in frontof approaching traffic, w-stbound on Northeast Third. (Signalization with opticon control.) DAMES F. MATTI E Fire Marshal JFM:mbt I OF RA, A v 4i "'' ,_, o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT z yam o TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 oO ® 7 FPMUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 dl 09gTeO SEP-cet# BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR December 22, 1981 TO : Environmen al Review Committee FROM : Gary Norri , Traffic Engineer SUBJECT Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; File No. ECF-013-81 Based upoln my review of the above, I would request your appeal of the December , 1981 , Hearing Examiner decision on the subject development. The basis of my recommendation is as follows : 1 . ithout the ievelopment, the extension of Edmonds Avenue would ibot be made at this time. Consequently, there would be no intersection at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 3rd Street. 2. According to he Renton City Code Section 4-103A, whenever a developer constructs a new roadway section, they are also required to construct all "necessary appurtenances ." Because f sight distance and existing signal warrants at the inter- ection of Edmonds Ave. and NE 3rd Street a traffic signal ould be determined to be a necessary appurtenance. 3. he applicants traffic analysis proposes volumes up to 3500 ehicles per day on Edmonds Avenue intersecting with NE 3rd 's olume of 22,300 vehicles per day. These volumes are substantially reater than the daily volumes required for signal installation. urthermore, there are sight distance problems entering NE 3rd with the ext nsive grade. Without a traffic sigal installation we will create a safety hazard and unnecessary congestion as well as the resultant noise and air pollution. We note that one of the conditions in your December 8, 1981 , decision requires :hat Traffic Engineering monitor the effectiveness of vanpools and Metro pass subsidies. We would respectfully suggest that such activitie-I are beyond the purview of our city staff operation; even if we had the in-house capability of accomplishing such work items, we most definitely I 1 1 I 1 Environmental Revi Committee Page 2 December 22, 1981 do not have sufficient personnel to allow for this added encumbrance. We would appreciate your timely review of these matters. It is obvious that significant impacts will be generated by this development. It is your position to insure that they are mitigated. I fJi LAA GAN:ad 1 V CORRECTION REFERRAL FOR ACTION BY ,DEPARTMENTS FOR THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1981 RENTSTo: DAVE CLEMENS RON NELSON f5 15 GARY NORRIS 1 OEM ,,,.• _ DICK GEISSLER e ''' ter•, r./ JOHN WEBLEY CgNN)NG DON MONAGHAN SUBJECT: DEFERRAL OF IMPROVEMENTS, Homecraft Land Development Co. - Edmonds Ave. lying south of the entrance to Terrace Condominium ACTION: Requesting two year deferral . FOR MMEETING OF:DECEMBER 30, 1981 COMMENTS : RETURN TO SECRETARY BEFORE DECEMBER 30th REPORT BY DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: PLEASE RETURN TO THE BOARD SECRETARY BEFORE THE MEETING DATE OR BRING TO THE MEETING , 10/14/81/jft I + REFERRAL FOR ACTION BY DEPARTMENTS FOR THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1981 gDI6D T0: uaveiClemens LIDEC g B 1981 Ron Nelson Gary Norris s / 4 Dick Geissler JohniWebley I Don MonaghanSUBJECT:DEFERRAL IMPROVEMENTS NE 3rd & NE 4th west of Edmonds Ave. N.E. , Terrace Condominiums for two years ACTION: Request deferral for two year period FOR MEETING OF: DECEMBER 30, 1981 COMMENTS :RETURN TO SECRETARY BEFORE DECEMBER 30th REPORT BY DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: I I PLEASE RETURN TO THE BOARD SECRETARY BEFORE THE MEETING DATE OR BRING TO THE MEETING. 10/14/81/,j f t ailCITY OF RENTON BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL ERXRARUNEK r DATE OF FILING: 7.GRANTED: DENIED: DATE OF HEARING: / 11dO/P/ APPEALED:- I. NAME OF APPLICANT: Bomecraft Land Development Co., Inc. Please Print 2. ADDRESS: 320 Andover Park E., Suite 100, Tukwila, Wa. 98188 565-4662 Telephone' I 3. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED: Between NE 3rd & NE 4th Sts. west of Edmonds Ave. NE 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY -- See Attached INVOLVED: LOT BLOCK PLAT 5. NAME OF PROJECT/PLAT: The Terrace Condominiums- (Renton File No. ECF-013-81) 6. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 7. EXACT DEFERRAL lot D4EX REQUESTED: Defer the required improvements to Edmonds laying south of the entrance to the Terrace Condominium for two years, from the approval of the short plat i.e. February 23, 1983, or until completion of phase three, which ever is earlier. xF 8. EXPLANATION (IN DETAIL) : . Se'e attachment A I I I DECLARE THAT I AM THE OWNER/AGENT OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREIN SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL; RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BE eF MY • •WLEDGE AND BELIEF I/ Seat 'e of A1•".cant 11/20/81 The improvement of Edmonds between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th is not required based on traffic impacts from the Terrace Condominiums. This fact is supported by; the Environmental Impact Statement, the testimony at the site review hearing by the City' s Traffic Engineer, Gary Norris, and the decision of the Hearing Examiner ( "Examiner") See Conclusion #2 of Examiner' s December 8, 1981 decision, a.lcopy of which is attached. Therefore, based on the record in this matter there is noineed from a traffic standpoint to require that the improvements to Edmonds south oftheTerrace 'entrance to be made immediately and deferral would not result in any adverse traffic impact . In addition, the fact that the Terrace Condominiums are being constructed in three phases further supports the reasonableness of a deferral. Of the total of 280 units, only 60 units would be included in Phase 1, 120 units in Phase 2 and100 units in Phase 3. Initially only Phase 1 would have access to Edmonds connecting to •N.EL 4th. Phase 2 residents would have no access to Edmonds until Phase 3 is completed. Given this projected development and the planned installation of utilities as the phases are developed, deferral is clearly justified. Based on the lack of traffic impacts and the phasing of the development, we request deferral of the improvements to Edmonds south of the entrance to the project until completion of Phase 3, or no later than February 23, 1983. 1003B Attachment A 1 l s I i 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A THE EAST 242 FEET, AS MEASURED PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTH 400 FEET AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID EAST LINE, OF THAT PORTION OF THENORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTIO 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 AND EASTERLY OF THE PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY. PARCEL B THAT P RTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTIO! 8, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 "S.E. 128TH STREET", EAST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF- THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDED TO PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 2500774, AND NORTH OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE MORE NORTHERLY OF THE STRIPS OF LAND DEEDED TO CITY OF RENTON FOR STREET BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5664198; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DEEDED TO FIRST NATIONAL ASSOCIATES BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6320179 AND 6553042 AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 242 FEET, AS MEASURED PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTH 400 FEET, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID EAST LINE, OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 AND EASTERLY OF PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND E CEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE EAST 30.00 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND NORTH OF THE THIRD AVENUE NORTH EXTENSION DEEDED TO CITY OF RENTON BY DEED6RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7111050330 ? 71IIo5033I BOTH SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 8.4059 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS 44 T, I David R. Clemens i,.. Page two" January 4, 1g82 . is warranted " The deision was based on a challenge to the imposition of costs on the applicant related to 'a. s i"gna l installation and the methodology used to det rmine .a'''proportionate cost , .'Based on the testimony and the EIS, those costs were determined to be excessive and the decision so indicated. In response to the commnts of James F. Matthew, Fire Marshal , no determination as to the time frame.'orphasing of improvements" was made. The determination was that the proper -agency..to'make that decision was and remains the Board of Public Works, which body may grant or deny a deferral of the required improvements. The information suppliec by Gary Norris,: Traffic. Engineer, again only lends credence to the fact that an intersection will be created and that there will be a probable need .fora traffic signal , but does not bolster the methodology used to determine they appl i cant.'s" fa ir''share. .. The objecticns to the "van,pooling" requirements are untimely and were not in any - way part of the subjectireview and hearing. Under the circumstanceslenumerated above: there is no reason to modify the decision in the ;above entitled 'matter. If this office can be f fu rtherurther assistance do not hesitate to cal 1 . Very truly yours, • I Fred J. K fman Hearing Exarr i ner.,,; cc: Parties of Record". t Ept ,VED L: _ L TOUWI EY & BRAi1 1 Orr10E OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXANINtn-- AM DEC -91981 PM CITY OF RENTON 7,8,9,a,11,12,11'213,46115 ' ii REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Homecraft Land Development, inc. FILE NO. ECF-013-81 1 LOCATION: Between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. I SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal filed by the applicant of a decision of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), acting as a responsible official under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the City of Renton with regard to the extent and nature of the mitigating conditions imposed on the Terrace Project File No. SA-010-B1). SUMMARY OF ACTION: •The decision of the ERC is reversed. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was 'opened on December 1, 1981 at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the I Renton Municipal Building. Parties,wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. I The Examiner described the procedure for the appeal hearing, and requested testimony by the appellant. Responding was: Bill1Snell Haggard, Tousley 6 Brain 1700IDaon Building 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 I Mr. Snell, legal counsel for theappellant, requested that site approval and environmental appeal files previously heard belentered into the record by reference. Responding to Mr. Snell's request, the following files were entered by the Examiner: c Exhibit 01: File No. SA-010-B1; Homecraft Land 1 Development, Inc. (by reference) Exhibit 02: File No. ECF-013-81; Homecraft Appeal of a Determination by the ERC (by I reference) Mr. Snell noted that resumes.forlexpert witnesses who will testify at the current hearing are contained in aforementioned exhibits. He then called his first witness who responded as follo,s: Steve Clark, Director of Planning Stepan 6 Associates 930 S. 336th, Suite A 1 Federal Way, WA 98003 Mr. Clark briefly•described the three phases of the Terrace Project as previously presented in Figure 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Phase I is proposed in the northeast corner of the project and consists of three buildings containing a y total of 60 units and all recreational facilities with access consisting of a portion of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from1N.E. 4th to the entrance of the project; Phase II is situated in the northwest corner tnd consists of six buildings containing 120 units and appropriate parking +ith traffic access to NI.E. 4th Street; Phase III Is located in the southern portion mf the project consisting of the remaining five buildings containing 100 total units and appropriate parking. Mr. Clark stated that original plans indicate the intent of development of phasing over an 18-month period to accomplish the extension of utilitiesinalogicalandeconomicalmanner, allow for balanced approach of cut and fill material on site, allow for a reasonable portion of cost of improvements with the projected sale d of units, and afford the proJect! a degree of flexibility to respond to market demands. He pointed out that the applicant has agreed to post a bond to assure completion of Edmonds f Phases II and III are not completed, but completion is currently anticipated. Mr. Snel inquired if access to the Phase I proposal will be via Edmonds from N.E. 4th Street, and if internal access iln Phase II will permit traffic to access via Edmonds. i I I I ECF-013-81 age Two Utilizing Exhibit /10 from the site plan file, Mr. Clark described proposed access routes, responding that Edmonds would provide access to Phase I, but not to Phase II. The Examiner" asked if Phases I and II would have independent access points. Mr. Clark responded affirmatively. David Clemens, Acting Planning Director, inquired if the possibility exists that Phase III could be constructed prior to construction of Phase II. Mr. Clark stated that the logical sequence of construction of utilities in N.E. 4th Street would negate cons ruction of Phase III in'advance of Phase II. Responding for the appellant was: David Markley Transpo Group 23-148th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 Mr. Markley discussed the timing of improvement installation and the proportion of costs which should be attributable to the, proposed project. He referenced the previous hearing record, including the traffic report in the EIS and testimony of the city's Traffic Engineer, which shows that the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 4th Street to N.E. 3rd Street is not needed as a result of traffic generated by the project. Also referenced was the city's draft EIS issued on the Northeast Quadrant Comprehensive Plan,page 47, which indicates that while a connection is desirable between N.E. 3rd Street and Maple Valley Highway, the purpose of that roadway is to relieve overall traffic problems and congestion and serve proposed development in that location, but no mention is made of further extension to the north. Mr. Markley referenced the letter from the ERC to the applicant, dated October, 19, 1981, page 2, paragraphs A and B, which state that the need for extension of Edmonds from 4th to 3rd is as a result of the need to relieve impacts which are going to occur on the N.E. 4th/Bronson Way corridor. The applicant's traffic analysis as well as the testimony of the city's Traffic Engineer did not identify any significant new impacts created by the project, he advised, and the level of service will be maintained high and accessible at peak hours. He referenced paragraph C of the ERC's letter, noting that it•appears that the data used to compute the percentage contributionIwas drawn from a general travel distribution shown in the EISandmadetheunrealisticassumptionthatalltraffictoandfromN. 3rd Street would use. Edmonds Avenue N.E. instead of the other two routes of N.E. 4th Street and Bronson Way. Further, paragraph D concluded that the Terrace Project's contribution to improvementsat3rdandEdmondswouldraingebetween36% to 44% based on projected traffic volumes, and Mr. Markley felt that.the computation was based on the percentage of net new traffic which would be added to that intersection which was an incorrect method in his opinion. A more reasonable approach since the required improvements are not tied to traffic generated by the project, would be to compute the contribution as a percentage of the total traffic in the area which would be four percent during morning peak hours and five percent during evening peak hours. Mr. Markle) discussed the timing and phasing of the project, noting that traffic from the first phase would enter onto Edmonds from 4th, the second phase traffic enters directly onto 4th, and the third phase traffic will utilize both of those access points. Because both the applicant's analysis and the analysis of the city's Traffic Engineer establish the fact that Edmonds Is not needed at all as a result of the development, to require the applicant to make those improvements in the early stages of the project seems unreasonable. He suggested that the project be allowed to be occupied and then require improvements at the end of the development of Phase III as a more reasonable approach, which would not create significant adverse impact on the N.E. 4th Street/ Bronson Way corridor nor an impact at the foot of the corridor at Bronson and N. 3rd.The Examiner noted that there are actually only two methods of accessing the project, and inquired if the applicant had applied for a deferral of required improvements. Mr. Snell stated that administrative review of the matter was desired by the applicant. The Examiner requested testimony by the city's Acting Planning Director. Mr. Clemens referred to the letter from'the ERC, dated October 19, 1981, which established conditions of approval for the development to mitigate environmental impacts. He advised that even the analysis supplied as part of the appeal application had indicated that the level of service on the N.E. 4th Street/Bronson Way corridor'would be at LOS D upon completion of the project. Under current conditions, the traffic volume is at approximately LOS C or possibly as high as LOS B, and the ERC feels that reduction to LOS D is a significant - change in the existing environment which must be'mitigated through establishment of the alternate corridor of Edmonds extending from 3rd to 4th. Mr. Clemens advised that the increase in the level of traffic generated from the project during peak hours onto the N.E. 4th and Bronson corridor would be approximately 56% which includes some additional traffic coming from other locations. The ERC reviewed the most likely eventuality of constructing the corridor from 3rd to 4th along Edmonds, and paragraph C of the letter analyzing total traffic generated on the N.E. 4th/Bronson corridor comes up with a factor of 39% which compares with the further analysis of the range of turning movements onto N.E. 3rd from Edmonds of 36% to 41%. Mr;. Clemens stated that removal of that level of traffic• from ECF-013--_ Page Three the N.E. th/Bronson _.... .dor, whether it is project traffic or o..... diverted traffic, meets the objective of reducing impact on that corridor. If there is no project, there is no traffic and no impact, and no need for the additional corridor at this time. But if the corridor were not constructed, significant adverse, unmitigated impact would exist which would not be acceptable. Therefore, the intersection at 3rd and Edmonds would be created, and theicrucial aspect does not regard the traffic already on the corridor, but the number of turning movements when the intersection is installed and utilized. He felt that the methods contained in the analysis are reasonable and related to specific impacts created by th'e location and timing of the project. Mr. Snell questioned Mr. Clemens regarding the data utilized to arrive at the conclusion that the LOS at N.E. 4th and Bronson would be changed by the extension of Edmonds. Mr. Clemens stfated that it seems only reasonable that if the same level of traffic that is now being generated by the project will occur on Edmonds Avenue, that traffic is not going to bbee generated outside of the project area and would be transferred onto Edmonds. Mr. Snell inquired if the traffic report in the EIS identified a change In LOS at N.E. 4th and B onson. Mr. Clemens indicated that he was uncertain if the EIS makes that statement or not; however; the letter from Mr. Markley contained in the appeal application indicates that there will be a change in LOS. Referencing the computation of 39% as the applicant's contribution, Mr. Snell inquired if it is probable that all traffic east and west of the Homecraft project would use the Edmonds extension to travel to N.E. 3rd Street. Mr. Clemens stated that the probability is supported by the turning movement analysis discussed in paragraph D of the ERC's letter. Mr. Snell inquired regarding the likelihood of all traffic utilizing one route if more than one route is available. Mr. Clemens stated that whether it is the project's traffic that is being diverted or other traffic on the corridor being diverted, the goal achieved is the reduction of traffic on the Bronson corridor. He also noted that the ERC must mitigate the effects of the project, and diversion of traffic whether it is the project's or other would mitigate the effects and would be appropriate. ] Mr. Snell inquired if Mr. Clemens' assumption is not correct that all traffic would utilize one route, then would the projected 39% contribution be too high. Mr. Clemens felt that it would not be too high when compared with the analysis contained in the ERC letter, paragraph D. Responding to Mr. Snell's inquiries, Mr. Clemens further explained that the percentage contained in paragraph D was determined by enalyziilIng turning movements at,that intersection with and without the project. Mr. Snell inquired if Mr. Clemens disagreed with Mr. Markley's computation of a 4.5 percent contribution as a fair and equitable method of figuring the increase, based on the total traffic volume. Mr. Clemens stated that the committee feels that the proper analysis is based upon additional traffic movement created by the project, and the committee assumed that it was most directly related to the total traffic exiting the project and,being added to the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th Street corridor. The Examiner requested further testimony. Mr. Snell called Mr. Markley, and restated the issue which was raised regarding potential reduction of the level of service at the . • 4th and Bronson intersection. Mr: Markley stated that the contention is that by creating the Edmonds extension, traffic will be eliminated through the 3rd and Bronson' intersection, but that will not be the case since traffic will still pass through that intersection whether on 3rd or Bronson and mix:with the same volume. The critical lane volume will remain the same, he stated, and no measurable effect or change of level of service will occur since all traffic ends up at the same point eventually. Mr.. Clemens interjected that the concern of the ERC relates not so much to the intersection at N.E. 3rd and Bronson, hich already has serious LOS problems, but the concern relates to the corridor north and east of the intersection where levels of service are presently reasonable. He stated that it is understood and accepted that all of the traffic must eventually travel to Sunset Boulevard. Mr. Markley indicated that the Bronson and 3rd Street intersection had been previously discussed thoroughly with the city's Public Works Director and Traffic Engineer, and the analysis had revealed that the volumes and traffic impacts perceived at that intersection are a result of congestion at the intersection of 3rd and Sunset. It had been agreed afterisources of the problem were isolated that the 3rd and Bronson intersection is not a problem but is impacted by the domino effect from 3rd and Sunset. While problems may be evident during morning peak hours at that intersection,if the intersection of 3rd and Sunset were somehow removed from the system, that intersection would operate very well without delay or inconvenience to drivers. Mr. Snell corrected page 5 of the appeal letter which designates the ratio for determining the proportional contribution of the project to the traffic generated at an intersection, noting that the 1982 total traffic volume and the 1982 Homecraft traffic should be reversed. He stated that the issues before the Examiner relate to the contribution of the applicant to intersection Improvements and the method of making that contribution at the 3rd and Edmonds intersection, and the timing of improvements. He advised that the phasing of the project allows installation of utilities and drainage systems over a period of time, and there is no critical timing issue in the sense that the project is not generating a need for the extension of Edmonds. He noted that the only significant amount of traffic utilizing Edmonds will occur following completion of Phase III. IL 11 ECF-013- Page Four Regarding intersection improvements on a fair share basis, Mr. Snell stated that the applicant is willing to provide the improvements, but disputes the methods by which the share is to be determined. He referenced the EIS and the traffic report provided by theapplicant, and noted that the ERC had arrived at a figure of 39% on the assumption that only one route will be used, which Mr. Snell felt was not probable, and he noted that courts concern themselves with probabilities, not possibilities. With reference to turning movements, he felt that the data Is not reliable due to the fact that figures relating to net new traffic volumes have been utilized which project the figure as high as possible to maximize the contribution required by the applicant. Mr. Snell indicated that Mr. Markley's method for determining the appropriate share of 4.5% comparing the 1980 traffic and the 1982 project traffic is the fair and equitable method in referring back to the basic premise that the project is not creating the need for the extension of Edmonds Avenue. He reminded the Examiner that his previous decision required that a fund be established to improve the intersection rather than requiring the applicant to pay for the improvement during Phase I of the development. Regarding the Sunset Boulevard intersection, the applicant has no objection to creation of a fund and making an appropriate contribution into that, fund. He stated that the ERC has distorted the data in the record to obtain the highest contribution from the applicant, and the applicant is doing more than hi.s share in contributing the fair and equitable percentage of 4.5% into a general fund for the improvement of the Edmonds and 3rd intersection. The Examiner inquired if the city has a mechanism for a latecomers agreement for roadway improvements. Although Mr. Clemens could not cite the specific section of the ordinance, it was hislbelief that such a mechanism exists. Mr. Clemens referenced Figure 3 of the EIS contained on page 11 of the appendix, which states the increase of peak hour traffic on the N.E. 4th Street/Bronson Way corridor to be 80 vehicle trips per hour during evening peak hour traffic; and on Edmonds and 3rd Street to be 115 vehicle trips generated Taking turning movements during evening peak hour. The ERC contends that whether those 115 trips are generated from the project or trips already existing on the N.E. 4th/Bronson Way corridor, as long as they are diverted, the impacts must be mitigated. He stated that the findings developed by the ERC are correct and appropriate, and recommended they be adopted by the Examiner. I Referencing previous comments regarding a latecomers agreement, Mr. Snell stated that research has not revealed such a mechanism in city ordinances. He indicated that the applicant is concerned that if such an agreement is authorized, it may not function due to complicated administrative procedures and would result in tremendous economic impact to the applicant. He recommended that the fund system be retained as the most efficient and preferable procedure. I Since ther were no further comments, the hearing regarding an appeal of a determination II of the ERC, File No. ECF-013-81, was closed by the Examiner at 2:25 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: ',Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Homecraflt Land Development, Inc., filed an appeal of conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) pursuant to its review of the environmental documents filed for • 280-unit multiple family housing complex. The appellants contest Il) the requirements concerning the timing of improvements to Edmonds Avenue N.E. between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street; 2) the amount of monies to be contributed for the improvement of the intersection of N.E. 3rd - Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E.; and 3) the establishing of latecomers agreements as a method of funding said intersection improvements. 2. This is the second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant. In the first appeal the questions of appropriate proportionate share of costs of intersection improvements for both the contested intersection (N.E. 3rd and Edmonds) and also for the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard N.E. were remanded to the ERC for resolution. The appellant has chosen not to contest on appeal the proportion for the imp ovement of N.E. 3rd and; Sunset Boulevard, but has taken issue with the assessment of 39% of the costs of the improvement of the 3rd/Edmonds intersection. e The first appeal also determined that the condition relating to the improvement of EdmondslAvenue'N.E. between N.E. 3rd and M.E. 4th Streets was otherwise required by ordinance, and was therefore not in controversy and was deleted as a condition of the.ERC!s determination, although it was included as a condition of site approval. Specifically, the Traffic Engineer testified and the Environmental Impact Statement indicated that Edmonds Avenue N.E. was not necessarily required to serve traffic demands of the development. The Fire Department did indicate that it has apparatus problems negotiating the Bronson/N.E. 4th corridor (See File No. ECF-013-B1). e a I... 1 l I ECF113-81 Five 3. Other than a brief de ?tion of the location of the project wh s located on the north side of N.E.3rd Street immediately west of the Edmonds Avenue right-of-way and south of N.E. 4th Street the findings of the Examiner's rep ortport of September 8, 1981, are hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The site plan for the 280 unit complex was approved on September 8, 1981, subject to certain conditions which were subsequently modified after review and reconsideration See Fille No. SA-010-81). 5. The traffic data for the' project is summarized for this appeal. The traffic contribulItion of the proposal as projected in the EIS is approximately 1,650 vehicle i'trips per day (predicated on 300 units rather than the 280 actually proposed); and approximately 150 trips per p.m. peak hour (again, based on 300 units). Distribution ofl trips among the various alternative routes existing north, east and west of the project site results in an increase on the westbound Bronson Way/4th Street corridor of about 31% or 1070 trips per day and about a 56% or 135 trips per p.m'. peak. The increase eastbound on N.E. 4th would be 10% or 165 trips per day;and 13% or 20 trips per p.m. peak. The total increase on this corridor would be 1,235 trips per day and 155 during the p.m. peak. There would beta 25% increase per day and a 39% increase during the p.m. peak hours. The above numbers are approximations based on estimates. contained in the EIS.) 6. The ERC's methodology was predicated on the fact that 1) all users of the development projected to travel either east or west on N.E. 4th and Bronson would eventually intersect the N.E. 3rd corridor to leave the vicinity of the project site; 2) the crucial hours were the "p.m. peak" hours; and 3) all traffic generated by the development during the p.m. peak hours will be turning at Edmonds and N.E. 3rd, and therefore the project share of improvements would be 39%, the last figure of Finding 5 above. 7. The ap pellant used to determine its proportion of intersection improvement costs the ratio of 1982 traffic generated by the project to the total 1982 traffic whichwillbepassingthroughtheintersectionofEdmondsandN.E. 3rd Street. The traffic generated duringlthe p.m. peak was accepted as it reflects the higher of a.m. peak, hourly peak or p.m. peak. The figure is 2,440 vehicle trips without the project. Approximately 115 trips will be generated by the project. Therefore, a total trip count during the p.m. peak would be 2,555 trips. The 115 trips generated by the project would therefore account for about 4.5%, which was rounded to 5% of the total trips. (Ali numbers are again approximations.) CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the goveinmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to "substantial weight" (RCW 43.21C.090). Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee, the city's responsible official, is entitled to substantial weight, and the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination was in error. The meaning of substantial weight has been further defined as whether the decision of the responsible officilal is arbitrary and capricious (Short v. Clallam County,22 Wn. App. 825, 829, 1979). That is, whether it is "willful and unreasoning action in disregard of facts and circumstances" (Stempel. v. Department of Water Resources, 82 Wn. 2d 109,1 114, 1973). 2. The decision of the ERC to require the completion of improvement of Edmonds Avenue M.E. to coincide with thelfirst occupancy of the development based upon traffic impact islunreasoning actlion in disregard of the facts and circumstances. Both the EIS and testimony by the city's Traffic Engineer indicated that the traffic generated solely by the development would not generate a need for Edmonds Avenue between N.E. 3rd and N.E.I4th Streets. On the other hand, the applicant has not demonstrated that the requirement is inappropriate in light of the problems faced by Fire Department apparatus negotiating the Bronson Way/N.E. 4th Street corridor. Access over a developed public right-of-way may be necessary to serve the development, and therefore the timing of the improvement of the right-of-way should be subject to the ordinary deferral review criteria; that is, review of a deferral request by the Board of Public Works pursuant to city requirements. I 3. Similarly, since the traffic impacts of the development were not identified by the environmental documents as Justifying the N.E. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E., the intersection of that newly created road with M.E. 3rd Street therefore would not have occurred if not for separate ordinance provisions requiring off-site improvements. Traffic from the appellant's project has not 3 ECF-01;-81 Six required the intersection. Therefore, the determination of the ERC that the appellant contribute up Ito 39% of the costs of intersection improvement is arbitra y and capricious. 4. While ba nefits may accrue to the project, the Improvement is not to be funded by theformationofanLID. The cost/benefit determination is not the benefit to the project sponsor, but a reasonably related pro rata share based on Its passagethroughtheintersectioninproportiontototalpassagethroughtheintersection. This should not be based solely on the turning movements at that intersection nor on the amount of traffic projected to be diverted from the Bronson/4th corridor, both around 39%. It should be the 5% figure representing the project's approximately 115 trip p.m. peak hour contribution to the total vehicles passing through that intersection. 5. A latecomers agreement wherein the appellant provides the up front improvement monies and recovers the lexcess over its share by later development sponsors would prove difficult to manage since this corridor serves extensive portions of the northeast quadrant of the city, and costs would be difficult to assign. Further, both the appellant's relatively small 5% share and the fact that its development has not specifically generated the need for the intersection makes it unreasonable for the appellant to provide the up front monies pursuant to a latecomers agreement. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is reversed as indicated above. The determination of the timing of improvements shall be decided by the Board of Public Works pursuant to city ordinances. The appellant shall be liable for 5% of the costs of the improvement of the intersection of EdmondslAvenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. ORDERED THIS 8th day of December, 1981. Fred J. Kauf n Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of December, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Bill Snell, Haggard, Tousley b Brain. 1700 Daon Building, 720 Olive Way, Seattle. WA 98101 Steve Clark, Stepan b Associates, 920 S. 336th, Suite A, Federal Way, WA 98003 David Markley, Transpo Group, 23-148th Ave. S.E., Bellevue, WA 98007 TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of December, 1981 to the following: I i Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Members, Planning Commission Ron Nelson. Building Official Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code. request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before December 22, 1981. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment. or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourlteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may. after review of the record, take (further action as he deems proper. An appeal is governed by Tiitle IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days from the date of the Examiner's decision. I 1 December 8, 1911 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Homecraft Land Development, Inc.FILE NO. ECF-013-81 LOCATION: Between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal filed by the applicant of a decision of th1e Environmental Review Committee (ERC) , acting as a responsible official under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the City of Renton with regard to the extent and nature of the mitigating conditions imposed on the Terrace Project File No. SA-010-81 ) . SUMMARY OF ACTION: The decision of the ERC is reversed. , PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal , examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on December 1 , 1981 at. 1 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examine , . The Examiner described the procedure for the appeal hearing, and requested testimony by the appellant. Responding was: Bill Snell Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1700 Daon Building 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Snell , lega counsel for the appellant, requested that site approval and enviro1mental appeal files pr-viously heard be entered into the record by reference. Responding to Mr. Snell 's reglest, the following files were entered by the Examiner: Exhibit #1 : File No. SA-010-81 ; Homecraft Land I Development, Inc. (by reference) Exhibit #2: File No. ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Appeal of a Determination by the ERC (by reference) 1 Mr. Snell noted that resumes for expert witnesses who will testify at the current hearing are contained in aforementioned exhibits. He then called his first witness who responded as follows: Steve Clark, Director of Planning Stepan & Associates 930 S. 336th, Suite A Federal Way, WA 98003 Mr. Clark brieqy •described the three phases of the Terrace Project as previously presented in Figure 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Phase I is proposed lin the northeast corner of the project and consists of three buildings containing a total of 60 units and all recreational facilities with access consisting of a portion of , Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 4th to the entrance of the project; Phase II is situated in the northwest corner and consists of six buildings containing 120 units and appropriate parking with traffic access to N.E. 4th Street; Phase III is located in the souther portion of the project consisting of the remaining five buildings containing 100 total . units and appropriate parking. Mr. Clark stated that original plans indicate the intent of development qf phasing oJer an 18-month period to accomplish the extension of uti',lities in a logical and economical manner, allow for balanced approach of cut and fill material On site, allow for a reasonable portion of cost of improvements with the projected sale lof units, and afford the project a degree of flexibility to respond to market demands. IHe pointed out that the applicant has agreed to post a bond to assure completion of Edmonds if Phases II and III are not completed, but completion is currently anticipated. Mr. Snell inquired if access to the Phase I proposal will be via Edmonds from N.E. 4th Street, and if internal access in Phase II will permit traffic to access via Edmonds. I ECF-013-81 Page Two Utilizing Exhibit #10 from the site plan file, Mr. Clark described proposed access routes, responding that Edmonds would provide access to Phase I , but not to Phase II . The Examiner asked if Phases I and II would have independent access points. Mr. Clark responded affirmatively. David Clemens, Acting Planning Director, inquired if the possibility exists that Phase III could be constructed prior to construction of Phase II . Mr. Clark stated that the logical sequence of construction of utilities in N.E. 4th Street would negate construction of Phase III in advance of Phase II . Responding for the appellant was: David Markley Transpo Group 23-148th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 Mr. Markley discussed the timing of improvement installation and the proportion of costs which should be attributable to the proposed project. He referenced the previous hearing record, including the traffic report in the EIS and testimony of the city's Traffic Engineer, which shows that the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 4th Street to N.E. 3rd Street is not needed as a result of traffic generated by the project. Also referenced was the city's draft EIS issued on the Northeast Quadrant Comprehensive Plan, page 47, which indicates that while a connection is desirable between N.E. 3rd Street and Maple Valley Highway, the purpose of that roadway is to relieve overall traffic problems and congestion and serve proposed development in that location, but no mention is made of further extension to the north. Mr. Markley referenced the letter from the ERC to the applicant, dated October 19, 1981 , page 2, paragraphs A and B, which state that the need for extension of Edmonds from 4th to 3rd is as a result of the need to relieve impacts which are going to occur on the N.E. 4th/Bronson Way corridor. The applicant's traffic analysis as well as the testimony of the city's Traffic Engineer did not identify any significant new impacts created by the project, he advised, and the level of service will be maintained high and accessible at peak hours. He referenced paragraph C of the ERC's letter, noting that it appears that the data used to compute the percentage contribution was drawn from a general travel distribution shown in the EIS and made the unrealistic assumption that all traffic to and from N. 3rd Street would use Edmonds Avenue N.E. instead of the other two routes of N.E. 4th Street and Bronson Way. Further, paragraph D concluded that the Terrace Project's contribution to improvements at 3rd and Edmonds would range between 36% to 44? based on projected traffic volumes, and Mr. Markley felt that the computation was based on the percentage of net new traffic which would be added to that intersection which was an incorrect method in his opinion. A more reasonable approach, since the required improvements are not tied to traffic generated by the project, would be to compute the contribution as a percentage of the total traffic in the area which would be four percent during morning peak hours and five percent during evening peak hours. Mr. Markley discussed the timing and phasing of the project, noting that traffic from the first phase would enter onto Edmonds from 4th, the second phase traffic enters directly onto 4th, and the third phase traffic will utilize both of those access points. Because both the applicant's analysis and the analysis of the city's Traffic Engineer establish the fact that Edmonds is not needed at all as a result of the development, to require the applicanit to make those improvements in the early stages of the project seems unreasonable. He: suggested that the project be allowed to be occupied and then require improvements at the end of the development of Phase III as a more reasonable approach, which would not create significant adverse impact on the N.E. 4th Street/ Bronson Way corridor no:r an impact at the foot of the corridor at Bronson and N. 3rd. The Examiner noted that! there are actually only two methods of accessing the project, and inquired if the applicant had applied for a deferral of required improvements. Mr. Snell stated that administrative review of the matter was desired by the applicant. I The Examiner requested testimony by the city's Acting Planning Director. Mr. Clemens referred to the letter from the ERC, dated October 19, 1981 , which established conditions of approval for the development to mitigate environmental impacts. He advised that even the analysis supplied as part of the appeal application had indicated that the level of service on the N.E. 4tli Street/Bronson Way corridor would be at LOS D upon completion of the project. Under current conditions, the traffic volume is at approximately LOS C or possibly as high as LOS B, and the ERC feels that reduction to LOS D is a significant change in the existing environment which must be mitigated through establishment of the alternate corridor of Edmonds extending from 3rd to 4th. Mr. Clemens advised that the increase in the level of traffic generated from the project during peak hours onto the N.E. 4th and Bronson corridor would be approximately 56% which includes some additional traffic coming from other locations. The ERC reviewed the most likely eventuality of constructing the corridor from 3rd to 4th along Edmonds, and paragraph C of the letter analyzing total traffic generated on the N.E. 4th/Bronson corridor comes up with a factor of 39% which compares with the further analysis of the range of turning movements onto N.E. 3rd from Edmonds of 36% to.41%. Mr. Clemens stated that removal of that level of traffic from JL 1.• IIIL ' ECF Ol -8l Page Three3 the N.E. 4th/Bronson corridor, whether it is project traffic or other diverted traffic, meets the objective of reducing impact on that corridor. If there is no project, there is no traffic and no impact, and no need for the additional corridor at this time.' But if the corridor were not constructed, significant adverse, unmitigated impact would which would not be acceptable. Therefore, the intersection at 3rd and Edmonds would be created, and the crucial aspect does not regard the traffic already on the corridor, but he number of turning movements when the intersection is installed and utilized. He elt that thg methods contained in the analysis are reasonable and rielated to specific im acts created by the location and timing of the project. Mr. Snell questioned Mr. Clemens regarding the data utilized to arrive at the conclusion that the LOS at N.E. 4th and Bronson would be changed by the extension of Edmonds. Mr. Clemens stated that it sees only reasonable that if the same level of traffic that is now being generated by thelproject will occur on Edmonds Avenue, that traffic is niot going to be generated outside of the project area and would be transferred onto Ed onds. Mr. Snell inquired if the traffic report in the EIS identified a change in LOS at I.E. 4th and Bronson. Mr. Clemens indicated that he was uncertain if the EIS makes that statement or nbt; however, the letter from Mr. Markley contained in the appeal application indicates that there will be a change in LOS. Referencing the computation of 39% is the applicant's contribution, Ilr. Snell inquired if it is probable that all traffic eat and west of the Homecraft project would use the Edmonds extension to travel to N.E. 3rd Street. Mr. Clemens stated that the probability is supported by the turning movement analysis discussed in paragraph D of the ERC's letter. Mr. Snell inquired regarding the likelihood of all traffic utilizing one route if more than one route is available. Mr. Cleme-is stated that wh ther it is the project 's traffic that is being diverted or other traffic on the corrido being diverted, the goal achieved is the reduction of traffic on tie Bronson corridor. He also noted that the ERC must mitigate the effects of the project, and diversion bf traffic whether it is the project 's or other would mitigate the effects and would be appropriate. Mr. Snell inquired if Mr. Clemens' assumption is not correct that all traffic would utilize one route, then would the projected 39% contribution be too high. Mr. Clemens felt that it would not be too high when compared with the analysis contained in the ERC letterj, paragraph D. Responding to Mr. Snell 's inquiries, Mr Clemens furthe- explained that the percentage contained in paragraph D was determined by analyzing turning movements at that intersection with and without the project. Mr. Snell inquired if Mr. Clemens disagreed with Mr. Markley's computation of a 4.5 percent contribution a a fair and equitable method of figuring the increase, based on thetotal traffic volume Mr. Clemens stated that the committee feels that the proper analysis is - based upon additional traffic movement created by the project, and the committee assumed that it was most directly related to the total traffic exiting the project and being added to the NIE. 3rd/N.E. 4th Street corridor. The Examiner requested further testimony. Mr. Snell called Mr. Markley, and restated the issue whicfh was raised regarding potential reduction of the level of service a the • 4th and Bronson) intersection. Mr. Markley stated that the contention is that by creating the Edmonds extension, traffic will be eliminated through the 3rd and Bronson' intersection, but that will not be the case since traffic will still pass through that intersection whether on 3rd or Bronson and mix with the same volume. The critical lane volume Will remain the sam , he stated, and no measurable effect or change of level of serviceIwill occur since all traffic ends up at the same point eventually. Mr. Clemens interjected that the concern of the ERC relates not so much to the intersection at N.E. 3rd and Bronson, which already has serious LOS problems, but the concern relates to the corridor north and east of the. intelsection where levels of service are presently reasonable. He stated that it is understood and accepted that all of the traffic must eventually travel to Sunset Boul yard. Mr. tarkley indicated that the Bronson and 3rd Street intersection had been previously discussed thoroughly with the city's Public Works Director and Traffic Engineer, and the analysis had revealed that the volumes and traffic impacts perceived at that intersection are a result of congestion at the intersection of 3rd and Sunset. It had been agreed after sources of the problem were isolated that the 3rd and Bronson intersection is not a problem but is impacted by the domino effect from 3rd and Sunset. While problems maY be evident during morning peak hours at that intersection, if the intersection of 3rd and Sunset were somehow removed from the system, that intersection would operate very well without delay or inconvenience to drivers. Mr. Snell Corr cted page 5 of the appeal letter which designates the ratio for determining th proportional contribution of the project to the traffic generated at an intersection, noting that. the 1982 total traffic volume and the 1982 Homecraft traffic should be reversed. He stated that the issues before the Examiner relate to the contribution of the applicant to intersection improvements and the method of making that contribution a the 3rd and Edmonds intersection, and the timing of improvements. 1He advised that the phasing of the project allows installation of utilities and drain ge systems over a period of time, and there is no critical timing issue in the sense that the project is not generating a need for the extension of Edmonds. He noted that the only significant amount of traffic utilizing Edmonds will occur following completion of Phase III . 1 ECF-013-81 Page Four Regarding intersectioniimprovements on a fair share basis, Mr. Snell stated that the applicant is willing to provide the improvements, but disputes the methods by which the share is to be determined. He referenced the EIS and the traffic report provided by the applicant, and noted that the ERC had arrived at a figure of 39% on the assumption that only one route will be used, which Mr. Snell felt was not probable, and he noted that courts concern themselves with probabilities, not possibilities. With reference to turning movements, he felt that the data is not reliable due to the fact that figures relating to net new traffic volumes have been utilized which project the figure as high as possible to maximize the contribution required by the applicant. Mr. Snell indicated that Mr. Markley's method for determining the appropriate share of 4.5% comparing the 1980 traffic and the 1982 project traffic is the fair and equitable method in referring back to the basic premise that the project is not creating the need for the extension of Edmonds Avenue. He reminded the Examiner that his previous decision required that a fund be established to improve the intersection rather than requiring the applicant to pay for the improvement during Phase I of the development. Regarding the Sunset Boulevard intersection, the applicant has no objection to creation of a fund and making an appropriate contribution into that fund. He stated that the ERC has distorted the data in the record to obtain the highest contribution from the applicant, and the applicant is doing more than hi.s !share in contributing the fair and equitable percentage of 4.5? into a general fund for the improvement of the Edmonds and 3rd intersection. The Examiner inquired if the city has a mechanism for a latecomers agreement for roadway improvements. Although Mr. Clemens could not cite the specific section of the ordinance, it was his belief thatIsuch a mechanism exists. Mr. Clemens referenced Figure 3 of the EIS contained on page 11 of the appendix, which states the increase of peak hour traffic on the N.E. 4th Street/Bronson Way corridor to be 80 vehicle trips per hour during evening peak hour traffic; and on Edmonds and 3rd Street •to be 115 vehicle trips generated making turning movements during evening peak hour. The ERC contends that whether those 115 trips are generated from the project or trips already existing on the N.E. 4th/Bronson Way corridor, as long as they are diverted, the impacts must be mitigated. He stated that the findings developed by the ERC are correct and appropriate, and • recommended they be adopted by the Examiner. Referencing previous comments regarding a latecomers agreement, Mr. Snell stated that research has not revealed such a mechanism in city ordinances. He indicated that the applicant is concerned that if such an agreement is authorized, it may not function due to complicated administrative procedures and would result in tremendous economic impact to the applicant. He recommended that the fund system be retained as the most efficient and preferable procedure. Since there were no further comments, the hearing regarding an appeal of a determination of the ERC, File No. ECF-013-81 , was closed by the Examiner at 2:25 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The appellant, Homecraft Land Development, Inc. , filed an appeal of conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) pursuant to its review of the environmental documents filed for a 280-unit multiple family housing complex. The appellants contest 1) the requirements concerning the timing of improvements to Edmonds Avenue N.E. between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street; 2) the amount of monies to be contributed for the improvement of the intersection of N.E. 3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. ; and 3) the establishing of latecomers agreements as a method of funding said intersection improvements. 2. This is the s.econdjappeal filed on behalf of the appellant. In the first appeal the questions of appropriate proportionate share of costs of intersection improvements for both the contested intersection (N.E. 3rd and Edmonds) and also for the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard N.E. were remanded to the ERC for resolution. The appellant has chosen not to contest on appeal the proportion for the improvement ofiN.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard, but has taken issue with the assessment of 39% of the costs of the improvement of the 3rd/Edmonds intersection. The first appeal also determined that the condition relating to the improvement of Edmonds Avenue' N.E. between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th Streets was otherwise required by ordinance, and was therefore not in controversy and was deleted as a condition of the _ERC!s determination, although it was included as a condition of site approval . Specifically, the Traffic Engineer testified and the Environmental Impact Statement indicated that Edmonds Avenue N.E. was not necessarily required to serve traffic demands of the development. The Fire Department did indicate that it has apparatus problems negotiating the Bronson/N.E. 4th corridor (See File No. ECF-013-81) . 1 ECG --l 3-81 Page Five4. 3. Other than a brief desF ri tion of the location ofep the project which is located on the north ide of N.E.3rd Street immediately west of the Edmonds Avenue right-of-way and south f N.E. 4th Street, the findings of the Examiner's report of September 8, 1981 , are hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The site plan for the 280 unit complex was approved on September 8, 1981 , subject to certain conditions which were subsequently modified after review and reconsideration See File 4o. SA-010-8 ) . 5. The traffic data for the project is summarized for this appeal . The traffic contribution of the proposal as projected in the EIS is approximately 1 ,650 vehicle trips per day (predicated on 300 units rather than the 280 actually proposed) ; and approximately 150 trips per p.m. peak hour (again, based on 300 units) . Distribution of trips among the various alternative routes existing north, eas: and west of the project site results in an increase on the westbound Bronson Way/4th Street corridor of about 31% or 1070 trips per day and about a 56% or 135 trips per p.m. peak. The increase eastbound on N.E. 4th would be 10% or 165 trips per day and 13% or 20 trips per p.m. peak. The total increase on this corridor would be 1 ,235 trips per day and 155 during the p.m. peak. There would be a 25% increase per day and a 39% increase during the p.m. peak hours. The above numbers are approximations based on estimates. contained in the EIS.) 6. The ERC's methodology was predicated on the fact that 1 ) all users of the development projected to travel either east or west on N.E. 4th and Bronson would eventually intersect tne N.E. 3rd corridor to leave the vicinity of the projectsite; 2) the crucial hours were the "p.m. peak" hours; and 3) all traffic generated by the development during the p.m. peak hours will be turning at Edmonds and NE. 3rd, and therefore the project share of improvements would be 39%, the last figure of Finding 5 above. 7. The appellant used to etermine its proportion of intersection improvement cos the ratio of 1982 traffic generated by the project to the total 1982 traffic which will be passing through the intersection of Edmonds and N.E. 3rd Street. The traffic generated during the p.m. peak was accepted as it reflects the higher of a.m. peak, hourly peak or p.m. peak. The figure is 2,440 vehicle trips without the project. Approximately 115 trips will be generated by the project. Therefore, a total trip count during the p.m. peak would be 2,555 trips. The 115 trips generated by the project would therefore account for about 4.5%, which was rounded to 5% of t e total trips. (All numbers are again approximations.) CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The decisi n of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to "substantial weight" (RCW 43.21C.090) . Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee, the city's responsible official , is entitled to substan ial weight, and the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination was in error. The meanin of substantial weight has been further defined as whether the decision of the res onsible official is arbitrary and capricious (Short v. Clallam County, 22 Wn. App. 825, 829, 1979) . That is, whether it is "willful and unreasoning action in isregard of (facts and circumstances" (Stempel . v. Department. of Water Resources, 82 Wn. 2d 109, 114, 1973) . 2. The decision of the ERC to require the completion of improvement of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to coincide with the first occupancy of the development based upon traffic impact is unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. Both the EIS and testimony by the city's Traffic Engineer indicated that the traffic generated solely by the development would not generate a need for Edmonds Avenue between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th Streets. On the other hand, the applicant has not demonstrated that the requirement is inappropriate in light of the problems faced by Fire Department apparatus negotiating the Bronson Way/N.E. 4th Street corridor. Access over a developed public right-of-way may be necessary to serve the development, and therefore the timing of the improvement of the right-of-way should be subject to the ordinary deferral review criteria; that is, review of a deferral request by the Board of Public Work pursuant to city requirements.r 3. Similarly, since the traffic impacts of the development were not identified by the environmental documents as justifying the N.E. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. , the intersection of that newly created road with N.E. 3rd Street therefore would not have occurred if not for separate ordinance provisions requiring off-site improvements. Traffic from the appellant 's project has not ECF-013-81 Page Six required the intersection. Therefore, the determination of the ERC that the appellant contribute up to 39? of the costs of intersection improvement is arbitrary and capricious. 4. While benefits may accrue to the project, the improvement is not to be funded by the formation of an LID. The cost/benefit determination is not the benefit to the project sponsor, but a reasonably related pro rata share based on its passage through the intersection in proportion to total passage through the intersection. This should not be based solely on the turning movements at that intersection nor on the amount of traffic projected to be diverted from the Bronson/4th corridor, both around 39%. It should be the 5? figure representing the project's approximately 115 trip p.m. peak hour contribution to the total vehicles passing through that intersection. 5. A latecomers agreement wherein the appellant provides the up front improvement monies and recovers the excess over its share by later development sponsors would prove difficult to manage since this corridor serves extensive portions of the northeast quadrant of the city, and costs would be difficult to assign. Further, both the appellant'slrelatively small 5% share and the fact that its development has not specifically generated the need for the intersection makes it unreasonable for the appellant to provide the up front monies pursuant to a latecomers agreement. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is reversed as indicated above. The determination of the timing of improvements shall be decided by the Board of Public Works pursuant to city ordinances. The appellant shall be liable for 5% of the costs of the improvement of the intersection,of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. ORDERED THIS 8th day of December, 1981 . Fred J. Kau n Land Use Hea ng Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of December, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Bill Snell , Haggard, Tousley & Brain, 1700 Daon Building, 720 Olive Way, Seattle, WA 98101 Steve Clark, Stepan & Associates, 920 S. 336th, Suite A, Federal Way, WA 98003 David Markley, Transpo Group, 23-148th Ave. S.E. , Bellevue, WA 98007 TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of December, 1981 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Members, Planning Commission Ron Nelson, Building Official Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before December 22, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days from the date of the Examiner's decision. HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P ; r RUSSELL F.TOUSLEY 1700 DAON BUILDING JOEL E.HAGGARD 720 OLIVE WAY CH RISTOPHER I.BRAIN SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 WILLIAM N. SI NELL 206)624-5299 Ft e 71;07111' OUR FILE LI.0: November 25, 1981 NOV 9 1Q81 Mr. David R. Clemens Acting Planning Director OF F • i " City off Renton Municipal Bldg. 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Appeal of Homecraft Land Development, Inc. Dear Mr. Clemens: We represent Homecraft Land Development, Inc. , which has an appeal hearing scheduled before the Hearing Examiner on December 1, 1981 at 1: 30 p.m. On November 25, 1981 I spoke with Mr. Blaylock of your office and he informed me that you would representing the Environmental Review Committee at the appeal hearing. I am requesting to have available at the appeal hearing the person in the ERC who is responsible for computing the data relating to the percentage contribution of Hon ecraft to the intersection improvements at Edmonds Ave. N.E. and N.E. 3rd with specific reference to findings in A through D of the ERC letter of October 19, 1981. If you were responsible for computing this information and will 1e present at the hearing, then that will be suffic+ient. However, if Mr. Norris or some other staff person was responsible, then I would request that they be availble at the hearing for examination. I would appreciate your contacting me on Monday so that this matter can be resolved. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely yours, HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & B IN amNAne 1 WS/id cc : Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner Mr. Ray Wiltshire, Jr. 1 RI 1 2 3 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 4 5 APPEAL OF HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT INC. FROM A APPELLANT'S HEARING6 DECISION OFTHE BUILDING STATEMENT 7 AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 8 9 Homecraft land Development , Inc. has appealed the 10 d cision of the Building and Zoning Department 11 ( " Department! " ) requiring the installation of a traffic 12 signal at the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue 13 N. E. as part of the off-site improvements for the Terrace 14 Condominiums . The Department erroneously relies on 15 Section 4-103A of the Renton Code and the "all necessary 16 appurtenances" language in the May 13 , 1981, amendment to 17 that section in imposing a traffic signal requirement . 18 Section 4-103A is part of the Renton Building 19 Code and generally requires that when a building permit is 20 applied for 'an application for permits relating to the 21 installation of off-site improvements shall also be 22 fled . Effective May 13, 1981 this section was amended to 23 include additional references to off-site improvements. 24 25 Following is a quotation from Section 4-103A, with the May 26 13, 1981 amendment underlined : 27 make application for a permit , as an 28 APP ELLANT' S 'HEARING HAGGARD,TOUSLEY&BRAIN STATEMENT 1 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS;AT LAW 1700 DAON BUILDING 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98101 624-5299 intregal part of such new construction . . . 1 for building and installation of certain off-site improvements consisting of 2 sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street paving, water mains , drainage, sanitary sewer , and 3 all necessary appurtenances . . . " (Emphasis 4 supplied) . 5 As a result of the May 13, 1981 amendment , the only suastantive change in Section 4-103A was the addition of 6 7 certain enumerated improvements, none of which relate to 8 traffic signals . 9 The May 13th Amendment To Section 4-103A Is Not Applicable To The Terrace Project Under The Vested Rights Doctrine. 10 Since the Department relied solely on the 11 language in the May 13th amendment to Section 4-103A in 12 imposing the signal requirement , the issue of its 13 applicability must be considered first . Under 14 Washington ' s vested rights doctrine, an applicant upon 15 filing a complete application for a building permit has a 16 right to develop his project under the ordinances in 17 effect on the date of application. See Hull v. Hunt , 53 18 Wn. 2d 125 ( 1958 ) . In spite of this clearly established 19 legal rule, the Department has applied the May 13th 20 amendatory language in Section 4-103A to the Terrace 21 Project . We will present testimony to show that a 22 complete permit application for the Terrace Project was 23 filed with the City on May 7 , 1981 and that it was 24 consistent with ordinances in effect on that date . We 25 will also show that the applicant was diligent and made a 26 good faith effort to comply with City requests for 27 28 APPELLANT' S HEARING STATEMENT 2 H 1 information and that it was never informed that its ap lication of May 7 , 1981 was not complete . Where the 2 3 applicant , as here, acts diligently and in good faith to 4 meet City requirements following its application, it 5 calnot then be held that its rights did not vest at the 6 date of the building permit application. Parkridge v. 7 Seattle , 89 Wn. 2d 454 ( 1978 ) ; Mercer Enterprises v. 8 Bremerton, 93 Wn. 2d 624 ( 1980 ) . The amendment to Section 9 4-L3A was not effective until May 13, 1981 . Attached and 10 ma ked as Exhibit 1 is a copy of Ordinance No. 3538, which 11 amended Section 4-103A and became effective five days 12 af:er the date of publication (May 13 , 1981 ) . Therefore, 13 under a clear application of the vested rights doctrine 14 Homecraft ' s building permit application is not subject to 15 the May 13, 1981 amendment to Section 4-103A, since its 16 building permit application was complete and predated the 17 effective date of the amendment . 18 There Is No Basis In Section 4-103A, Either With or Without The May 13the Amendment , For Requiring A Traffic 19 Si' nal . 20 Since the May 13, 1981 amendment to Section 21 4-103A is not applicable to this project under the vested 22 ri hts doctrine, the only relevant ordinance review is 23 based on the, language in effect at the date of the 24 application. ' It is evident from the plain meaning of the 25 ordinance language that the City Council specifically 26 enumerated the types of off-site improvements for which a 27 28 APPELLANT' S HEARING STtTEMENT ! 3 pe mit is required and that there is no direct or implied 1 re erence to traffic control devices in this list of 2 3 im rovements. Consequently, there is no basis for 4 im osing a traffic signal requirement on the project . Also of assistance in interpreting this ordinance is the 5 6 statutory rule of construction, that provides if a statute 7 specifically enumerates specific items and fails to 8 enumerate other items then the intent is to exclude the 9 it ms not enumerated. Washington Natural Gas Co . v. PUD 10 No. 1, 77 Wn. 2d 94 (1969 ) . Here there is a clear 11 enumeration of the improvements to which this ordinance 12 api lies and the failure to enumerate a traffic signal 13 im rovement indicates a clear intent to exclude such 14 improvements . 15 Zoning ordinances are to be construed as a whole 16 and any unreasonable construction must be rejected . Bartz', 17 v. Board of Adjustment , 80 Wn. 2d 209 ( 1972 ) . In this case 18 the only reasonable construction is that a traffic signal 19 was not intended to be included in the type of off-site 20 im•rovements referred to in Section 4-103A. This 21 conclusion is further supported by the decision letter of 22 the Department dated February 3 , 1982 , which holds that a 23 traffic signal is required based on the "all necessary 24 appurtenances" language in the May 13, 1981 amendment . A 25 coil/ of the Department ' s letter is attached as Exhibit 2 . 26 Even the Department could find no basis for requiring a 27 28 APPELLANT ' S HEARING ST'TEMENT 4 it J r I 1 tr ffic signal except for the "all necessary appurtenances" language , which first appeared in the May 2 3 13, 1981 amendment . Thus without the May 13th amendment 4 even the Department appears to agree that there is no basis for requiring a traffic signal . 6 As has been previously shown under the vested 7 rights doctrine, there is no basis for applying the May 8 13 , 1981 amendatory language to the Terrace Project 9 building permit . However, assuming for the moment that 10 the May 13 , 1981 language is applicable there is still no 11 basis for requiring a traffic signal . An "appurtenance" 12 is defined as a subordinate part or adjunct . Webster ' s 13 New Collegiate Dictionary ( 8th ed . ) By applying the rules 14 of construction enumerated in Bartz, supra and Washington 15 Natural Gas Co . , supra , we can find no basis for implying 16 that a traffic signal is an subordinate or adjunct part of 17 the construction of a condominium housing development . 18 This is especially pertinent in this case where an EIS was 19 prepared and after extensive appeal hearings (Reference 20 File Nos . ECF-013-81 and SA-010-81 ) , it was determined 21 that the traffic generated by the Terrace Project at the 22 intersection, in question amounted to only 5% of the 1 23 to al . In addition the City' s own traffic engineer found 24 th t the improvement of Edmonds was not required as a 25 result of traffic generated by the project ( Examiner 26 decision of December 8, 1981 , finding of fact number 2 ) . 27 1 28 AP ELLANT ' S HEARING STATEMENT 5 I It would be iclearly incongruous to now require, under an I 1 unreasonable reading of Section 4-103A, that the applicant 2 3 must install a traffic signal when after a full environmental review the applicant is only required to 4 5 contribtue 5% to the cost of the intersection 6 im!•rovements;. Based on these factors , the only part of 7 the intersection improvement that could even be argued to 8 be adjunct to the project is about 5% . The remainder of 9 the intersection improvements are clearly not a 10 subordinate part of the Terrace Project but rather a II 11 general traffic improvement that would benefit the other 12 95% of the users of the intersection. Based on these 13 facts, the pjroposed condition is unduly burdensome . See 14 Gerla v. Tacoma, 12 Wn. App. 883 ( 1975 ) . 15 The DecisionjOf The Department Requiring A Traffic Signal Should Be Reversed . 16 The decision of the Department is clearly based 17 on an unreasonable interpretation of Section 4-103A. In 18 addition the Department , contrary to the vested rights 19 doctrine, relied on language in the May 13, 1981 amendment 20 th t was not; legally applicable to the Terrace Project . 21 Th applicant has agreed to pay a fair and reasonable 22 sh re of thejcosts of the intersection improvements and 23 the attempts by the Department to require payment of a 24 di proportionate share based on Section 4-103A should be 25 rejected. We request the Examiner to reverse the 26 Department and find that there is no basis in Section 27 28 APPELLANT' S HEARING STATEMENT 6 1 I 1 4-103A to require a traffic signal at the N. E . 3rd and 2 E•monds Avenue N. E. intersection. 3 4 5 Respectfully Submitted, 6 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN 7 8 William N. Snell 9 10 3311B 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AP 'ELLANT ' S HEARING ST TEt1ENT 7 OF R4,, A THE CITY OF RENTONU %e grA o. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930, 9gT D SEP-0\ P November 5, . 1981 TO: Richard C. Houghton, Public Works Director FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: File No. SA-101-81 ; Homecraft Land Development Company . I have reviewed your letter of November 2, 1981 , and can find no new issue which was: not previously raised and considered in the above entitled matter.. .Therefore, there is no reason to modify the decision. The appeal period previously established in this matter will expire on November 10, 1981 . 96J 0-4.2t4-.4------ Fred J. Kai( -nan Hearing Exaltiner cc: Parties of Record OF R4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTI C w • z I o TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION 0 235-2620 NAL 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 11D SEP1 %. 0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR November 2, 1981 RECEIVED I CITY OF RENTO'N TO : Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner HEA't1NG EXAMINER W)V /2: 081 FROM: Richard C. Houghton, Public Works Director m q PM l i.yllUil iL.1 p232,4I+5,6 SUBJECT : File No. SA1 101-81 Homecraft Land Development Company We have reviewed your letter of October 27, 1981, and take issue with the idea presented in paragraph two as well as the letter submitted by William Snell for the applicant. The proposal submitted by our office was based upon the concept that the trip distribution pattern in the Highlands area along the NE 3rd/NE 4th and Sunset Blvd. corridors will be similar to that of The Terrace development. This is I fundamental to transportation planning theory. By applying the vanpool concepit, we are able to most effectively address the entire impact of a given development\ as opposed to site specific impacts. 1 It is reasonably accurate to assume that the vast majority of the work trips generated in the Highlands area have a westerly orientation. Therefore, they will be impacting the same facilities impacted by The Terrace development. The Terrace will be generating approximately 150 peak hour trips per day. With the three vanpools conditioned from the development, approximately 28 vehicles could be removed from the streets of Renton as well as FAI-405. Now it doesn't matter to the capacity of North 3rd and Sunset whether these vehicles come from The Terrace, Vantage Point, the Mastro Apartments or a single family residence, on 144th Ave. SE; the impact is the same. The point is that we are trying to maintain a level of service acceptable to everyone. There exists four points which we believe you should consider in your delib- erations. They are: 1. There is no indication that the Homeowner's Association is willing to accept the responsibility of promoting and developing a vanpool progam. In fact, the Vantage Point Homeowner's Association has already gone on record against such a proposal. I j I i i1 Fred Kaufm n Page 2 November 2, 1981 2. T ere is no indication that there exists a sufficient number o 9 residents interested in such a program. 3. T e intent of the condition to reduce congestion on facilities u ed by The Terrace residents can be adhered to by promoting t e use of the vanpools to other residents in affected corridors. 4. Commuter Pool has been successful in promoting and developing a npool program to date and therefore we should rely on their e pertise. Overall, t1e vanpool concept is excellent for impact mitigation. However, by , limiting t1e application to one site to be promoted by a group which hasn't demonstrated any interest seems futile. Therefore, we respectfully request that you reconsider your position. Further- more, we would like to see the conditions of our earlier memo accepted as a condition. Thank you! GAN:ad OF R4, c; :% tl._. -. ° THE CITY OF RENTON 7„ g Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055z1. o o t 92 BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 094r1)SEPlE e' FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 Octo er 27, 1981 TO: Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RE: Request for Reconsideration; File No. SA-101-81 , Homecraft Land Development Company I haye reviewed the information submitted as a result of your requestforreconsiderationintheaboveentitledmatter, and find that the request is not supported by the facts in the present circumstances. The Illrevailing reason for requiring the "van pool " vehicles was because of the impact of the subject development upon the varioustransportationcorridorsinthevicinityoftheproject. The applicant correctly points out that the emphasis could become remote from the subject property which is not supported by the record inthismatter. it The use of the term "van pool" was generic, but, of course, cooperation with agencies familiar with such operations would bemostbeneficialtlosuccess; therefore, cooperation was urged. This 1ffice would appreciate your further inputfuturepublichearingsandwilltakesuchinput into hconsiderationesematters t at such times. A new appeal period has now been established forthismattertoexpireonNovember10, 1981 . Sincerely, 64.1.V.04040............. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record I-z4Ga), z a- fi Z STEPAN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. DATE Up 111A 930 South 336th Street PROJECT NO. rILtFederalWay,Washington 98003 r • 1 927-7850 682-4771 ATTENTION ENGINEERING a' RE TO tA_ /6mPnrif crt WE ARE SENDING YOU: Attached Specifications Copy of letter Prints Plans Change order Proposal COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 3.ke CkITil — V 1,141:.024L ,,t;d ,s'--JetLys, to Bel QttwvY 6 L., rub Cw,C f eAv.%, w4A THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: Lm For approval Approved as submitted Resubmit copies for approval For your use Approved as noted Submit copies for distribution As requested Returned for corrections Return corrected prints For review and comment FOR BIDS DUE 9 PR/NTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS R,I, COPY TO kl+t'6""" SIGNED: C.' 11" -- If enclosures ore not os noted-kindly notify us at o OF R k>37„tv'ci, ° THE CITY OF RENTON L• yaz MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 BARBARA' Y. g TNrOGH, `MAYOR'.„"li. LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER0F. { a 1..4 1''I ED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 9 rFD SEP OCT i61QIJO, L,„, LITT October 12, 1981 r LLD!.?a r "'' . 1 .. RE: File No. SA-010-81 , ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development Company; Request for Reconsideration. Parties of Record: This office has received the':attached communication regarding the above entiti d matter. All in crested parties are asked to respond no later than 5:00 p.m. , Tuesda , October 20, 1981 . After reviewing any further correspondence on this matter, the Examiner will issue a decision which will either affirm or modify the previous condition relating to van pooling for the subject property. The only issues which will be considered in this review are solely the conditions which are related to the requirement that the developer provide a van pool for the subject development. Sincerely, 4"1/40./IC04,A/\11%- Fred J. Kau man Hearing Examiner I 1 RECEIVED' HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN CITY OF RENT ON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW HEARING EXAMINER RUSSELL F.TOUSLE? 1700 DAON BUILDING n}yQry 1 JOEL E.HAGGARD 720 OLIVE WAY OCT ?, ^ V i CH RISTOPH ER I.BRAIN SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 AM PM WILLIAM N. SI NELL 2061624-5299 161 i:}'dii711fte.:•:i 1 ;2t304316 OUR FILE NO: October 15, 1981 Hand elivered Fred J. Kaufman Rentoi Hearing Examiner City ?f Renton Munic4.pal Building 200 Mill Avenue Rentoi, WA 98055 RE: Homecraft Land Development Company File No. SA-101-81 & ECF-013-81 Dear Mr. Kaufman: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Public Works Department ' s ( "Department" ) request for modification of condition #6 relating to van pools. We object to the Department ' s proposed modifications and request that you affirm condition #6 as stated in your letter of October 1, 1981. Our objection to the proposed modification by the Department is simply that it will require the applicant to mitigate a general traffic problem in the Sunset Avenue N.E. , N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th corridor that bears no reasonable relationship to the traffic impacts generated by the Terrace Project. Our objections are similiar to those raised with regard to the applicant ' s required contribution to the costs of intersection improvements in conditions #3 and #4. The Examiner recognized this problem in his September 8, 1981 decision in conclusion #4 where he held that the costs of making the intersection improvements. . . "should not be borne just by the applicant/ appellant, as traffic would be diverted from other areas to the proposed intersection and would not be generated solel4 by the subject property. " Likewise, in this case the vans would e used to mitigate traffic impacts not Fred J. Kaufman October 15, 1981 Page 2 gener ted solely by the subject property. One possible result would .be a situation whereby the vans are fully utilized by nonresidents. Consequently, if the Department ' s modification is adopted then the only fair method of administering it would be to require a pro rata sharing of costs based on the number or residents of the Terrace Project that utilize the vans in comparison to the othernonresidents using the vans. It is not the appliccdant 's intent to limit the use of the vans to only residents of the Terrace Project but the vans would be scheddled to serve primarily such residents or the avowed purpose of mitigating the traffic impact generated by the project would be defeated. Although the applicant shares the concerns of the Department regarding traffic, many of the long term solutions require the expenditure of general tax revenues and it is not legal or equitable to force future homeowners of the Terrace Project to bear a disproportionate share of the costs of solving the general traffic problems in the area. Another objection to the proposed modification is that here is no way of knowing at this time what the end desti ation of the resident users of the vans will be or what outes woulid be used. If the vans are given to Commu er Pool, then the primary purpose of the vans i .e. mitig.ting the impacts relating to the project, could be defeated. Only the Homeowners Association is in a position to arr nge scheduling and destinations to serve the residents of the Terrace Project and to mitigate the II traffic impacts. Both under SEPA and case law conditions that are imposed on a development must bear a reasonable relationship to the impacts that are proposed to be mitigated. See Gerla v. Tacoma, 12 Wn. App. 883 (1975) . The proposed modification fails this test in two respects. First, by tranferring the vans to Commuter Pool the reasonable relationship between the intent of the mitigating condition and its implementation is substantially weakened. Second, if the applicant is Fred J. Kaufman October 15, 1981 Page s requirled to pay for a service used primarily by nonresidents then the conditions would be unduly burdensome. * For the foregoing reasons we request the Examiner to affirm condition #6 as stated in his Octobelr 1, 1981 letter. Sincerely, HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN 7:( 7. GWilliamN. Sne WS/ag cc : Homecraft Land Development Co. it f ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 14, 1981 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFE12ENCE ROOM PENDING BUSINESS : Sea-Port Dozing, Inc. : ECF-587-80/B-236 Boeing Commercial Airplane Company: ECF-065-81/SM-92-81 NEW BUSINESS : ECF-092-81 INDUSTRIAL PARK COMPANY (JERRY IVY) SA-082-81/SM-94-81 Application for site approval to construct four tilt-up concrete buildings for lease consisting of office and warehouse uses in M-P zone and associated application for Substantial Develop- ment Permit; property located on the east side of West Valley Road approximately 1/4 mile north of S.W. 43rd Street and east of the Green River ECF-087-81 MacGREGOR, ROBERT STAFFORD R-079-81 Application from G-6000 to L-1 to allow use as' a carpet cleaning business with associated storage; property located in the vicinity of 194 S.W. 16th Street ECF-091-81 CARNER, GARY L. AND TOM R-081-81 Application for rezone from G to B-1 to allow expansion of existing floor covering store business; property located in the vicinity of 4508 N.E. 4th Street ECF-013-81 HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. (THE TERRACE) SA-010-81 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION CONCERNING TRAFFIC MITIGATION (see Wm. Snell letter of October 8, 1981) : Applica- tion for site approval to allow construction of . 280 dwelling unit multiple family complex; property located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street and west of Edmonds Ave. N.E. 1 1111 1 k 1 1 li A 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 11-•al ijiP)ik OCTOBER 14, 1981 111 II 11/ 14hin!a 3 . 1 1 N. _. 1 i-i 41k All ii, ....• L . 2. 1 Irmo A •.--------k ----i 1T-—---- -,- i v,:s.• & _ :-.., _ _. ___ IN2-7.,....„-_,,,, WI __I I 7 i r. lIMMIlb \L AKEL L., \,,,,,, IMININII 1j 1WASHINGTON 77_.„IF rn -lillirlITAIMICI an Cr LE 1 \A I —jhosig=ii, --,- — : , : :,. w- ,., - is.6 : , smiga y L f1111 "" . VI • I V* II Alill I II L\ titilla7.. _ jd44411111: 11.11 \\\ )11111Lc L\ ,,JA 1 g7Willr-16 6114 -1 Ill ' lan" L i HOME CRAFT 1 411fflpaZI_.; Ill \s\ Toni Api. CARN ER Fri comicipinti11 In1(_.... v.„.-\kl I .044 ......4 HiIllitall1011104111EMPIVAllI1_ ail11 II, .... . ., U ,. `- \ ' ("111.140141P" lin ' 11 7 --1 - J. 111P I0. el2\ 1111110/11v Val PAL wizii 1111'41 Jwqrs• NMI AgillEr: IlL. _ 64 h i 1.3 .1 Ild ‘( \ 0M t11111rril A 01';',,,.. 1..,/,, '- c--------- No. 1 1 H 1.- s. dr.., - - _ : -------------\ 1. io,„,,,„..e.macGREGOR .,, '' ; .. 6.„,„4",,t le\ I I '11 Mr 1 1 1 IliAl lipdij. 1 1' rifia-1111 1..1 111211.2111 ' 4. : r PANHI-4•111.r.iirtavgl n. I *. " IT-- 1 t i 4, ft . 1"1111101........els ...; iiWy 1 4 i . i dik ir ..tar1 s,41fi INF 1. I i Illimall imum.-,... Balluedipli e. v. 1 k mu I Irlif N. . i I I ARM I 14-7 INDUSTRIAL PARK A r NI i •;,. !\,,di .1 11- ii 1If LAKE 7 1IIIIj10I Ags .is_ -11--- e 1 of R4,11, U 46 ai `THE CITY OF RENTONZ MUNICIPAL BUI LDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0co- p Q FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 9 rFD SEP Ek6 Octob r 12, 1981 R : File No. SA-010-81 , ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development Company; Request for Reconsideration. Parti s of Record: This ffice has received the attached communication regarding the above entitled matter. All interested parties are asked to respond no later than 5:00 p.m. , Tuesday, October) 20, 1981 . After reviewing any further correspondence on this matter, the Examiner will issue a decision which will either affirm or modify the previous condition relating to van pooling for the subject property. The only issues which will be considered in this review are solely the conditions which are related to the requirement that the developer provide a van pool for the subject development. Sincer ly, 4\-41j VOW t‘""*".."--...*. a."- Fred J. Kau an Hearin. Examiner OF R4, 6 '``- ° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTV ,/ r5*-4A Z D wAL , o TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 o l r MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9 co- 09 q' 9tE0 SEP BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR October 9, 1981 I I RECEIVEDTO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAM; ER FROM: Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer O V T 9 'ZZJU 1 ' AM P;,1 71S,9,IO,11,12i; 12,:3:''),(j SUBJECT: Homecraft Land Development, Inc. File No. SAI-010-81 and ECF-013-81 1.4 1 In response to your letter of October 1, 1981, I would like to suggest a modification to condition #6. After discussions with Bill Roach of Commuter Pool, we are proposing the following changes: 1. The proposed vanpools should be given to Commuter Pool for the purposes of marketing and not left with the Homeowner's As •ociation. 2. Th vans would be marketed along1ng the Sunset Ave. NE/NE 3rd - NE 4th corridor with special emphasis given to the subject development. 3. The fee charged vanpoolers would be based upon prevailing Commuter Pool van fare schedules. 4. During the lease period recovered fares will be used to provide financial support for the necessary marketing program. 5. After the lease period expires, the vans should be purchased bythedeveloperiftheyaresuccessful. Thereafter, the recovered fares will be Used to operate, maintain and provide replacement resources for the three vans. 6. Vans shall be acquired whichq provide amenities consistent With the Commuter Pool van fleet. 7. After a six-month trial period if the vans are proven to be unsuccessful as determined by the Traffic Engineer, they will be returned to the developer for appropriate dispensation. J Fred Kaufman Page 2 October 9, 1981 8. If the vans are successful, agreements shall be established which maintain continual marketing of these vans in the proposed corridor. , If you have any questions, please let me know. Ll L l Lim GAN:ad J cc: William T. Roach I I I i I j I i I j . a OF J A tit 0 . O THE CITY OF RENTON ,U 4$ ID Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAIDINER 9'0 O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2'5930,9 P eo SEP1E Octobe- 1 , 1981 Mr. William Snell Haggar , Tousley & Brain 1700 Don Building 720 Olive Way Seattl - , WA 98101 RE: File No. SA-010-81 , ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development Company; Request for Clarification. Dear M . Snell : I I have reviewed your request for clarification and find that the modifi ations you have suggested are generally reasonable, and the 1 decisi •n will be modified as specified below. Condition No. 5 is to read as follows: The applicant shall provide monthl, passes for residents for Metro Transit to the homeowners' association in each phase of the development. The Traffic Engineering Division shall monitor the effectiveness of this condition by reasonable , means, the costs of which shall be borne by the applicant. In addition, the Tr ffic Engineering Division shall report to the Hearing Examiner on the effectiveness of the conditions, and shall recommend whether to make modifi :ations to the conditions or entirely delete the conditions for Phases 2 and .3 if the condition is not shown to be effective in promoting transi use. Reasonable means may include the use of an outside consul ant selected by the city. Condition No. 6 is to read as follows: The applicant shall provide to the ho eowners ' association at the completion of each phase a one year lease for one vehicle to serve as a van pool . The Traffic Engineering I Divisi n shall monitor the effectiveness of this condition by reasonable means, the costs of which shall be borne by the applicant. In addition, the Traffic Engineering Division shall report to the Hearing Examiner on ' the effectiveness f the condition, and shall recommend whether to make modifications to the condition or entirely delete the condition for Phases 2 and 3 if it is shown that the residents are not using the van j pools. The recommendation may include conditions to require the applicant to permanently acquire vehicles to serve as van pools for the homeo ners' association. William Snell Page T),vo Octobe 1 , 1981 Reason-ble means may include the use of an outside consultant selected by the city. If the condition proves to be effective, there must be a. condition contained within the homeowners' association covenants requiring assessments for the routine maintenance, operation and replac ment of said vehicles. The fi al condition pertaining to the homeowners' association and van pools an benefit the entire development since the lessening of traffic is a benefit to all residents, and participants may not require automobiles, thereby freeing additional parking space. I trus this response 'is satisfactory. If this office can be of furthe assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Since this respon a is in the form of a clarification, the appeal period previously established to expire on October 9, '1981 will not be modified. Very truly yours, Fred J. Kaufman Hearin Examiner . cc: P rties of Record Attach ent (The letter from Mrs. Fricks referenced as an attachment to the ap•licant's letter; was transmitted to all parties of record upon public-tion of the response to the requests for reconsideration.) RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN SEP 3 01981 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW AM RUSSELL F.TOUSLEY 1700 DAON BUILDING PM JOEL E.HAGGARD 720 OLIVE WAY 71Fai9,l0:11:12t1 12o3i 4[a71FD CH RISTOPHER I.BRAIN SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 WILLIAM N. SNELL 206)624-5299 it I September 30, 1981 OUR FILE NO: Hand Delivered Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Request for Clarification by Homecraft Land De1velopment Company; File No. SA-010-81 & ECF-013-81 Dear Mr. Kaufman: Thank you for your prompt response to our Request for Reconsideration. We request clarification of your decision, dated September 25, 1981, responding to our Request for Reconsideration.' The need for clarification is based upon our concern about the long term effectiveness of the conditions, the need for flexibility in the administration due to changing circumstances, and recognition of the fact that the proposed development will be constructed in three distinct phases.I Condition Number 5 requires the applicant to provide to the Homeowners Association monthly passes for residents from Metro Transit during the first six months after occupancy of each phase of the development . No governmental agency is assigned the responsibility to administer this 'condition, to measure its effectiveness, or to make changes when appropriate. We recommend clarifying language that would assign to the Department of Public Works, or other appropriate agency, the responsibility to monitor compliance with this condition, to measure its effectiveness after Phases 1 and 2 and to make appropriate modifications if it is not found to be effective in promoting transit use. I I Fred J. Kaufman September 30, 1981 Page 2 Condition Number 6 requires the applicant to provide" three vehicles to serve as van pools. The means by which vans are to be provided is not clear from the language in the condition. The applicant could "provide" the vans in the form of an outright purchase or a lease. Based on our experience with homeowners association, we believe the effectiveness of this condition can best be assured if the homeowners association makes the ultimate decision to adopt the use of van pools and that this can be best be accomplished by a lease of the vans phased in after the occupancy of each phase. Our concerns with regard to this condition, as presently worded, is illustrated by the September 1, 1981 lettei from Malka Fricks, President of the Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association, in which she outlines her conce6s about van pools from the point of view of an officer of a homleowners association. See attached copy of pageone of letter from Malka Fricks. We recommend that the language in Condition Number 6 be cla0fied to provide that the applicant shall provide a one year lease of one vehicle to the homeowners association at the completion and occupancy of each phase of the, development. In addition, some flexibility is . needed in administering the condition. We recommend that the Department of Public Works, or other appropriate agency', should be given the discretionary authority to administer this condition and to measure its effectiveness after the completion of Phases 1 and 2 and to make appropriate modifications including the deletion of the requirement for vans if the residents do not use, them. In summary, we request that Conditions #5 and #6 be clarified to provide as follows : Condition Number 5: The applicant shall provide to the Homeowners ' Association monthly passes for residents for Metro Transit to residents in each phase during the first six months after occupancy of each phase of the development. The Department of Public Works shall monitor the effectiveness of this condition and shall have the discretion ' to make modifications or delete the condition I Fred J. Kaufman September 30, 1981 Page 3 entirely for Phases 2 and 3 if it is not shown to be effective in promoting transit use. Condition Number 6: The applicant shall provide to the Homeowners ' Association at the completion of each phase of the development a one year lease for one vehicle to serve as a van pool. The Department of Public Works shall monitor the. effectiveness of this condition and shall have the discretion to make modifications or delete the condition entirely for Phases 2 and 3 if the vans axle not being used by the residents for van pooling. In our opinion, the foregoing requested clarifi- cations do not alter the substance of the conditions but provide for some' flexibility in administration which is critical if the conditions are to be effective given changing circumstances. Sincerely, HAGGARD, TOUSLEY& BRAIN 11/ William Snell WS/cd Enclo-ure RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARINGgEXAMINER HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN SEP 3 0 1981' Ig ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW AM PM RUSSELL F.TOUSLEY 1700 DAON BUILDING i lAl9l$6II 2 1I2:3)4<51 JOEL E.HAGGARD 720 OLIVE WAY i G7 !00 1 etc. G e cH RIST0PHER I.BRAIN SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 WILLIAM N. SNELL 206)624-5299 September 30, 1981 OUR FILE NO: Hand Delivered Fred JII. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City f Renton Munic 'pal Building , 200 M' ll Avenue South Rento , WA 98055 RE: Request for Clarification by Homecraft Land Development Company; File No. SA-010-81 & ECF-013-81 Dear r. Kaufman: ; Thank you for your prompt response to our Request for R consideration. We regiest clarification of your decision, dated September 25, 1981, responding to our Request for Reconsideration. The need for clarification is based upon our c ncern about the long term effectiveness of the condi ions, the need for flexibility in the administration due to changing circumstances, and recognition of the fact that the proposed development will be constructed in three distinct phases. Condition Number 5 requires the applicant to provi e to the Homeowners Association monthly passes for residents from Metro Transit during the first six months after occupancy of each phase of the development . No gover mental agency is assigned the responsibility to administer this condition, to measure its effectiveness, or to make changes when appropriate. We recommend clarifying lang9age that would assign to the Department of Public Works, or other appropriate agency, the responsibility to monitor compliance with this condition, to measure its effectiveness after Phases 1 and 2 and to make ..ppropriate modifications if it is not found to be effective in promoting transit use. Fred . Kaufman Septe ber 30, 1981 , Page Condition Number 6 requires the applicant to provide" three vehicles to serve as van pools. The means by which vans are to be provided is not clear from the language in the condition. The applicant could "provide" the v-ns in the form of an outright purchase or a lease. Based on our experience with homeowners association, we believe the effectiveness of this condi .ion can best be assured if the homeowners association makes the ultimate decision to adopt the use of va pools and that this can be best be accomplished by a lea e of the vans, phased in after the occupancy of each phase. Our concerns with regard to this condition, as prese tly worde , is illustrated by the September 1, 1981 letter from Malka Fricks, President of the Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association, in which she outlines her concerns about van pools from the point of view of an offic r of a homeowners association. See attached copy of page ne of letter 'from Malka Fricks. We reco mend that the language in Condition Numbe 6 be clarified to provide that the applicant shall provi e a one year lease of one vehicle to the homeowners association at to completion and occupancy of each phase of th development . In addition, some flexibility is neede in administering the condition. We recommend that the D partment of Public Works, or other appropriate agency, should be given the discretionary authority to administer this Condition and to measure its effectiveness after the completion of Phases 1 and 2 and to make appro•riate modifications including the deletion of the requi ement for Vans if the residents do not use them. In summery, we request that Conditions #5 and #6 be clarified to provide as follows : Condition Number 5: The applicant shall provide to the Homeowners ' Association monthly passes for residents for Metro Transit to residents in each phase during the first six months after occupancy of each phase of the development. The Department of Public Works shall monitor the effectiveness of this condition and shall have the discretion to make modifications or delete the condition I Fred C. Kaufman September 30, 1981 Page 2 I' entirely for Phases 2 and 3 if it is not shown to be effective in promoting transit use. I II Condition Number 6: The applicant shall provide to the Homeowners ' Association at the completion of eachl phase of the development a one year lease for one; vehicle to serve as a van pool. The Department of Public Works shall monitor the effectiveness of this condition and shall have the discretion to make modifications or delete the condition entirely for Phases 2 and 3 if the vans are not being used by the residents for van pooling. In our opinion, the foregoing requested clarifi- cations do not alter the substance of the conditions but provi.e for some flexibility in administration which is criti •al if the conditions are to be effective given changing circumstances. Sincerely, HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN R William Snell II WS/cd it Enclosure Ali I A 1- To : F. Kaufman From: M. Fricks SPECIAL CONDOMINIUM CONSIDERATIONS As required by R C.W.64.32 (Horizontal Property Regimes Act) , the Developer must file a Declaration, which becomes, with the statute, the rules by which the homeowner is governed with respect to his ownership of this type of real estate. I! When the Developer has sold a certain number of units, or a certain point in time is reached, or both, as defined by the 1 Declaration, the ' homeowners association passes from the Developer to the homeowners themselves. Until that date of transition, the Developer IS the association. Bearing in mind that the Developer is seeking permission to build according to his proposal (insofar as is 'possible) , and the City of Renton is making a just determination of that proposal, it is the individual homeowners themselves who will ultimately, have to live and; abide by decisions (for many years) ostensibly made on their behalf. A. Mini-Vans Recommendation has been made and theoretically accepted,' • where the Developer may provide three mini-vans for the purpose of transporting 36 residents daily to and from work in an effort to mitigate traffic impact. Apparently no consideration has been given thus far to the position that th'e eventually formed homeowners ' association may take in this regard: 1. Is -the' association willing to remove three potentially private parking spaces? 2. Does the association ultimately wish to pay-for the. maintainance, operating costs, insurance and possible replacement of these vehicles which will benefit only 36 of its members, while the organization itself may' consist of more than 500 members? Is it really cost effective in the long run? 3. Does the association wish to concern itself with the details of coordination and scheduling of the actual', trips made by these vans? 4. Has either the Developer or the City of Renton considered that what is decreed by Declaration can, be amended by a specified percentage vote of the membership? (i.e. The vans indeed may be purchasedby the Developer only t;o be dispensed with by the will of the people.) i U 5. As a condominium Board officer, I would be hard-pressed to justify an assessment on 500 members for the benefit of 36. Since the vans would become common property, the asessment must be shared proportionately (based on in- dividual voting percentage) by each member. 4 I, 2611 N.E. 4th Street #234 Renton, Wash. 98056 September 21 , 1981 Fred J. Kaufman M Office of the hand Use Hearing Examiner The City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, ,Washington 98055 Re: Homecraft Land Development File No. AA -010-81 ECF -013-81 Re: Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, Decision (9/8/81) Subject: Request for review of above based on the discovery of new evidence relative to its not being available at the August 18 Hearing Dear Mr. Kaufman, I am requesting a review at this time due to the fact that I have been away all summer and therefore could not attend the August 18 hearing. My Board colleague.s were also unavailable to respond to this matter because of attending to other urgent mat- ters of ongoing V.P.C.O.A. litigation and managing internal Association affairs. As a condominium owner, I believe there are several per- tinent issues mentioned in my discussion which have heretofore not been considered. I hope this information is useful to you. Presumably the ' concerns expressed and recommendations off- ered on the following pages. are timely and appropriate. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, 1-kAg,1444L/ Malka Pricks, President Vantage Point Condo- minium Owners Association RECEIVED RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN HEARING EXAMINER SEP 221981 SEP 28 1981 AM PM AM • PM 7%8(9 t1ihi2!1,2,3t4:5:6 718,9,fU,ll, z,11213,41516 2- To: F. Kaufman From: M. Fricks B. Deletion of Recreational Vehicle Spaces ; 1 With all due respect for the consideration of prohibition of the use of on-site R-V parking spaces, it must be borne in mind that a homeowner; in a condo is essentially buying a=home, with all the attendant priveleges to which he is entitled. To prohibit R-V, truck, boat and/or trailer, motorcycle, etc. parking 'is to infringe L. ,on a homeowners rights to his personal property and the access thereof. Furthermore, this prohibition would not normally appear in the Declaration, but may be stated in the House Rules, a doc- ument of far lesser importance, which unlike the Declaration, does not carry the weight of law. House Rules are relatively easy to amend (by Board of Director vote.) Our experience at Vantage Point on this issue evolved to: entitling homeowners to use their assigned parkinn,g spaces as they reasonably see fit , provided they create no haard to health, safety or aesthetics. 1 C. Meeting Facilities i Nowhere in the Homecraft proposal is consideration given to a meeting place.Throu bout the DEIS, mention is casually made of a. 7 ecreation room and/or bath house. In order for a condominium to function adequately, consideration must be given tothe provision of space for regular assembly of the membership. The Declaration charges the ownership with self-governance of its internal, common affairs. To do so requires a physical space in which to hold meet- ings. For a condo of the magnitude of the Terrace, it is not feas- - ible to assume that regular meetings can be held in the community, either in public or private buildings. As in any other form of, gover ent, . groups meeting regularly will vary in size; from the Board to its coffimitteees to its entire membership. Common practice in ccmdominium construction generally includes provision of a rec- reatidn building large enough to hold the majority of its membership, while at the same time being architecturally conducive to assembly. D. Demographic Considerations I The Homecraft proposal lists the condo to be composed of five types of units ranging from studios at 535 square feet up to 2bed- room/2 bath units at 894 square feet. Furthermore, it projects a schoo age population to be generated up to 123 students, but more likel at about ,70 students. I • Combining the factors of square footage and school-agepop- ulation to be generated, it is my professional opinion that this will not be the case. As a public school guidance counselor, it is my experiences that families will not purchase condominium units with this limited amount of square-rootage. On occasion, single- parent families , or one-child families living in the community on atemporarybasiswillrentunitsofthissmallsize. Since the Developer is apparently utilizing V-A financing, which requires resident ownership it is difficult to project Much investor (non-resident owner) purchase. 3- To: F. Kaufman' From: N. Fricks Condos of this size and type are just not as conducive to child occupancy as are townhouses and traditional apartment com- plexes. If, however, in the event my demographics are erroneous, the Developer will be well advised to provide ample storage space for bicycles, mopeds, etc. (How this will be accomplished with such limited square footage is indeed a problem.) Similarly, it is highly improbable that this complex will generate a large pre-school, toddler population.Three 'story apart- ments are not conducive to child safety or practicality. The square footage of these units affords little indoor play area, storage space or adult privacy. Local weather patterns preclude year-round use of outdoor play space. Thus the tot-lot proposed may be extran- eous and more effectively perhaps should be allocated to more park- ing space. Furthermore, many families with toddler-age children require that mothers work. Hence, children are removed from the home during adult working hours generally to pre-schools in the area or to private homes for day care. Condominiums with units of this square footage usually yield an adult working population. When children are in residence, they are generally infants. Although Vantage Point was not designed as an "adult" complex, it has but two teen-agers, no younger children and no infants at present. Vantage Point units range from 821 to 1207 square feet. The consensuslof the married, child-bearing age couples among the ownership is that this type of condominium (architecturally similar to The Terrace) is not suitable for child-rearing. If the foregoing demographic assumptions are valid, the maj- ority of the Terrace population will be working adults. Therefore, prime condideration will be given in the remainder of this report to the concerns for parking and traffic impact. I. PARKING Homecr'aft proposes a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, for a total of 420 spaces on site. This is clearly inadequate if the project is to generate 560-708 persons. Using Vantage Point as a representative example: 96 units 182 resident spaces 16 guest spaces 198 actual, on site spaces Vantage Point consists of a' mix of one, two, and 9 two bedroom plus ;den units. There are only ten units (one bedroom) which have only one assigned parking. space. (There are many more than ten one bedroom units in the complex.) Over the past two years, all parking spaces, including guest spaces are consistently filled, 5- To: F. Kaufman From: I1. Pricks - Edmond N.E. (Southbound) as well as to have to exercise extreme caution in' passing the Edmonds entrance/exit of the Terrace. Recommendations: 1. Take the jog out of Edmonds N.E. so that it could be extended South in a straight line. (See #2) 2. Create a 4 way intersection at Edmonds N.E. and. N.1. 4th with four stop signs designating alternate traffic movement. (4 Way Stop) . This intersection, now 3 way, is already hazardous due to limited visibility, envirnoment (trees) , rapid elevation changes and curving, intersecting roads . 3. Reouire Homecraft to contribute to the State Dapartment ofTransportationthedollarequivalentofthreevanstobeear- m ked for the creation of,a Park and Ride Lot at DOT Site #10 at the corner of Jefferson/Index between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th. Vantage Point has repeatedly petitioned the DOT and Metro fortheselectionofthissiteduetothepresentandfuturehigh density, multiple-family development in this area.) i . Request joining by Homecraft in the petition for the above.' 5. Prohibit parking during high-density traffic hours on the Edmonds Ave. N.E. extension (between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th) to enhance the flow of traffic. i 1 1 To: F. Kaufman From: N. Fricks creating regular resident spillover to N.E.4th Street for parking. Obviously, the Ternace, under the present proposal would generate so much on-street spillover parking, that. N.E.4th Street in the immediate vicinity would also become hopelessly inadequate. Recommendations: r . 1. Where architectural/engineering considerations permit it, addit- •. Tonal parking space could be provided under certain residential buildings, as at Vantage Point . (Bldgs. #1 , #5, #6) 2. Delete some area to be included in the..recreation plans - par- ticularlyetheameandering'stream, which although may add to the aesthetics; requires much adjacent space as well as space for the stream itself. 3. Delete thelarea designated for picnics and barbecues. Condmin- iums do not, as a rule, provide for this aspect of recreation. Barbecue activities are traditionally confined to one 's own lanai or deck. 4. Although parking spaces are designated (by the Declaration) as limited common property.; they are assigned in perpetuity by title deed and are a vital issue of concern for owners when pur- chasing their units. Single owners have as much need for two spaces as do couplesowning jointly. 5. Delete the tot-lot for reasons mentioned previously. II. TRAFFIC IMPACT. Although we at Vantage Point are in agreement 'that an ex- tension of Edmonds Ave. N.E. between N.E.3rd and N.E.4th would be a vital link to the arterial, N.E. 3rd, we are opposed to sharing in an assessment for this extension. Since the Homecraft project. will virtually triple the traffic in the immediate neighborhood, and since we are, at present, finding N.E. 4th adequate for our needs, we believe this extension to be necessary solely due to this projected (Terrace) development. Obviously, the residents of Vantage Point would use the Edmonds N.E. extension, but it would create some additional traffic problems for us. With Terrace traffic in the morning leaving from N.E. 4th and turning right on the Edmonds N.E. extension, as well as Terrace traffic leaving its project directly on to Edmonds. N.E. (extension) heading South; Vantage Point traffic using that .route would have to wait to make a left hand turn (Immediatelyafter a left hand turn - egress1from Vantage Point) from N.E. 4th to gain access to Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Michele Roe beingfirstdulyswornonsheChiefClerk fo'RCc l:\Ht_t) "2\oath,deposes and says that is the of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a 14 1981week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been I E1UG for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper Z published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is 6 V now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at theN.i x. / aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior P;, Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County,NG ©EP Washington.That the annexed is a....,ae.arini, R66 7 NOTICE OF as it was published in regular issues(and PUBLIC HEARING not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON 1 A Public Hearing will beofconsecutiveissues,commencing on the held by the Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner at his 20 day of July 19 8131 ,and ending the regular meeting rn n ie 1,uw 1- ..,, fnuyul q, r ytyi, al .0pcilChambers, City Hall, Re- a.m. to express their p/n- Actnton, Washington, on Au- ions. publigust4, 1981,at 9:00 a.m.to David R. Cleans corqdayof19bothdatesconsiderthefollowingpeti- g8/ REinclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- cons scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee 1. HOMECRAi=T LAND t' DEVELOPME"T, INC. charged for the foregoing which ECF-013081) g g g publication is the sum of $' " Application fry site ahasbeenpaidinfullattherateofperfolioofonehundredwordsfortheppcaon p- first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent proval,file SA-010-81,to insertion. Ae•-• allow construction of 280 dwelling unit multiple familyyocomplex on 8.4 acre site in R-4 Zone; property located bet- Chief Clerk I ween N.E.3rd Stree and N.E. 4th Street and west of Edmonds Avenue Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 day of N.E. Legal descriptions of the pp files noted above are on file July , 19....ti.1.1 in the Renton Planning De- Cy P nt. All interestednterested persons to said petition is invited to be Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, present at the public hearing residing at IOW-King County. Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-79 ar , t n o the 9 Director icte July Re h j OFAR THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH.9805! o ammo o BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9, o co FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0.9 sEP E Q September 25, 1981 Mrs. Malka Fricks Vantage Poinit Condominium Owners Assoc. 2611 N.E. 4th Street, #234 Renton, WA 18056 Mr. William . Snell Haggard, Toulsley & Brain 1700 Daon Building 1 720 Olice Way Seattle, WA 98101 RE: File No. SA-010-81 , ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development Company; Requests for Reconsideration. Dear Mrs. Fricks and Mr. Snell : i I have revi ed the requests for reconsideration in the above entitled matter, and have addressed the various concerns in a single response.i The matters raised by the Fricks request were issues considered in the Environmental Impact Statement (subject to no further challenge) and were or should have been presented during the hearing process. In general , these matters were considered; the recreational needs were assessed by the Parks and Planning Departments; and the Parking and Loading (Ordinance mandates for required parking have been observed. The costs o certain improvements, if included within an LID, and not all such I improvement have been identified, are a matter which will be determined separately on an as needed basis by the City Council . The formation of an LID was not a 1 matter before the Examiner and is not a matter within the Examiner's jurisdiction. The request by the applicant for reconsideration raises a number of questions about the applicability of the conditions imposed, and the reasonableness or burdensomeness of said conditions when weighed against court imposed standards. RCW 43.21C.060 does not make identification of mitigation measures in the EIS the basis fir imposition of conditions. The conditions should bear a reasonable relationship to the impacts disclosed by. the EIS, and the conditions should flo ' from the identified impacts. 1 The Environmental Review Committee required an EIS because the project would have an adverse impact on the quality of the environment, and particularly singled out traffic as 4 contributing factor. The EIS indicates that traffic congestion problems exist (page 19,1 Traffic Report) and are expected to become more severe page 16, Ibid) . Something which will become more severe must be currently severe. The fact that the impacts were described as not overwhelming does not negate the tact that impacts do exist. The project will increase traffic by 1 about 33% generally and about 50% during peak hours on certain roads at certain intersections (Conclusion 11 , paragraph l) .. These are the impacts disclosed by A Malka Fricks William Snell Page Two September 25, 1981 the EIS, and, therefore, conditions or mitigation measures may be required to alleviate, decrease of otherwise control the impacts of a project. - Conditions to be imposed may "be based upon policies developed bV the appropriate local governmental authority and incorporated into resolutions, regulations, ordinances, plans, or codes." (RCW 43.21C.060; Emphasis supplied.) The duties imposed by RCW 43.21C are in addition to those imposed by other statutes. The Comprehensive Plan of the city is both a plan under the language cited above and was duly adopted pursuant to a resolution of the City Council . Therefore, conditions imposed may be grounded upon such foundations. If the language of SEPA identified above were not enough, the language of the Hearing Examiner Ordirilance, separate and apart from SEPA and therefore a supplementary and independent source of conditioning authority, permits the Examiner to impose conditions necessary to assure the project is compatible with the surroundingsland the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Section 4-3014(D)) . The applicant contends that the conditions are both unreasonable and burdensome and that the Examinerjhas no authority to impose such conditions, but then goes on to indicate conditions which, while more moderate in tenor, are conditions, nonetheless. If the Examiner can require the reservation of a portion of the N.E. 4th Street corridor for pedestrians, then the Examiner can require a sidewalk if such condition is otherwise reasonable. It appears that the applicant does believe that the Examiner has within his jurisdiction the power to impose mitigating conditions. To be burdensome, it should be shown that the costs of compliance with the conditions,' in comparison with the costs of the entire project, are inordinate or that compliance is otherwise burdensome. The applicant has not persuasively shown by the mere indication of the cost of implementing the conditions, and this does; not for theimoment indicate that the costs suggested are correct, that the conditions are burdensome. If the construction of sidewalks will provide for the public safety, then the city can assist by using its power of eminent domain, and, therefore, acquisition of sidewalk right-of-way would not necessarily be burdensome. The conditions are reasonably related to the impacts disclosed and are an appropriate imposition by the Examiner. The proposal by the applicant to segregate a portion of the right-of-way with either traffic buttons or rumble bars is offered without further reference to location or right-of-way availability and does not indicate whether such a method willin actuality present a safe pedestrian route. Therefore, the condition to construct a sidewalk shall be modified to permit the approval of the proposed alternative by the Department of Public Works and the Traffic Engineering Division elf such methods conform with the codes and standards for the City of Renton. The applicant then questions the conditions requiring provision of transit passes and vanpools, and instead suggests that informational meetings may help to mitigate the conditions identified in the EIS. Those conditions must presumably be traffic related or, there would be no reason to coordinate sessions to encourage transit use and car and vanpooling efforts. The Malka Fricks William Snell Page Three September 25, 1981 provision of transit passes for residents is indicated as a method to encourage transit use (EIS, pages 18, 19) . Vanpooling is similarly identified (EIS, pages 26, 27) . The Examiner is not required to pick and choose from only those mitigation measures identified by the applicant in the EIS. The only requirement is that the conditions imposed be related to the impacts identified in the EIS. Again, the Hearing Examiner Ordinance provides alternative and independent authority for conditioning a project. The conditions imposed are reasonable and were even identified in the EIS, and there was no evidence that these potential conditions were inappropriate or otherwise improper as required by WAC 197-10-580(3) . Therefore, not only were the impacts necessary to impose conditions ilenti'fied in the EIS, but the conditions or potential conditions were, in fact, identified in the document. As indicated above, costs alone do not make the imposition of conditions unreasonable. The alternative, though, may be that if the conditions cannot be 1 used to effectuate mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the public safety and Welfare, the project should await the installation of roadway improvements and transit which will accommodate potential . residents. I • The forwarding of the decision to the City Council , and you will note that it is a decision and not a recpmmendation, has no effect on the finality of the decisillon. The Hearing Examiner's office periodically forwards decisions to the City Council for their consideration, as the matters contained within the decision may be of interest to Council members. The EIS identified various policy issues related to traffic along major east-west corridors in the city and the Council may wish to study these issues. A new appeal, period has now been established upon publication of this response to expire on October 9, 1981 . Very truly yours, 1 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record Attachments I Attachments included with the request for reconsideration submitted by the applicant have been labeled Exhibit #11 for purposes of reference, and !are on file in the Examiner's office. 1 2611 N.E. 4th Street #234 jf Renton, Wash. 98056 September 21 , 1981 Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner The City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton Washingtdn 98055 Re: Homecraft Land Development File No. IA -010-81 ECF -013-81 Re: Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner! Findings, Conclusion, Decision (9/8/81)j Subject: Request for review of above based On the discovery of new evidence relative to its not being available at the August 18 Hearing Dear e . Kaufman, I am requesting a review at this time due to the fact that I have) been away all summer and therefore could not attend the August 18 hearing. My Board colleagues were also unavailable torespondtothisMatterbecauseofattendingtootherurgentmat- ters Of ongoing V.P.C.O.A. litigation and managing internal Association affairs. As a condominium owner, I believe there are several per- tinent issues mentioned in my discussion which have heretofore ' not been considered. I hope this information is useful to you. Presumably the concerns expressed and recommendations off- ered on the following pages are timely and appropriate. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, X11a/1404., 44,?1:J:e.40fd ksMalkaFric , President Vantage Point Condo- minium Owners Association RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER SEP 2 2 1981 AM PM 71Rt91I 111121112,3t4;56 1- To : F. Kaufman T From: M. Pricks SPECIAL CONDOMINIUM CONSIDERATIONS As regiired by R C.W.64.32 (Horizontal Property .Regimes Act) , the Developer must file a Declaration, which becomes, with the statute, the rules by which the homeowner is governed with respect to his ownership of this type of real estate. s When the Developer has sold a certain number of units, or a certain point in time is reached, or both, as defined by the Declaration, the homeowners association passes from the Developer to the homeowners themselves. Until that date of transition, the Developer IS the association. Bearing in mind that the Developer is seeking permission to build according to his proposal (insofar as is possible) , and the City of Benton is making a just determination of that proposal, it is the individual homeowners themselves who will ultimately have to live and abide by decisions (for many years) ostensibly made on their behalf. A. Mini-Vans Recommendation has been made and theoretically accepted, whereby the Developer may provide three mini-vans for the purpose of transporting 36 residents daily to and from work in an effort to mitigate traffic impact. Apparently no consideration has been given thus far to the position that the eventually formed homeowners ' association may take in this regard: 1. Is the association willing to remove three potentially private parking spaces? 2. Doe the association ultimately wish to pay-for the maintainance, operating costs, insurance and possible replacement of these vehicles which will benefit only 36 of its members, while the organization itself may consist of more than 500 members? Is it really cost effective in the long run? 3. Does the association wish to concern itself with the details of coordination and scheduling of the actual trips made by these vans? 4. Has either the Developer or the City of Renton considered that what is decreed- by Declaration can be amended by a specified percentage vote of the membership? (i.e. The vans indeed may be purchased by the Developer only to be dispensed with by 'the will of the people.) 5. As a condominium Board officer, I would .be hard-pressed to justify an assessment on 500 members for the benefit of 36. Since the vans would become common property, the asessment must be shared proportionately (based on in- dividual voting percentage) by each member. 2- To: F. Kaufman _. From: M. Pricks ti B. Deletion of Recreational Vehicle Spaces With all due respect for the consideration of prohibiti n of th use of on-site R-V parking spaces, it must be borne in hind that ' homeowner.in a condo is essentially buying a-home, with all the attendant priveleges to which he is entitled. To :prohibit R-V,truck boat and/or trailer, motorcycle, etc. parking is to inf Inge on a omeowners rights to his personal property and the access therelf. Furthe more, this prohibition would not normally appear in th Declaration, but may be stated in the House Rules, a doc- ument of far lesser importance, which unlike the Declaration, does not carry the weight of law. House Rules are relatively easy -OD amendJ (by Board of Director vote.) Our experience at Vantage Pbint on th.s issue evolved to: entitling homeowners to use their assigned parking spaces as they reasonably see fit , provided they create no hazard to health, safety or aesthetics. C. Meeting Facilities Nowhere in the Homecraft proposal is consideration givefn to a meeting place.Throuhout the DEIS, mention is casually made of a recreation room and/or bath house. In order for a condoms ium to fu ction adequately, consideration must be given tothe provision of spce for regular assembly of the membership. The Declaratiion charg s the ownership with self-governance of its internal, common affairs. To do so requires a physical space in which to hold rr} et- ings. For a condo of the magnitude of the Terrace, it is not fleas- ible to assume that regular meetings can be held in the community, eithe in public or private buildings. As in any other form of government, groups meeting regularly will vary in size; from the Board to its cor mitteees to its entire membership. Common practice in co dominium construction generally includes provision of alrec- reati n building large enough to hold the majority of its membership, while at the s e time being architecturally conducive to assembly. D. Demographic Considerations The Homecraft proposal lists the condo to be composed of five types of units ranging from studios at 535 square feet up to 2bed- room/ bath units at 894 square feet. Furthermore, it projects a schoo age population to be generated up to 123 students, but more likel at about 70 students. Combining the factors of square footage and school-age pop- ulati n to be generated, it is my professional opinion that this will not be the case.. As a public school guidance counselor, it is my experiences that families will not purchase condominium units with his limited amount of squareootage. On occasion, single- paren families or one-child families living in the community on a tempo ary basis will rent units of this small size. ,.. Since the Developer is apparently utilizing V-A financing,which requires resident ownership it is difficult to project much investor (non-resident owner) purchase. 3- To: F. Kaufman From: N. Fricke Condos of this size and type are just not as conducive to nry* child occupancy as are townhouses and traditional apartment com- plexes. If, however, in the event my demographics are erroneous, the Developer will be well advised to provide ample storage space for bicycles, mopeds, etc. (How .this will be accomplished with such limited square footage is• indeed a problem.) Similarly, it is highly improbable that this complex will generate a large- pre-school, toddler population.Three story apart- ments 'are not conducive to. child safety or practicality.• The square footage of these :units affords little indoor play area, storage space or adult privacy. Local weather patterns preclude year-round t., use of outdoor play space. Thus the tot-lot proposed may be extran- eous and more' effectively perhaps should. be allocated to more park- ing space. Furthermore, many families with toc,dler-age children require that mothers work. Hence, children are removed from the home during adult working hours generally to pre-schools in the area or to private homes for day care. Condominiums with units of this square footage usually yield an adult working population."" When children are in residence, they are generally infants. . . Although Vantage Point was not designed as an "adult" complex, it has but twc teen-agers, no younger children and no infants at present. Vantage Point units range from 821 to 1207 square feet.. The consensus of the married, child-bearing age couples among. the ownership. is that this type of condominium (architecturally similar ' to. The Terrace) is not , suitable for child-rearing. If the foregoing demographic assumptions are valid, the maj- ority of the Terrace population will be working adults. Therefore, prime condideration will be given in the remainder of this report to the - concerns for parking and traffic impact. ' I. PARKING Homecraft proposes a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, for a total of 420 spaces on site. This is clearly inadequate if the project is to generate 560-708 persons. Using Vantage Point as a representative example: 96 units 182 resident spaces . I 16 guest spaces . 198- actual, on site spaces Vantage Point consists of a mix of one,' two, :;and 9 two bedroom plus den units. There are only ten units (one bedroom) which have only one assigned parking space. (There are many more than ten one bedroom units in the complex.) Over the past. two years, all parking spaces, including guest spaces are consistently filled, 4- To: F. Kaufman From: M. Fricks creat'ng regular resident spillover to N.E.4th Street for parking. Obviously, the Terrace, under the present proposal would gener to so much on-street spillover parking, that N.E.4th Street in th immediate vicinity would also become hopelessly inadequate. Recompendations 1. Where architectural/engineering considerations permit it, addit- ional parking space could be provided under certain residential buildings, as at Vantage Point . (Bldgs. #1 , #5, #6) 2. . De:rete some area to be included in the..recreation plans ,- par- ticularIyet iea.meandering_stream, which although may add to tithe aesthetics, requires much adjacent space as well as space for the stream itself. . 3. De ete the area ;designated for picnics and barbecues. Condm'n- iu s do not, as a rule, provide for this aspect of recreation. Barbecue activities are traditionally confined to one 's own' 1 ai or deck. 4. Al hough parking spaces are designated (by the Declaration) as li ited common property,, they are assigned in perpetuity by ti le deed and are a vital issue of concern for owners when pur- ch sing their units. Single owners have as much need for two sp ces as do couplesowning jointly. 5. Deiete the tot-lot for reasons mentioned previously. II. TRAFFIC IMPACT Although we at Vantage Point are inagreement •~that an ex- tensi n .of Edmonds Ave. N.E. between N.E.3rd and N.E.4th would be a vit 1 link tothe arterial, N.E. 3rd, we are opposed to sharing in an assessmentfor this extension. Since the Homecraft project will irtually triple the traffic in the immediate neighborhood, and s'nce we are, at present, finding N.E. 4th adequate for our needs, we believe this extension to be necessary solely due to this rojected (Terrace) development. Obviously, the residents of Vantage Point would use the Edmon s N.E. extension, but it would create some additional taffic probl ms for us. With Terrace traffic in the morning leaving ,from N.E. th and turning right on the Edmonds N.E. extension, as well as Terrace traffic leaving its project directly on to Edmonds N.E. (extension) heading South, Vantage Point traffic using that route would have to wat to make a left hand turn (Immediatelyafter a left hand turn egress from Vantage Point) from N.E. 4th to gain accese to 5- To: F. Kaufman From: M. Fricks Edmonds N.E. (Southbound) as well as to have to exercise extreme caution in passing the Edmonds entrance/exit of the Terrace. 1 Recommendations: that it could be extendedoutofEdmondsN.E. so 1. Take the jog South in a straight line. (See #2) 1 2. Create a 4 way intersection at Edmonds N.E. and. N.E. 4th with four stop signs designating alternate traffic movement. (4 Way Stop) . This intersection, now 3 way, is already hazardous due to limited visibility, envirnoment (trees) , rapid elevation changes and curving, intersecting roads. 3. Require Homlecraft to contribute to the State Dapartment ofTransportationthedollarequivalentofthreevanstobeear-marked for the creation af:a Park and Ride Lot at DOT and Site #10 at the corner of Jefferson/Index between N.E. 3rd 4th. Vantage Point has repeatedly petitioned the DOT and Metro fortheselectionofthissiteduetothepresentandfuturehigh density, multiple-family development in this area.) 4. Request joining by Homecraft in the petition for the above. . 5. Prohibit parking during high-density traffic hours on the Edmonds Ave. N.E. extension (between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th) to enhance ; the flow of traffic. I i RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 1 AM SEP 2 2 1981 2 71819,10,11 lZ I,213,4 516 3 it 4 5 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 6 7 Administrative Determination ) 8 and Site Approval for Terrace) Applicant' s Request Project For Reconsideration 9 I 1 10 On behalf of our client, Homecraft Land 11 Development, Inc. , we request reconsideration of your 12 1 d cision on the Administrative Determination and Site 13 A proval for the Terrace Project, Specifically we request) 14 reconsideration of conditions 3, 5 and 6 that were imposed 15 by the Hearing :Examiner ( "Examiner" ) as part of the site 16 approval. We also request modification of conclusion i 17 I n mber 16 at page 7 of the Examiner' s decision and other 1, 18 r lief. The imposition of conditions 3, 5 and 6 should bel 19 reconsidered and either deleted or modified since they are 20 t e result of an erroneous procedure and are based on 21 . errors of law, fact and judgment. 1 22 eneral Objections Conditions 3, 5 and 6 were imposed without any 24 7otice to the applicant or opportunity to respond. It is , 25 axiomatic that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Olympic Forest Products, Inc. v, 27 28 APPLICANT' S REQUEST •I• FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 I 1 1 Chaussee Corp. , 82 Wn.2d 418 (1973) . The procedure in 2 this case whereby the conditions were imposed does not 3 meet basic due process requirements and the Examiner 4 should reopen this matter in order to comply with 5 fundamental due process requirements and permit the 6 applicant! an opportunity to respond. 7 It was an error of law and judgment to impose 8 conditions 3, 5 and 6 under either the State Environmental 9 Policy Act ( "SEPA" ) or the site approval process. Under 10 SEPA a project can be conditioned or denied only on the 11 basis of r'specific environmental impacts" which are 12 identified in the environmental documents. See also 13 Section 472803 of the Renton Environmental Ordinance.. RCW 14 43. 21C.060 makes it clear that the imposition of 15 mitigating conditions must bear a reasonable relationship 16 to the impacts as disclosed in the EIS. In this case the 17 contested conditionsrelate to traffic impacts. The Draft 18 EIS at page 53 states that ". . . this project does not 19 appear to generate any significant traffic impacts. . . " 20 The Examiner concurs in this conclusion by finding that 21 "The traffic impacts of the subject proposal do not appear 22 overwhelming and have generally not been considered such 23 by the analysis in the EIS. . . " (See Conclusion No. 11 at 24 page 5 oflExaminer's decision) . If the traffic impacts 25 generated by the project are not significant or 26 overwhelmi1ng, then the mitigating conditions should 27 correspondingly be tailored to mitigate only the 28 APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 2 I 1 identified nonsignificant impacts. Mitigating measures 2 relating to traffic were identified in the Draft EIS at 3 page 5, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. Not 1 4 only are conditions 3, 5 and 6 not identified as - 5 mitigating conditions in the Draft EIS but they require I 6 mitigation far in excess of what could reasonably be 7 r quired given the nature of the traffic impacts which are 1 8 identified in the EIS as not significant. Gerla v. 9 Tacoma, 12 Wn. App. 833 (1975) See copy of Gerla case 10 attached as Exhibit 2. Based on the record it was an 11 error of- law and judgment to impose conditions 3, 5 and 12 6. 13 Conditions imposed as part of the site review 14 process are also subject to limitations. The Examiner 15 apparently relies on the Comprehensive Plan provision 16 referring to a multi-modal transportation systems as a I 17 b sis for conditioning the project (See Conclusion No. 11 18 o theExaminer' sxaminers Decision) . However, the degree of 1 19 consistency with the Comprehensive Plan that can be required by Sec. 4-2303 (2) (C) is restricted by statute and, 21 case law. First, RCW 35A.63.080 provides "that the l 22 comprehensive plan shall not be construed as a regulation 123opropertyrightsorlanduses. " It is clear from this 24 istatutorylanguagethatrestrictionsonlanduseas i 25 evidenced by conditions 3, 5 and 6 must be based on I 26 i plementing ordinances and not the general comprehensive 27 plan policies relied upon by the Examiner. Second, the i 28 APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 3 i1 1 courts have expressly held that the comprehensive plan is 2 to be reviewed as a guide and that strict and exact 3 adherence! to its provisions is not required Barrie V. 4 Kitsap County 93 Wn. 2d 843 (1980) . Under this standard, 5 it is error to request strict adherence to the multi-modal 6 policy. Finally when conditions are imposed as part of a 7 permit process a court will review the conditions with 8 regard to ; their reasonableness to determine if they are 1 9 unnecessarily burdensome. Gerla v. Tacoma, supra. We 10 contend that the facts in this case show that the 11 conditions as imposed are unnecessarily burdensome. The 12 followingjparagraphs contain a discussion of the specific 13 contestedlconditions and the reasons why they should be 14 deleted or modified. 15 Condition ;No. 3 16 Condition No. 3 requires the extension of 17 sidewalks ;from the subject site to Bronson Way N.E. This 18 condition 'is apparently based on a comment letter by Metro 19 which states that completion of the sidewalks would 20 improve access to transit service (see Final EIS at p. 21 17) . The1Metro letter did not recommend this improvement 1 22 as a mitigating condition or evaluate its effectiveness. 23 The applicant requested its engineers to examine the 1 24 feasibility of constructing the sidewalks for a length of 25 about 900 feet. The engineer' s comments and cost estimate 26 of $36, 000 is attached as Exhibit 3. Extensive rockeries 27 would have to be constructed which substantially increases 28 APPLICANT''iS REQUEST FOR RECONSiIDERATION 4 1 the costs. An additional cost, not included in the above 2 estimate, involves securing easements along private I 3 property for the location of the sidewalk and rockeries. 4 Since the applicant, as a private property owner,- does not ) 5 have the power of eminent domain, this condition may be 6 impossible to perform if the adjacent property owners do 7 not give their consent or if the costs of securing 8 easements are unreasonably excessive. 9 As is clear from the foregoing discussion, 10 condition no. 3 is unreasonably costly and burdensome. 11 In addition there is nothing in the EIS or record to I I 12 justify its imposition except for a general comment by 13 M tro. Finally, there has not been shown any reasonable 14 relationship between the imposition of the condition and 15 the mitigation of the nonsignificant traffic impacts. 16 Accordingly, this condition should be deleted. 17 Condition No. 5 18 Condition No. 5 requires the applicant to provide 19 monthly passes for residents during the first six months 20 after occupancy. This condition is apparently based on a 21 comment letter by Metro (see the Final EIS at page 18) . 22. This condition is open ended and involves significant cost 23 risks. Assuming 100% participation for 280 units at the 24 present one zone rate of $19.00, the potential costs are 25 31,920 for a six month period. The costs will be greater 26 at the time of occupancy since Metro plans a fare increase 27 of ective January 1, 1982. Our contacts with Metro 28 APPLICANT'S REQUEST FO2 RECONSIDERATION 5 1 indicate that they do not have information available on 2 the effectiveness of such a condition. Given the many 3 unanswered questions about the effectiveness of this 4 condition to mitigate an impact that has been described as 5 not significant, it should be deleted as being unduly 6 burdensome. We request adoption of the mitigating 7 conditions identified in the EIS which would be as equally 8 effective in providing mitigation and much less 9 burdensome. 10 Condition 44o. 6 11 This condition requires the applicant to provide 12 the homeowners association with three vehicles to serve as 13 van pools land to provide in the covenants to be executed 14 by the homeowners for the maintenance and replacement of 15 such vehicles. This condition is apparently based on a 16 comment letter from Commuter Pool suggesting the purchase 17 of one or two vans. (See the Final EIS at page 26) . The 18 condition raises several questions. .First, the effective- 19 ness of the condition. Van pools only work if enough 20 individuals share a common destination. At present it is 21 impossible to project whether the residents of the 22 development will be interested in forming van pools and 23 share a common destination that would make them effective, 24 let alonelwhether the residents would need or use three 25 vans. The cost of implementing this condition is in the 26 range of $36,000 to $40,000. 27 When the cost and effectiveness of this condition 28 APPLICANT' S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 6 i 1 is compared with the traffic impacts as disclosed in the 2 EIS, it is apparent that this is an excessive condition 1 3 and unnecessari,.ly burdensome. The applicant requests that ', 4 the Examiner consider several alternatives that would 5 reasonably have the same mitigating effect and be much 6 . less burdensome. One alternative would be to encourage 7 va pool use through informational meetings. At present van' pools are lookingfor riders in the Renton area so8 9 there is exccess capacity. See attached copy of Exhibit 411 10 from the Commuter Pool showing van pools in the Renton 11 area looking for riders. Another alternative is to use 12 vans owned by the Commuter Pool or have individual 13 residents of the development purchase vans and therefore 14 gain the benefits of individual use. 15 The discussion in the foregoing paragraphs shows 1 16 t at the contested conditions require mitigation in excess 17 o the impacts identified in the EIS and are unduly 18 burdensome. Therefore, the applicant requests that 19 conditions 3, 5 and 6 be deleted and that the following 20 conditions be substituted: 21 1. A five foot wide paved strip be provided along the edge of the roadway from the 22 subject site to Bronson Way N.E. with traffic buttons or rumble bars installed at 23 the edge of the driving lane to define a j safe walking area. Comment: This condition ] 24 achieves the objective of providing a connection to the Metro transit stop and 25 avoiding the excessive costs and problems associated with locating the sidewalks on 26 private property not owned by the applicant. ), 27 2. Applicant shall work with the Homeowners 28 Association to sponsor transit/carpool APPLICANT' S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 7 1 information sessions, encourage transit use, vanpool.s and carpools, and coordinate efforts 2 with Metro. Comment: This condition implements the mitigating conditions identified in the Draft 3 EIS and it achieves the same objectives as conditions 5 and 6. 4 Other Issues 5 We also request the modification of conclusion 6 number 161at page 7 of the Examiner' s decision by deleting 7 the last sentence that reads: "Therefore this decision is 8 being forwarded to the City Council for its consideration 9 and for such further action as the City Council may seem 10 proper. " For the same reasons that. the Examiner deleted 11 the ERC condition requiring approval of the site plan by 12 the City Council i .e. it is contrary to express ordinance 13 requirements, conclusion number 16 should be modified as 14 I. requested 15 The applicant is not formally requesting 16 reconsideration of the condition requiring the improvement 17 of Edmonds Avenue N.E. , even though Mr. Norris of the 18 19 Engineering Department testified at the hearing that the improvement of Edmonds was not needed. We hereby reserve 20 all appeal rights with regard to this issue pending the 21 resolution of our request for reconsideration. 22 Summary 23 Given the extensive nature and complexity of the 24 conditions that have been imposed, we urgently request the 25 Examiner to grant our request for reconsideration and set 26 27 this matter for a public hearing. 28 APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 8 1 DATED This day of September, 1981. 2 Respectfully submitted 3 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN 5 6 i m n 1 J. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLICANT 'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 2611 N.E. 4th Street #234 Renton, Wash. 98056 Saptember 21 , 1981 Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner The City of Renton Municipal Buildirig 200 Mill Avenue South Renton. WashingtOn 98055 Re: Homecraft Land Development File No. aA -010-81 ECF -013-81 Re : Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Findings , Conclusion, Decision (9/8/84 Subject: Request for review of above based, on the discovery of new evidence relative to its not being available at the August 18 Hearing Dear M . Kaufman, I am requesting a review at this time due to the fact that I have been away all summer and therefore could not attend the August 18 hearinp. My Board colleagues were also unavailable tc responid to this matter because of attending to other urgent mat- ters •oT ongoing T.P.C.O.A. litigation and managing internal Association affairs . As a condominium owner, I believe there are several per- tinen issues meticined in my discussion which have heretofore ; not been considered. I hope this information is useful to you.. Presumably the concerns expressed and recommendations off- ered in the following pages are timely and appropriate. Thank 7-ciu for t e opportunity to respond. Sincerely, 15k/a.f,AA-/ Malka Fricks , President Vantage Point Condo- minium Owners Association RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER S P 2 2 1981 AM PM t8t9tglinti2E1 t213)/1:516 I 1- To : F. Kaufman From: M. Fricks I SPECIAL CONDOMINIUM CONSIDERATIONS As required by R C.W.64 .32 (Horizontal Property Regimes ) Act) , the Developer must file a Declaration, which becomes, with the statute, the rules by which the homeowner is governed with respect to his ownership of this type of real estate. When the peveloper has sold a certain number of units, or a certain point in time is reached, or both, as defined by the ' Declaration, the homeowners association passes from the Developer to the homeowners themselves . Until that date of transition, the Developer IS the association. i Bearing in mind that the Developer is seeking permissiontobuildaccordingtohisproposal (insofar as is possible) , and the City of Renton is making a just determination of that proposal, it is the individual homeowners themselves who will ultimately have to live andl abide by decisions (for many years) ostensibly made of their behalf. I A. Mini-Vans Recommendation has been made and theoretically accepted; wherebk the Developer may provide three mini-vans for the purpose of tra sporting- 36 residents daily to and from work in an effort to mit ' gate traffic impact. Apparently no consideration has been given thus far to the position that the eventually formed homeowners ' association may ` take ii this regard : 1. Is thejassociation willing to remove three potentially private parking spaces? .II I 2 . Does the association ultimately wish to pay for the maintainance, operating costs , insurance and possible replacement of these vehicles which will benefit only 36 of its members , while the organization itself may ; consist of more than 500 members? Is it really cost effective in the long run? 3 . Does tll_e association wish to concern itself with the details of coordination and scheduling of the actual ) trips made by these vans? I 4. Has either the Developer or the City of Renton considered that what is decreed by Declaration can be amended by a specified percentage vote of the membership? (i.e . The vans indeed may be purchased by the Developer only to be dispensed with by the will of the people. ) f 5 . As a condominium Board officer, I would be hard-pressed to justify an assessment on 500 members for the benefit of 36. 1Since the vans would become common property, theasessmentmustbesharedproportionately (based on in- dividual voting percentage) by each member. 2 I To : F. Kaufman. I From: M. Fricks. B. Deletion of Decreational Vehicle Spaces l With all due respect for the consideration of prohibition of th use of on!-site R-V parking spaces,' it must be borne in 'ind- that homeowner in -a condo is essentially buying a. home', with all the avtendant priveleges to which he is entitled. To, prohibit -V, truck, boat and/or trailer, motorcycle, etc . parking is to *infringe on a omeowners Lights to his personal property and the acces.s ,1 there.f. Further ore, this prohibition would not normally appear in the Declaration, but may be stated in the House Rules., .ado - .. ument. of far lesser importance, which unlike the .Declaration, does not" c.rry "the weight of law. House Rules are relatively easy to amend (by Board of. Director vote.) Our experience at- Vantage Feint on th' s issue evolved to : entitling homeowners to use their assigned parki g spaces as they 'reasonably see fit, , provided they. crew e no ha.ard to he ith, .safety or aesthetics . C. Meeting Facilities Nowhere in the Homecraft proposal; is. consideration given to a eeting pl ce.Throughout the DEIS, mention is casually made of-. a recreation room and-/or bath house..:In order for a condominium to function adequately., consideration must be given tothe provision of` space for regular assembly of the membership. The Declaration charges the ownership with self-governance of its internal, co mon affairs . To do so requires a' physical space in which to hold m et- ings . Fora condo of the;, magnitude of the Terrace,- it is not. feas- ible u o assume .that regular meetings can: be held in the "community, either in public or private buildings . As in any other form of gover ment, groups: meeting regularly will vary in size; from the Board to its corrmitteees - to its entire membership. Common practice in co dominium. construction' generally-includes provision of a fec- reati.n building large enough to hold the majority of its membership, while at the , saide time being architecturally conducive to assembly. D. Demographic 'Considerations . The Homecraft proposal lists, the condo to be .composed of five types of units ranging from studios" at 535 square feet up to .:2 1oed- room/.- bath units at 894 square feet. Furthermore; it projects I,a schoo age population .:to be generated up to 123 students, but More like. at about 70 students . • " " . Combining' the factors of square footage and school-age op- ulati n to -berg nerated; it is my professional opinion that th's will of '"be'.,the case .. As a public school guidance counselor,. i is my ex eriences that families will not purchase "condominium units with his limited amount of square footage . On occasion,: singl - parentfamilies or one-child families living in the community ' n, a ' temporar, basis_will rent units of this small size . , 4 Since the Developer is apparently utilizing V-A financilg, which requires, iesident ownership it is- difficult .to project .much inves ' or (non-resident owner) purchase . 3- To : F. Kaufman From: M. Fricks • Condos of this size and type are just not as conducive to child occupancy as are townhouses and traditional apartment cori- plexe- . If, however, in the event my demographics are erroneous, the Developer will be well advised to provide ample storage space for b' cycles, mopeds , etc . (How this will be accomplished with such imited square footage is indeed a problem. ) Similarly, it is highly improbable that this complex will generate a large pre-school, toddler population.Three story apart- ments are not co ducive to child safety or practicality. The square footage of these units- affords little indoor play area, storage space or adult privacy. Local weather patterns preclude year-round a1' use of outdoor play space. Thus the tot-lot• proposed may be exbran- eous and more effectively perhaps should be allocated to more bark- ing s ace . Furthermo e, . many families with toq'dler-age children. require that mothers wor . Hence, children are removed from the home during adult wor ing hours generally to pre-schools in the area, or to pr'vate homes for day care. - i Condomini ms with units of this square footage usually field an ad It working population. When children are in residence, they are g nerally infants . Although Vantage Point was not designed as an "adult" complex, it ha but two teen-agers , no younger children and no infants t prese t. Vantage Point units range from 821 to 1207 square feet. The consensus of the married, child-bearing age couples among the ownership is that this type of condominium (architecturally similar to• The Terrace) is not.. suitable for child-rearing. If the foregoing demographic assumptions are valid, themaj- ority of the Terrace population will be working adults . Therefore, prime condideratlion will be given in the remainder of this report to the concerns for. Parting and traffic impact. I. PARKING Homecraft proposes a. ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, for a total of 4i20 spaces on site. This is clearly inadequate if the p oject is to generate 560-708 persons . Using Vantage Point as a representative example : 96 units 182 resident spaces 16 guest spaces 198 actual, on site spaces . Vantage Point consists of a mix of one, .two, and '9 two i bedro m plus den units . There are only ten. units (one bedroom)' which have only one assigned parking space . (There are many more than ten one bedroom units in the complex. ) -Over the past two. years; all parking spaces , including guest spaces are consistently filled, I I I 4- . To : F. Kaufman From: M. Fricks creating regular resident spillover to N.E.4th Street for parking. Obviously, the 'Ter .ace, under the present proposal would. gener to so much ori-street spillover parking, that N.E.4th Street- in th iminediatej vicinity would also become hopelessly inadequate . Recom endations : . 1. Wh re architectural/engineering considerations permit it, acdit= io al parking space could be provided under certain residential buildings, as at Vantage Point . (Bldgs . ¢#1 ,, 45 , #6) 2 ., De ete some area- to be included in the recreation plans - par- uharh Z.,the.am ander,in ga£astream, which although may add to the aethetics, requires much adjacent space as well as space for th: - stream itself. 3 . Delete the area designated for picnics and barbecues . Condmin- iu s do not, as a rule, provide for this aspect of recreation. Ba becue activities are traditionally confined- to one 's own la ai or deck. 4 . Although parking spaces are designated (by the Declaration). 'as li i.ted common proper;tk;; they are assigned . in perpetuity ,by ti le deed and are, a vital issue of concern for owner's when4pur-. ch, sing their units . Single owners have - as much need for two sp ces. as . d.o couplesowning jointly: 5 . De ete the tot-lot for reasons mentioned previously. II. TRAFFIC IMPACT Although we at Vantage Point are in agreement that an ex tensi n of Edmonds Ave. N.E. between N.E.3rd and N.E.4th ,would', be a vit 1 link to the, arterial., N.E. 3rd, we- are opposed to sharing . in an assessment for this extension. Since the Homecraft' project :: will virtually triple the traffic in the immediate neighborhood, and s ' nce we area, at present,.-finding N.E. 4th. adequate for our needs, we believe this extension to be necessary solely due to this rojected (Terr,ace) development. Obytously, the residents of Vantage Point would use the Edmon s N.E. extension, but. it would create some additional traffic probl ms for us . With Terrace traffic in the morning leaving from N.E. 4th and t ning right 'on the Edmonds N.E. extension, as well., as Terrace traffic leaving its project directly- on to Edmonds N.E. (extension)' headi g South, Vantage. Point traffic using that .route would have to wait to make a left- hand turn (Immediatelyafter a left hand turn - egress from Vantage Point) from N.E. . 4th to gain access to 5- To : F. ,aufman From: M. Pricks Edmonds N.E. (Sothbound) as well as to have to exercise extre4e caution in passing the Edmonds entrance/exit of the Terrace. , Recommendations : 1. Ta e the jog out of Edmonds N.E. so' that it could be extendtd So th in a straight line . (See #2) 2. Cr ate a 4 way intersection at Edmonds N.E. and N.E. 4th with fo r stop signs, designating alternate traffic movement. • (4 Way St p) . This i tersection, .now. 3 way, i_s already hazardous diI e to limited visibility, envirnoment (trees) , rapid elevation) changes and curving, intersecting roads . I 3. Require Homecraft to contribute to the State Dap.rtment of Tr nspor.tation the dollar equivalent of three vans to be ear- marked for the creation af .a Park and Ride hot at DOT ,Site ##10 - at the corner of Jefferson/Index between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th. V ntage Point has repeatedly petitioned the DOT and Metro for th selection of this site due to the present and future high de sity, multiple-family development in . this area. ) 4. Request joining by Homecraft in the petition for the above . 5 . Pr.hibit parking during high-density traffic hours on the Ed.nonds Ave. N.E. extension .(between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th) , to enhance the flow of traffic . H r I e t 4 OF I? z THE. CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o - BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 94 O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0,9- ED SEPle P September 25, 198 • Mr. William Snell Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1700 Daon Building 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 RE: File No. SA-010-81 , ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development Co. ; Request for Reconsideration. Dear lr. Snell : In re ponse to your request pertaining to the Environmental Review Committee's decision to delay a determination in the above entitled matter, I find the action of the committee. to be correct in awaiting the e piration of the 20-day appeal period established upon publication of the Examiner's decision. Until that time, parties other than the applicant could petition for a reconsideration, and the action of the ERC in such circumstances could be premature. The committee has indicated that it will act at the earliest possible date subsequent to expiration of the appeal period, and, therefore, this office has no reason to intercede in the remanded matter. A ne appeal peri d has now been established upon publication of this response to expire on October 8, 1981 . Very truly yours, IA'''U (413".... Fred J. Kau an Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record I lil RECEIVE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 1 S E P 2 2 1981 1 AM PM BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON 7,8,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,5,6 HEARING EXAMINER 2 3 Administrative Determination ) 1 4 aO Site Approval for Terrace) Applicant 's Project Supplemental Request 5 For Reconsideration, 6 The Examiner rejected the ERC' s overreaching 7 demand for traffic improvements as contained in the ERC' s 8 conditions 3 and 4 and remanded these conditions for a 9 determination of the appropriate pro rata share of the 10 improvement costs. The ERC (see attached copy of Exhibit 11 . 1) now states that they will not act on the remand order. 12 This attempt to tactically foreclose our options and to 13 dray a decision is unnecessary and contrary to 14 applicant ' s rights and your order. The record before you 15 shows that the Terrace, Project would contribute 4. 5% of 16 total traffic at the N.E. 3rd and Edmonds intersection and' 17 2. 7% of the traffic at the N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard 18 intersection. We request you to decide this matter by 19 holding that the Terrace Project should be required to 20 contribute to the traffic improvements at the subject 21 1. intersections based only on the percentages of traffic 22 generated by the Terrace Project. 23 1 DATED This .• ; •.,, day of September, 1981 1 25 Respectfully submitted I 26 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN 27 r 1 ' Will'' 447tom- 4.! .f am N. Sne G APPLICANT'S REQUEST FPcR RECONSIDERATION 1 OF I THE CITY OF RENTONU40 'h `-, MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9,0 235— 2550 0 4P l? ED SEPS -MO Sep ember 17 , 1981 Wil iam N . Snell , Hag. ard, Tousley & Brain 1700 Doan Building 720 Olive Way . Sea tle , Washington 98101 Deal Mr . Snell : The Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of Sep ember 16th concluded that action on the Hearing Exami- ner ' s remand of the U. S. Home action would be inappropriate dur ' ng the appeal period to Superior Court. As soon as the appeal period is complete, the Committee will act at the nex possible ERC meeting . Verk r;uly your 1 i ;V:% . "C emensr ting Planning Director DRC :wr cc : ERC Members RECEIVED HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN EXHIBIT 1 SEP 21 1981 PM 3 • 5s6 CITY OF RENTON NEARING EXAMINER 1 SEP2219816N P f27'o8,9110111m121112131415166 i 3 4 5 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 6 II 7 Administrative Determination ) 8 and Site Approval for Terrace) Applicant ' s Request Project For Reconsideration1 9 10 On behalf of our client, Homecraft Land 11 D velopment, Inc . , we request reconsideration of your 12 decision on the Administrative Determination and Site 13 A proval for the Terrace Project. Specifically we request 14 reconsideration of conditions 3, 5 and 6 that were imposed 15 by the Hearing Examiner ( "Examiner" ) as part of the site ; 16 approval. a also request modification of conclusion 17 number 16 at page 7 of the Examiner' s decision and other J 18 relief. The imposition of conditions 3, 5 and 6 should be, 19 reconsidered and either deleted or modified since they are 20 t e result of an erroneous procedure and are based on 21 I' errors of law, fact and judgment. 22 General Objections 23 Conditions 3, 5 and 6 were imposed without any 24 25 notice to the applicant or opportunity to respond. It is 26 axiomatic that due process requires notice and an 27 o portunity to be heard. Olympic Forest Products, Inc. v. 28 A PLICANT' S REQUEST -t F R RECONSIDERATION 1 r 1 I li II I. 1 Chaussee Corp. , 82 Wn.2d 418 (1973) . The procedure in 4 2 this case whereby the conditions were imposed does not 1 II 3 meet basic due process requirements and the Examiner 4 should reopen this matter in order to comply with i 5 fundamental due process requirements and permit the 6 - a plicant. ari opportunity to respond. I 7 It ,was an. error of law and judgment to impose I 8 c nditions 3, 5 and 6 Under either the State Environmental! I 9 Policy Act (1 "SEPA" ) or the site approval process. Under 10 SEPA a project can be conditioned or denied only on the 11 b sis of "specific environmental impacts" which are I I 12. identified in the environmental documents. See also 13 S ction 4-2803 of the Renton Environmental Ordinance. RCW ' 14 43 . 21C.060 lakes it clear that the imposition of 15 mitigating conditions must bear a reasonable relationship 16 tc the impacts as disclosed in the EIS . In this case the 17 c ntested conditions relate to traffic impacts. The Draft l 18 E S at page 53 states that " . . . this project does not 19 a pear to generate any significant traffic impacts. . . " 20 Tile Examineri concurs in this conclusion by finding that 21 "The traffic! impacts of the subject proposal do not appear, 22 overwhelmingl andhave generally not been considered such 23 by the anal psis in the EIS. , . "Y See Conclusion No. 11 at I 24 page 5 of Exminer' s decision) . If the traffic impacts 25 generated b they project are not significant or 26 overwhelmingl, then the mitigating conditions should I 27 correspondingly be tailored to mitigate only the 28 APPLICANT ' S REQUEST FO RECONSIDERATION 2 1 . identified nonsignificant impacts.: Mitigating measures 2 r-lating to traffic were identified in the Draft EIS at 3 p-ge 5; a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1.. Not 4. only are. conditions 3., 5and 6 not identified as 5 . m m tigation in the Draft EIS but they require 6 far in excess of what could reasonably be 7 r quired given the nature of the traffic impacts which are 8 i entified in .the. EIS. as not significant. Gerla v. 9 Tacoma, 12 Wn. App.. 833 . (19.75) See copy of Gerla case 10 a tached as Exhibit 2. Based on the record it was an 11 e ror of law and judgment to impose conditions 3, 5 and 12 6• 13 Conditions imposed as part of the site review 14 . p ocess are also subject to limitations. The Examiner 15 a parently relies on the Comprehensive Plan provision 16 r ferring to a multi-modal transportation systems as a 17 b- sis`.for .conditioning the project (See Conclusion No. 11 18 (D . the Examiner' s Decision) . However, the degree of 19 c.nsistency with the Comprehensive Plan that can be 20 r-quired by. Sec . 4-2303 (2) (C) is restricted by statute and 21 c- se law. First, RCW 35A.63.080 provides "that the 22 co prehensive plan shall not be construed as a regulation 23 of property rights or land uses. " It is clear from this a . 24 st=tutory language that restrictions on land use as 25 evidenced by conditions 3, 5 and 6 must be based on 26 im.lementing ordinances and not the general comprehensive 27 pl-n policies relied upon by the Examiner. Second, the 28 AP'.LICANT 'S REQUEST. FO RECONSIDERATION' 3 1 courts have expressly held that the comprehensive plan is 2 to be reviewed as a guide and that strict and exact 3 a herence to its provisions is not required Barrie v. 4 Kitsap County 93 Wn. 2d 843 (1980) . Under this standard, I' 5 it is errorhto request strict adherence to the multi-modal 6 policy. Finally when conditions are imposed as part of a 7 permit process a court will review the conditions with 8 regard to their reasonableness to determine if they are 9 unnecessarily burdensome. Gerla v. Tacoma, supra. We I 10 contend that the facts in this case show that the 11 conditions as imposed are unnecessarily burdensome. The 12 f llowing paragraphs contain a discussion of the specific 13 contested conditions and the reasons why they should be 14 deleted or modified. I' 15 Condition No:. 3 16 Condition No. 3 requires the extension of 17 sidewalks from the subject site to Bronson Way N.E. This 18 condition is apparently based on a comment letter by Metro 19 which states, that completion of the sidewalks would • I I 20 improve access to transit serviceP see Final EIS at p . 21 17) . The Metro letter did not recommend this improvement 22 as a mitigating condition or evaluate its effectiveness. 23 The applicant requested its engineers to examine the 24 feasibility if constructing the sidewalks for a length of 25 about 900 feet. The engineer' s comments and cost estimate1 26 of t36, 000is attached as Exhibit 3. Extensive rockeries 27 would have ti be constructed which substantially increases 28 AP LICANT'S REQUEST FO RECONSIDERATION 4 I 1 the costs.= An 'additional cost, not included in the above 2 estimate, involves securing, easements along private 3 property".for the location of the sidewalk and rockeries. 1 4 S rice the applicant, as a private property owner, does not'L 5 h ve "the 'power of eminent domain, this condition may be. _. i possible to perform if the adjacent property owners do 7 n t 'gi.ve their consent:-or if the' costs of securing e seinents• a e unreasonably.8 -.: excessive.. 9 As is clear from the foregoing discussion, 10 c ndition no. 3 is unreasonably costly and, burdensome. . _ 11 I addition there is nothing in the EIS or record to " 12 j stify its imposition except for -a general "-comment by 13 M tro. Finally, there" has not been shown any -reasonable 14 r lationship be'tween the imposition, of' the condition and 15 t e mitigation of the nonsignificant :traffic impacts. 16 A cordingly, this condition should be deleted. 17.. C ndition No. 5 18 Condition No. 5 requires the applicant toto provide monthly passes for residents during the first six months 20. after occupancy.: This condition is apparently based ,on a 21 co ment letter by Metro (see the Final EIS at page 18) . 22 This condition . is open ended and involves significant cost 23 risks Assuming 100% participation for 280 units at the 24 pr sent one one rate of $19. 00,. the potential costs are 25 $31,920 for a .six month period.. The costs will be greater 26 at the "time of occupancy since Metro plans a "fare increase 27 effective January 1 1982. Our contacts withMetro 28 AP'LICANT'S QUEST FO•• RECONSIDERATION 5 indicate that, _they do not have :information available on t e" effectiveness" of such. a condition. Given the: many.I. ' 3 u answered questions about the effectiveness of• this 4 c ndition :to mitigate an impact that has been described as• 5 ;" n -t significant; it should be deleted as being unduly 6 b rdensome. `,We," request• ,.adoption of the:,mitigating " 7 conditions identified in the EIS which would be as equally, 8, e fective in providing mitigation and much less. 9 b. rdensome.; tl 10 , Condition. No. 6 11; " This condition requires the applicant to provide lil . 12 t e homeown rs association with three vehicles to serve as ,. 13 v n pools and to provide' in the covenants to be executed 14 b the homeowners for the maintenance and replacement of 15 such vehicles:. This condition is apparently based on, a 16 c mment letter from Commuter Pool suggesting the purchase 17 0 one or two vans (See the Final EIS" at page " 26) The 18 c ndition raises several questions. First, the 'effective- 19 n ss of the condition." Van pools only work if enough 20' i dividuals share .a common destination. At present' it is ., I'. 21 i possible' to project whether the residents of the 22 d velopment will be interested in " forming van .pools'".and" 23 . s are a common destination. that would make them effective, 24" let alone whether "the residents would need or use ,three 25 ...'vans. The: cost, of implementing this condition is in the :.. 26- range of . t36,000:"to t40,.000. 27 When the 'cost and effectiveness of this condition 28 API'LICANT ' S...REQUEST. FO• RECONSID3RATION 6 : compared :With.-:::the traffic impacts: as disclosed in the 2 E S;. it .is .apparent. -that. this is an`' excessive condition 3 a d urineces arily burdensome: The applicant requests..thati. t e Examiner consider several ,alternatives . that. would 5 r asonably have the same mitigating effect and be much 6 .1 ss burdensome. One alternative would be to encourage : 7 v n pool use through informational meetings. At present 7 - 8 v-n pools a. e. looking for.riders in the Renton area :so t 'ere i s .excce9, ss capacity. See attached copy of Exhibit 4 -• 10 fiom • the Commuter Pool showing van pools in the Renton 11: ' a ea. looking - for riders:;. Another .alternative is to use 12 v-ns owned by the Commuter Pool or have individual 13 r=sidents of the development :purchase vans and therefore `, 14 g- in the benefits of:"individual;:use. 15 The di.scussion in the - fore.going paragraphs shows 16 :;t at the contested Conditions .require •mitigation in excess' 17 o the impacts identified in the EIS and are unduly 18 b- rdensome. Therefore, the applicant requests that. ,. 19 c nditions 3, .5. and:.6 be deleted and that the following 20 c.nditions bie substituted: 21 • 1.' A. five foot wide paved strip be .provided along the edge of the roadway from the22subjectsitetoBronsonWay 'N.E. with traffic buttons or rumble bars , installed at23. the edge of the driving lane to define a 24 safe walking area. Comment : This condition I achieves the objective of providing a connection :to the Metro transit stop and25 " avoiding the excessive costs and problems associated. .with locating the sidewalks:;on26privateproperty :not owned by the applicant . 27`2. Applicant ,shall work'with the Homeowners 28 Association to sponsor; transit/carpool AP'LICANT.' S REQUEST ` FO RECONSIDERATION' 7 i i, i 1 information sessions, encourage transit use, vanpools and carpools, and coordinate efforts i 2 with Metro. Comment: This condition implements 1 the mitigating conditions identified in the Draft; 3 EIS and it achieves the same objectives as , conditions 5 and 6. 4 1 Other Issues 5 We 'also request the modification of conclusion 6 number 16 at page 7 of the Examiner' s decision by deleting, 7 the last sentence that reads: "Therefore this decision is l: 8 being forwarded to the City Council for its consideration 9 and for such further action as the City Council may seem 10 proper. " Folir the same reasons that the Examiner deleted 11 the ERC condition requiring approval of the site plan by 12 i the City Council i .e. it is contrary to express ordinance i 13 r quirements{, conclusion number 16 should be modified as 14 requested. r 15 The, applicant is not formally requesting 16 reconsideration of the condition requiring the improvement 17 o Edmonds Avenue N.E. , - even though Mr. Norris of the 18 E gineering Department testified at the hearing that the , 19 improvement of Edmonds was not needed. We hereby reserve 20 i all appeal rights with regard to this issue pending the 21 resolution of our request for reconsideration. 22 23 Summary GivIen the extensive nature and complexity of the 24 1 25 conditions that have been imposed, we urgently request the Examiner to grant our request for reconsideration and set , I 26 1 27 this matter for a public hearing. 28 i APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 8 1 F 1 DATED This 1da of September,y p ember, 1981. 2 Respectfully submitted 3 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN Fri',, r •' / 6 i m n 1 N i'I 7 8 9 I' I I II 10 II 11 al 12 13 14 I 15 II 16 17II I 18 19 I 20 it 21 22 I 23 24 25 26 27 I 28 APPLICANT 'S REQUEST FO' RECONSIDERATION 9 I II Trif f e Mitigations 1 al Maintenance of two entrances to provide multiple resident and emergdncy access. b. Design an internal road loop system. c. Encourage transit use and car pooling. d. Homeowner Association sponsored transit/carpool information sessions. e. Coordination with METRO. f. Construct internal pedestrian lanes with the site. g. North side of the site along N.E. Fourth Street should match N.E. Fourth Street as it exists east of the site. h. Sidewalk to be installed along N.E. 3rd Street property boundary. i. Prohibit parking and storage of recreational vehicles as part of proposal . 5. Public Services Fire Protection Impacts Fire protection and ;emergency aid needed for an additional 280 dwellint units. Miti ations a. Conformancy with UBC requirements. b. Installation of smoke detectors. c. Adequate water, supply to meet fire flow requirments. d. Coordination with Fire Department during the construction phase. Police Protection Impa is The proposal would add 280 units and result in an increase of 560 residents requiring police protection. EXHIBIT 1 5- 1 882 HYSTAD v. RHAY Mar. 1975 i Mar.1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 883 12 Wn.App. 872,533 P.2d 409 12 Wn.App.883,533 P.2d 416 granted a reasonable time within which to,challenge the No. 1083-2. Division Two. March 11, 1975.] extradition by means of a writ of habeas Corpus. JOHN G. GERLA, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF TACOMA, Although the proceedings under the-Extradition Act and Appellant. the Detainer Act are different, the differences are not so 1] Evidence—Absence of Objection—Effect. Evidence which is not fundamentally unfair as to deprive plaintiff of equal pro- objected to is properly before the trier of fact for consideration. tection and due process aw. The fact that a prisoner 2] Administrative Law and Procedure—Judicial Review—Scope. Judi- may be sought under t e Extradition Act as opposed to the i cial review of administrative actions taken under proper authoriza- tion is limited to determining whether or not such actions wereDetainerAct, does t violate plaintiff's right to equal pro- conducted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, i.e., done in a tection of the la s. All prisoners are given notice, the sine willful and unreasoning fashion without consideration and in disre- qua non of pe process, and reasonable access to the courts. i gard of facts and circumstances. Belief by the reviewing court that Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. a preponderance of the evidence Is against the action is, standing alone, immaterial. GIEN and MUNSON, JJ., concur. 3] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Standards—In General. The issuance or denial of permits regarding special uses of land must be done inPetitionforrehearingdeniedApril10, 1975. accordance with adequate standards. Review denied by Supreme Court May 20, 1975. 4] Zoning—Special Use Permit--Conditions—Validity, Municipalities possess inherent powers to impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of special use permits, without reliance upon specific standards,provided such conditions are not contrary to any provision of the zoning ordinance, do not require the recipient to engage in illegal conduct and are not unnecessarily burdensome to him, are in the public interest, and are reasonably intended to achieve some legitimate objective of the ordinance. A comprehensive development plan meeting this test may be utilized to guide the imposition of onditions upon special use permits. 5] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Conditions--Judicial Review. Judicial review of the imposition of conditions upon the issuance of a f _ special use permit is limited_to-_determining—if--the—exercise—of administrative discretion was abusive. See 58 Am, Jur. (1st ed.) Zoning § 231.] 6] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Conditions—Grant of Property—Va- lldity. Issuance of a special use permit dependent upon a dedication of realty to public purposes is valid when such a condition appears to be in furtherance of the purpose of the zoning plan or ordinance and-not—unnecessarilyy burdensome. 7]" Administrative Law and Procedure—Arbitrary and Capricious-- Debatable Question. A conclusion reached by an agency which appears to be at least debatable is one upon which reasonable men might differ and is not arbitrary and capricious. a 8] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Conditions—Grant of Property--Con-EXHIBIT 2 slderatlons. A condition that a property owner dedicate certain realty to a public purpose in exchange for a special use permit i. I 886 GERLA V. TACOMA Mar. 1975 Mar.1975] GERLA V. TACOMA 887 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 418 12 Wn.App.883, 533 P.2d 41H Following a hearing in which testimony was taken, the in its oral decision. Obviously these observations were commission determined to issue the permit on the condi-used by the court in concluding that the service station had tion, among several others not in controversy, that plaintiff not caused an "immediate danger of congestion." dedicate the two strips of property so that the two streets a 1] Had normal appellate review been utilized, the could be widened and sidewalks and curbs installed. i;court could properly consider only the evidence put before the Planning Commission. Such evidence could not •haveAtthispointtheplaintiffenteredintoanoralstipulation with the City which departed from the normal procedure of included more than expectations of congestion, or the lack appealing the condition to the City Council and from there thereof, generating from the new service station. While it to the superior court. The City Attorney advises us that to seems unfair to the City to allow its administrative actions accommodate plaintiff in his desire to proceed with de- to be reviewed by independent and "after the fact" evi- v dence, in the absence of an objection, we must assume thatelopmentoftheservicestationandtoaccommodateatest case on the validity of the condition, plaintiff was allowed this evidence was properly considered. to deed the properties to the City in compliance with the 2] The second departure from normal review procedure condition attached to issuance of the permit, and still re-involves the scope of review, and poses a much more seri- serve his right to collaterally attack the Planning Commis- ous problem. The trial_court obviously made an indepen- sion's action. In this regard, the trial court found that dent review of the factual issues and applied a "preponder- plaintiff complied with the condition while at the same ance of the evidence" test in. arriving at its decision, rather time "reserving his right to question the authority of the than an "arbitrary and capricious" standard normally re- City to require the dedication of the said property." In the quired in judicial review of administrative actions. It is meantime, the deeds have been recorded, the streets wi-axiomatic that administrative actions, if properly author- dened, the sidewalks installed, and the service station has ized under zoning ordinances, may be interfered with by been erected and is in operation. the courts only if they are conducted in an arbitrary and The "test case" then took the form of an inverse condem- capricious manner. Evergreen State Builders, Inc, v. Pierce nation action,2 in which plaintiff sought compensation for County, 9 Wn. App. 973, 516 P.2d 775 (1973). Applying any the two strips of land which he had dedicated-to the City, other standardfor review of_the_decision_of_the_Planning The form of this action caused two departures from estab- I Commission would, we think, defeat the purpose of the fished procedures for judicial review of administrative ac- action as stipulated by the parties, i.e., to test .the validity tions. First, evidence was allowed and considered which of the condition imposed in connection with the granting of was clearly not before.the Planning Commission. Plaintiff, the permit. Accordingly, we believe that in order to reverse the Planning Commission's factual determination of thewhoadnotbeen_a_witness b-efor_e_the Planning Com- need-for-thecondition, the trial court would-have to findmission, testified at length concerning traffic conditions as they existed both before and after the service station that the imposition of the condition, as applied to the evi- commenced operation. Also, the court made two visits to dence before it, was willful and unreasoning, without con- - the scene and commented at length upon the traffic flow sideration and in disregard of facts and circumstances. Ev- ergreen State Builders,Inc. v. Pierce County, supra. A declaratory judgment action would have been more appropriate It was noted in Evergreen that where there is room forforthepurposes. The stipulation appears to have obligated the City to pay-for_the-dedicated property in the event of an adverse ruling on the two opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when test case. exercised—honestly and upon due eonsiaeration, even I' 884 GERLA v. TACOMA Mar.1975. Mar, 1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 885 considering the relative benefit to such owner 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 416 12 Wn.App,883,533 P.2d 416 may be made upon t The facts giving rise to the controversy may be summa-flowing from the permitted activity, the relative ability of the rized as follows. Plaintiff owned aparcel of real propertymunicipalityortheownertoaccomplishthepublicpurpose, and p p d the cause for such purpose arising. on the southwest corner of East 72nd Street and Portland 9] Zoning—Special Use Permit—Standards—Burdensome. Imposition Avenue in the city of Tacoma. He negotiated a lease with of a condition on a special use permit upon conflicting evidence as Mobil Oil Corporation for the latter to erect and operate a to its burdensome effect upon the permittee, may not be denomi- gasoline service station. The trial court found that plaintiffnatedasunnecessarilyburdensomeonreview. was aware that before the City would allow construction of Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce i a service station at that location it would probably require County, No. 210429, James V. Ramsdell, J., entered April a dedication to the City of 6 feet of the property abutting23, 1973. Reversed. 1. South 72nd for a length of 138 feet and another strip 12 Action to review a zoning decision. The defendant ap- t feet in width for a length of 124 feet abutting on Portland peals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Avenue. The required dedication would permit the widen- ing of both major arterial streets to accommodate antici-Robert R. Hamilton, City Attorney, and William J. Bar- 1 gated increases in the volume of traffic, would allow for thekerandF. H. Chapin, Jr., Assistants,for appellant.i addition of right and left turn lanes at the intersection, and Alan Rasmussen,for respondent. 1 • would also provide space for the construction of sidewalks and curbs. PEARSON, J.—The City of Tacoma appeals an adverse Plaintiff was aware of the probability of these require-judgment in a suit brought by plaintiff, John G. Gerla, ments, since the Planning Commission, of which he was aclaiminginversecondemnationarisingoutofanactionbymember, had imposed like conditions 'upon other servicetheCity's Planning Commission.1 stations in other areas as well as upon other businesses inTheprimaryissueraisedonappealiswhetherornotatheareainvolved. The preliminary lease with Mobil Oil condition attached to the issuance of a special use permit Corporation took into account the probability of this typegrantedtoplaintiff's tenant, Mobil Oil Corporation, was a of condition, valid exercise of the-City's-police-power, The property involved was located within a C-2 (com- Answer to the primary issue necessitates a consideration i.' mercial zone) and consequently eligible under Tacoma's of the following questions: zoning ordinance for use as an automobile service station. 1) Did the City have statutory authority to impose the However, because of the hazardous nature of this type ofcondition? business, another city ordinance (No. 18628) required a 2) Did the-Gi-tys-or-d-i-nance-author-i-ze imposition of the prospective applicant to obtain_a-special-use permit-and to condition? comply with detailed development standards. Section D.(1) 3) From a factual standpoint, was the condition reason- of Tacoma Ordinance No. 18628 is part of a provision set- ably necessary to accomplish the legislative purpose, or on I• ting standards for service station development, and that the other hand, was it unreasonably burdensome to the section itself provides for a minimum lot size for service plaintiff under the circumstances? stawtions "after dedication of all required street right V of Plaintiff was at all times a member of the Planning Commission of Tacoma, but-took no official-part•in the actions of that commission-- t Mobil O11COrpOratlOn'S_repreSeritatlVeOrma}1Y appliedred• which are at issue in this case, to the Planning Commission for the special use permit. i( 888 GERLA v. TACOMA Mar. 1975 i Mar.1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 889 12 Wn.App. 883, 533 P.2d 416 12 Wn,App. 883,533 P.2d 416 though the courtmight-believe-that—an erroneous-conclu- - 4]--More—im-portantl=y—for--our- purposes,—the Supr-.eme— ---- sion was reached by the Planning Commission. Lillions v. Court in State ex rel. Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. v. Gibbs, 47 Wn.2d 629, 289 P.2d 203 (1955) ; State ex rel. Auburn, supra, held that cities have inherent power .to Cos7nopolis Consol. School Dist. 99 v. Bruno, 59 Wn.2d 366, s' impose reasonable conditions and restrictions on. the issu- 367 P.2d 995 (1962). ance of special use permits, even though the imposition of For these reasons, if the Planning Commission's factual such conditions. is not guided by specific standards. 3 R. determination was not "arbitrary and capricious" when ap-Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 15.29 (1968). To be plied to the facts, the trial court was in error in its conclu-valid, such conditions must (1) not offend any provision of sion, even though the result might be proper by application the zoning ordinance, (2) not require illegal conduct on the of a "preponderance of the evidence" test. See Shaming- part of the permittee, (3) be in the public interest, (4) be • house v. Bellingham, 4 Wn. App. 198, 480 P.2d 233 (1971).reasonably calculated to achieve some legitimate objective The trial court's ruling against the City was based of the zoning ordinance, and (5) not be unnecessarily bur- largely upon three grounds, two legal and one factual: (1) densome or onerous to the landowner. State ex rel. Stan- that the City acted "without authority in law" in imposing dard Mining&Dev. Corp.v.Auburn, supra. the condition upon grant of the permit; (2) that the Ta- Furthermore, the court held in Standard that the City coma City Code, Sec. 13.06.376, did not expressly authorize may rely upon its comprehensive plan of development as the dedication of such property; and (3) since the City guidance for the imposition of reasonable conditions on the failed to establish that the service station would pose an granting of special permits. immediate danger" of traffic congestion, the condition im- 5] The function of the reviewing court in considering posed was "without basis in fact."the validity of such conditions was discussed in State ex 3] For the reasons stated below, in our view these rel. Standard Mining& Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, supra at 332: rulings were in error. We first consider the general author-If the conditions imposed were reasonably calculated to ity of the City to impose the type of condition involved. We achieve the purposes set forth in the comprehensive plan note that the trial court was without the benefit of State ex and were not unnecessarily burdensome, the court should rel. Standard Mining (Cr Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, 82 Wn.2d not set them aside. 321, 510 P.2d 647 (1973).8 That case discusses the general statutes through which cities are allowed to regulate and See Chestnut Hill Co. v. Snohomish, 76 Wn.2d 741, 458 P.2d impose restrictions upon the use of land. It would be un- 891 (1969), necessarily repetitious to review the Supreme Court's care- 6] Before analyzing Tacoma's ordinance in light of the ful analysis of the statutory power of cities to delegate to above test, we must consider the nature of the condition at planning-commissions the authorityto-require-permits for issue, since it required a contribution of portions of plain- special uses of land. The principal requirement for the issu- i tiff's property, i.e., a dedication of land. The principle that a ance of such permits is that they be guided by adequate property owner may be compelled to contribute financially standards. Durocher v. King County, 80 Wn.2d 139, 492 to street or other improvements as a prerequisite to obtain- P.2d 547 (1972). 11 ing some beneficial use of his property is not new to the I law of zoning. It is recognized by RCW 35.44.020, as it The opinion in State ex rel. Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, 82 Wn.2d 321, 510 P.2d 647 (1973), was filed May 31, 1973,pertains to local improvement assessments, and it is recog- after-the-case at-bench-was-tried. nized_by_-case law With respect,to concomitant_agreements.—___— I 890 GERLA v. TACOMA Mar.1975 Mar,1975] GERLA v. TACOMA 891 12 Wn.App.883,533 P.2d 418, 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 418 State ex rel. Myhre v. Spokane, 70 Wn.2d 207, 422 P.2d 790 the police power. The business of storing and handling 1967). gasoline at automobile service stations within a devel- In State ex rel. Myhre v. Spokane, the Supreme Court oped area is attended with a peculiar degree of danger to stated at page 216: life and property, due to its flammable and explosive propensities. It is further found that noxious odors, noise, Widening streets and installing electrical controls for and traffic hazards emanating from the conduct of such a the safety of both pedestrians and vehicular traffic are business are such to make the regulation of its location regulatory measures which are within the proper exer- necessary and reasonable to promote the public health, cise of the city's police power. When the city requires safety, and general welfare. that the cost of such safety measures be borne by the company, it is not bargaining away its regulatory police The first development standard in Subsection D(1) im- power but, rather, determining that the cost should be t plicitly recognizes the..possibility that dedication of prop- borne by the persons who created the necessity for the erty may be required to assure that the general purpose of expenditure of such funds, instead of by the city gener-the ordinance is fulfilled: ally. The service station site shall have a minimum width of See a discussion of this principle in the dissenting opinion 120 feet and a minimum area of 15,000 square feet after of Justice Marshall Neill -in Chrobuck v. Snohomish dedication of all required street right of way. County, 78 Wn.2d 858,480 P.2d 489 (1971). Italics ours.) We see no reason to differentiate this case from the anal- In passing upon application for permits to operate service ogous situations concerning concomitant agreements, so stations, Subsection E of the ordinance directs the Planning long as requirements discussed in State ex rel. Standard Commission to be guided by the following criteria: Mining & Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, supra are fulfilled. Here, it 1. The proximity of other service stations or other was the application for the special use permit that, at least businesses' storing or handling flammable liquids or in the view of the City, created the necessity for the wider k materials;"3 streets, pedestrian walkways, and so forth. If that view is E 2. The proximity to residences, schools, hospitals, factually supported, then plaintiff, rather than the City, churches, theaters, parks, and other places of public should_bear_the_costs_of_such improvements-as-in-State-ex assembly;(03 yre v. Spokane, supra. 3. Any adverse effectthat the proposed use wouldrel.Myhre have on traffic on the abutting streets and highways,We turn next to the City's ordinance and the Planning including, but not limited to, congestion, turning move- Commission's ruling to determine whether the aforemen- ments, and dangers to pedestrians.") tioned requirements of, State ex rel. Standard Mining & tt Italics ours.) Dev. Corp.v. Auburn,supra,were met. It is clear to us_that the above or_dinance_satisfied the Tacoma City Ordinance No. 18628 includes Sec. 13.06.376, which contains detailed development standards for the con- There were two other service stations on the intersection in ques- tion. struction and operation of automobile service stations. To the south of plaintiff's service station was a large K-MartSubsectionAof13.06.376 provides: shopping center with a heavy volume of automobile and pedestrian It is found and declared that the location and aoperationtraffic. Across the street from the potential service station site of automobile service stations in the City of Tacoma are j bank. was a necessary to our modern way of life, but the public inter- i Two major arterial streets formed the intersection of East 72nd est requires that they shall 15 subject to regulation under Street and Portland Avenue. — 892 GERLA V. TACOMA Mar. 1975 Mar.1975]•GERLA v. TACOMA 893 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 418 12 Wn.App. 883,533 P.2d 418 requirements of State ex rel. Standard Mining &Dev, connection with other commercial developmenton both Corp. v. Auburn, supra, for the imposition of the condition major arterials would, according to these experts, require that the two strips of land be dedicated, provided that that both arterials be widened, particularly at the intersec- when applied to the facts, the condition was not unneces- tions where turning movements must be accommodated. sarily burdensome and was reasonably calculated to alle- Both streets are major arterials, one feeding into Interstate viate any adverse effects which the new service station 5 to the west and the other serving Interstate 5 to the might have on any of the three criteria set forth above. south. The zoning ordinance involved is not only compatible 7] With the safety factors and traffic control problems with the type of condition imposed, it appears to be specifi- right and left turn lanes) and the potential future conges- cally contemplated to promote one of the stated purposes of tion, the City's action in requiring the permit was at the the ordinance, i.e., safety. Furthermore, the criteria, in our very least debatable—and clearly not arbitrary and capri- view, afford sufficient standards for the granting or denial cious. of the permit in question. 8] The City's witnesses also testified that under the For these reasons it was error for the trial court to con- projected overall plan for arterial development there would elude that the City acted without authority of law in im- be insufficient funds for several years, because of other posing the condition in the grant of the permit. We con- higher priority problems, to condemn property sufficient to dude that the condition was within the.City's police power widen the streets. The trial court also stated this fact was and was authorized by both state law and by its own ordi- not material to the issue. But this is inconsistent with the nance. view expressed in State ex rel. Standard Mining & Dev. We now turn to the question of whether or not imposi- Corp. v. Auburn, supra, that the comprehensive plan may tion of the condition was arbitrary and capricious. In re- be considered in determining the reasonableness of the con- viewing the findings of the trial court as explained by its dition. It seems to us that whether a condition which oral decision, it is obvious that the court considered only requires a landowner to bear part of the cost of a necessary one facet of the testimony, i.e., the plaintiff's testimony that street improvement is reasonable depends, in part at least, in fact less traffic was generated by the service station than upon the City's ability to provide the improvements in by the preexisting businesses which had previously oiler- some other way, particularly where the property owner's ated on the property.. projected use of the property creates in a substantial way The court expressly rejected the detailed testimony of the necessity for the improvements. the City's witnesses as it pertained to pedestrian safety, as 9] Likewise, we are not persuaded that the condition well as to the question of traffic control. The City's chief as proposed was' unnecessarily burdensome. One expert, engineer-and-the-City-traffic-engineer-specifically-testified called by-the-City, testified-that in-his-opinion-the ad-di- that the strips of land were needed to provide ample space tional benefits to plaintiff's land from the improvements for sidewalks and curbs so that pedestrians would he di- offset any loss in value caused by the decreased size of the . rected away from the traffic lanes when they crossed the property. While this testimony was disputed by plaintiff's two wide entrances and exit driveways required on each own opinion as to his loss, it was not disputed that an street side of the service station. Furthermore, even though automobile service station was the highest and best use for the immediate impact may not have resulted in increased the property. Furthermore, no representatives of Mobil Oil congestion, the long-range impact of-this service station in - Corporation testified that the smaller size of the lot was 894 INTERNATIONAL SALES v. SEVEN BAR [Mar.1975 Mar.1975] INTERNATIONAL SALES v. SEVEN BAR12Wn.App.894,533 P.2d 445 k • 12 Wn,App.894, 533 P.2d 445 895 unduly restrictive upon their operations. At the very least, for the collection of a check issued by the respondent in thethedecisionwasdebatableandmadeuponconflictingevi- sum of $3,024, on which the latter stopped payment. Thedence. As such, it is not subject to judicial interference, respondent, by special appearance, moved to quash/theSharninghousev. Bellingham, 4 Wn. App. 198, 480 P.2d 233 summons and dismiss the action on the grounds that the1971). is court lacked jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, RCWReversedandremandedwithdirectionstodismisstheI4.28.185. The court granted the motion and entered anaction. order of dismissal. This appeal is from that orde/r. ARMSTRONG, C.J.;and PETRIE, J., concur. The facts are as follows. The respondent Seven Bar) is Petition for rehearing denied April 24, 1975. a New Mexico corporation with its principal/place of busi- Review denied by Supreme Court June 24, 1975. ness in Albuquerque, and the appellant/ (International 1 Sales) is a Washington corporation with/its principal placeiofbusinessinTacoma. Seven Bar contracted in New Mex-No. 1284-2. Division Two. March 11, 1975.] ico to buy an aircraft from one Jack Mills, then a residentiINTERNATIONALSALESANDLEASE, INC., Appellant, V. SEVEN tof New Mexico. The aircraft was in the possession of TideBARFLYINGSERVICE, INC., Respondent. Air, Inc., a Washington corporation, and the respondent1] Courts--Jurisdiction- Long-Long-arni agreed to take delivery at TacoStatute-Due Pro-Tacoma Industrial Airport. Ascess. Due process concepts, as applied to th,•long-arm statute (RCW i; part of the consideration for the purchase, the respondent4.28.185), do not require that the act orrtransaction in this state out 1 of which the action has arisen be either extensive or physical. It is agreed to pay Tide Air for the repairs which the latter had p only necessary that there be substpnce to the contact within this made to the aircraft. Mills represented to the respondentIistate, and that the impact with n the state of the nonresident's that the amount owing for repairs' was approximatelyactivityisforeseeable. 2] Courts-Jurisdiction-Forum Non Conveniens. In exercising 4ts dis- 1,200. Seven Bar sent its,.pilot, armed with a blank check, to Tacoma to pick up the'cretionary power to dismiss/an action in favor of foreign jurisdic- aircraft. On his arrival, the pilotton, a court may imposa conditions upon a dismissal in order to was told by Tide Air that the amount owed by Mills wasinsurefairtreatmentto1parties. 3,024. The pilot unsuccessfully attempted to locate theSee175.] Ann.-32_A.L. 6,_s.48_A.L.R.2d-800;-20-Am.Jur.2d, Courts- president-of Seven BarFlying Service, Inc. Believing thatheshouldreturntoNewMexicoassoonaspossible, theAppealfroma ' dgment of the Superior Court for Pierce 1. pilot completed the check for the amount of $3,024,County, No. 22 67, Stanley W. Worswick, J., entered De- 1 calved the. plane from Tide Air, and flew it back to Newcember6, 197 . Reversed. Mexico. When Seven Bar learned of these events, ittstoppedActiontcollectacheck. The plaintiff eals_fromaapappt'p yment_of the check.It contends thatthe—addi-judgmen of dismissal. y tional amPunt claimed by Tide Air represents debts owedJamsJ. Mason, for appellant. t by Millywhich are unrelated to the repair of the aircraft. Richard J. Dolack (of Comfort,Dolack, Hansler,Hulscher, This contention is somewhat confirmed by the record and R senow & Burrows), for respondent. the omissions during argument. It is not disputed that at the time Seven Bar took possession of the aircraft, Jack Mills had clear title to it and there were no liens of recordJOHNSON, J.*—This action was brought by the appellant Judge-Bertil-E.--Johnson-is--serving-as-ajudge-pro-tempore of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Laws of 1973, ch. 114. i Z i El z STEPAN&ASSOCIATES, Inc. c) ENGINEERING September 15, 1981 7204.08 Haggard, Tousley & Brain Attorneys at Law 1700 Dao,i Building 720 Oliv Way Seattle, Wa. 98101 Attentio : Mr. Joel Haggard Referenc : The Terrace Condominiums Dear Joel : As requeted, we have analyzed the costs of installing a sidewalk alongthe south side of N.E. 4th Street from the west boundary of The Terrace Condominium project o the existing sidewalk between Bronson Way and Vuemont Place. The length of this offsite sidewalk is approximately 900 feet. Since the back of the sidewalk lis to be located 30 feet from the centerline of N.E. 4th, Street (ie., at the property line) , a steep bank, as shown on the attached photogra hs, will need to be trimmed back onto private property and a rock wall ins alled. We estimate the costs, exclusive of the costs of the I permanent easements required for the rockery as follows: 1. Concrete Sidewalk 900 ft. @ $10.00/ft. = $ 9,000.00 2. Rockery 3000 sq. ft. @ $9.00/s.f. = 27,000.00 36,000.00 We trust hat you will find the above information useful . Should you have any furht-r questions, please call . Very truly yours, STEPAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. OittArN)-4--) Garyli Warner, P.E. Project Manager HAGGARD, TOUSLE Y & BRAIN RECEIVEDGEW/ggc EXHIBIT 3Attachmen cc: Home raft AMSEP 16 1981 71819/10,J1 j PM 930 South 336th Street,Suite A • Federal Way,Washington 98003 • Tacoma:927-7850,Seattle:6 -4771 • 511at s 0 is 1- I. ,-- ,-,-.-. , fl e..-Atql".15?7,----- ir- Vanpools looking' for riders Vanpool Origin Destination Work Hours Monthly Fare NORTHEND VANPOOLS 37 BOTHELL Todd/Harbor Island 6:30-3:30 45.50 20 EVERETT Seattle/Downtown 7:45-4:15 46.25 119 EVERETT Seattle/Downtown 7:15-4:45 48.50 47 EVERETT Todd/Harbor Island 6:30-3:30 63.00 80 EDMONDS Seattle/Harborview Hosp. 8:00-5:00 33.50 SOUTHEND VANPOOLS 93 KENT Kenworth/S. Seattle 6:50-3:20 41.25 69 KENT/RENTON Safeway/Bellevue 8:00-4:30 45.50 05 RENTON Everett/Boeing 7:15-4:00 57.75 14 RENTON Seattle/Downtown 8:30-4:30 37.50 67 TUKWILA/S. CTR Olympia (Downtown Only) 8:00-5:00 83.25 24 TUKWILA/S. CTR Olympia (Airport Area Only) 8:00-5:00 75.75 EASTSIDE VANPOOLS 33 BELLEVUE/SEATTLE Federal Way 8:00-4:00 51.25 109 KENMORE/KIRKLAND Group Health/Seattle 8:00-5:00 40.00 74 FALL CITY Renton/Paccar 8:00-4:30 39.00 06 ISSAQUAH Boeing/Kent 8:00-4:30. 40.50 105 KIRKLAND Boeing/Devel. CTR. 7:00-3:30 39.00 65 KIRKLAND Boeing/Everett 7:30-4:00 39.00 61 MERCER IS./SEA Olympia 8:00-4:30 92.00 17 REDMOND Kent/Flow Industries 8:00-5:00 40.00 04 RED./BELL./ Georgetown/Boeing Field 7:30-4:00 33.75 MERCER IS. ISLANDERS VANPOOLS 35 BURTON/VASHON Tukwila/Boeing 7:30-4:00 48.50 44 BURTON Tukwila/K2 8:15-4:45 42.75 01 OAK HARBOR/WHID. Seattle/Downtown 7:30-4:00 70.50 91 See this van- under Seattle Vanpools. It picks up and drops off at the Fauntleroy ferry dock. 103 INDIANOLA Seattle/Downtown 8:00-4:45 36.50 SEATTLE VANPOOLS 13 CENTRAL Auburn/GSA 7:30-4:00 52.00 72 NORTH Group Health/Seattl.e 7:00-3:30 31.00 64 NORTH Keyport 6:55-3:45 41.25 85 SOUTH Virginia Mason & 6:30-3:30 37.00 Swedish/Seattle 38 SOUTHWEST Boeing Benaroya/Renton 6:45-3:15 45.50 77 SOUTHWEST Robbins Co./Kent 8:00-5:00 39.00 91 WEST Virginia Mason/Seattle 7:00-3:30 28.25 21 NORTH Boeing & GSA/Auburn 7:30-4:00. 46.75 TACOMA VANPOOLS 07 TACOMA Auburn/Boeing 7:00-3:30 . 39.00 113 TACOMA Todd/Harbor Island 6:30-3:30 54.75 22 TACOMA Sea/Fed. Center/E.Marg. Wy 7:30-4:00 63.00 121 TACOMA Seattle/Sandpoint 7:30-4:00 74.75 Naval Station i 85 This van is trying to form a second vanpool. It runs 7 days/week. i EXHIBIT 4. 0) 's,.... 1 To join a vanpool, call Com muter Pool 625-4500 PLEASE POST THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER13th r i r+ ,RECEIVEI CIY OF REf,v RING EXAMINER SEP22 1981 i 1 AM PEA BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON7,8,911011L1211,213,441516 HEARING EXAMINER2 it 3 Administrative Determination ) i 4 and Site Approval for Terrace) Applicant ' s Project 1 1 Supplemental Request ' 5 i For Reconsideration ,I 1 6 The Examiner rejected the ERC' s overreaching 7 demand for traffic improvements as contained in the ERC' s 1 8 conditions 3 and 4 and • remanded' these conditions for a 9 determination'iof the .appropriate pro rata share of the 10 improvement costs. The ERC (see attached copy of Exhibit 11 1) now stateslthat they will not act .on the remand order. 12 i This attempt to tactically foreclose our options and to 13 delay a decision is unnecessary and contrary to 14 applicant ' s rights and your order. The record before you 15 shows that the Terrace Project would contribute 4. 5% of 16 total traffic at the N.E. 3rd and Edmonds intersection and 17 2. 76 of the traffic at the N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard 18 intersection. ' We request you to decide this matter by 19 I holding that the Terrace Project should be required to 20 1 contribute to the traffic improvements at• the subject 21 I intersections ;based only on the percentages of traffic 22 23 generated by the Terrace Project. 24 DATED This Jda of September, 1981 s—i• Y P 25 Respectfully submitted 26 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN 28 1 W1 7.]!1_p m N. Snelli s APPLICANT' S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 1 k. OF R 0 THE CITY OF RENTON • 1 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 I Z BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT o co- 235- 2550 o 491t ,0 SEP1E10 September 17 , 1981 I I I I William N . Snell Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1700 Doan Building 720 Olive Way Seattle , Washington 98101 Dear Mr . Snell : The Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of Seiptember 16th concluded that action on the Hearing Exami- ndr ' s remand of the U . S . Home action would be inappropriate during the appeal period to Superior Court . As soon as tile appeal period is complete , the Committee will act at the n41y possible ERC meeting . 7 Very y'ou.rs 1 ip,f©' f emens ing Planning Director DRC :wr cc : ERC Members REC HAGGARD, TOUSLEYEIV E D& BRAIN EXHIBIT 1 SEP 2 1 19$1 AM pi70i i 0ltUl i11 JI;1 wEv F4 ame Jr I IIIlir Ili I I AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING I I State of Washington) 1 County of King I I I 1 1 Willis V. Roberts ; being first duly sworn, upon oath 11 I 1 1 disposes and states: I That on the 8th day of September 1981 , affiant I deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing 1 I I a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the I parties of record in tF1ie below entitled application or petition. I 1 I 1 YeL-lf-a-Z I I Subscribed and sworn this el day of 19 / 1 I 1 1 i 92e-1-6"."--' ' 1 Notary Public in and for t e -S-of Washington, residing a 1 I 1 I I 1 I ECF-013-81 Application, Petition or Case: Homecraft Land Development, Inc. ; SA-010-81 1 1 i The minuwez contain a £,L t o4 the paAti.e4 04 necond. ) I 1 r I SING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE 'Ilivh\RIRG racmmINER I I PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 4 , 1981 APPLICANT: HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. FILE UMBER: SA-010-81 A. ',ui rear i Y a PURPOSE OF ;"+^( 1Ij ST: The applicant requests site plan approval for a 280 unit multiple family housing project. B. GENERAL 7LIE3f1@'Q I^r,i m,TI : I 1 . Owner of Record: U.S. HOME CORPORATION 2. Applicant: HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, Inc. 3. Location: Vicinity Map Attached) Between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. 4 . Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property: 8. 4 acres 6. Access :N,E. 3rd Street 7. Existing Zoning: R-4 , Residence Multiple Family, minimum lot size 5, 000 sq. ft. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : GS-1 , R-1 , R-4 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: High Density Multiple Family 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on July 20, 1981 , and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on July 17 , 1981 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT; TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. SA-010-81 PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 4 , 1981 PAGE TWO D. 1 > S]ICAL ::, iG r O D: 1 . Topography: The subject site is relatively level 0-6% slopes) except for two small rises approximately 20 feet high on the east and west borders. 2. • Soils : (Gravel pit and Everett gravelly sandy loam EvD) 15-30% slopes. Runoff is medium to rapid and the erosion hazard is moderate to severe. It is used mostly for timber. M 3. Vegetation: Most of the subject site has_ been cleared 'except for the westerly edge which consists of some .scrub grass and a few trees. 4 . Wildlife: What vegetation exists may support a few birds and some small mammals. 5. Water: !No surface water was observed on the subject site (July 17, 1981 ) . 1 6. Land Use: The subject site is undeveloped at this time. A transmission line easement runs north-south throughlthe westerly portion of the property and the area west of that remains undeveloped. To the north is the Highbury Park single family subdivision and the1Vantage Point Condominiums are located east. Gravel pits occupy the area to the south. E. w]IGi:ill:®;.+:I II j CCTERISTICS The surrounding properties are a combination of single family residential, condominiums, undeveloped, and gravel pits. F. p m 1 L]IC SERVICES: 1 1 . Water and Sewer: Sixteen inch (16") water mains run north-south on Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east-west on N.E. ! 3rd Street adjacent to the subject site., while an 8" sanitary sewer extends northeast-southwest on Bronson Way N.E. within 1000 feet to the southwest. 2 . Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit : Metro Transit Route 107 .operates along N.E. 4th Street within 3/4 of a mile to the northeast of the 'subject site. 4 . Schools; The Highlands Elementary School'. is within 3/4 mile to the north of the subject site, while McKnight Middle School is approximately 11/4 miles north and Hazen High School is within 21/4 miles to the northeast. Renton Vocational Technical PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HOMEdRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. SA-010-81 PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 4 , 1981 PAGE THREE H. INI.PLIOm.mtalw SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Ore OTHER OF CIIAL CITY T: 1 . Comprehensive Plan, Policies Element, Section 4.C. , Housing Density Objective and related Policies, p.9 . I. IMPACTCT ON THE NATURAL OR ICI III I`I,.e 1 I ENVIRONMENT: 1 . Natural Systems : Development of the site will remove the vegetation, disturb the soils and increase storm water runoff and traffic and noise levels in the area. Application of proper development controls and procedures will help insure that these impacts are mitigated. 2. Population/Employment: Construction of 280 units would increase the area population by approximately 700 persons (2. 5/unit X 280 units) , 3. Schools : Approximately 70 additional pupils may be expected in nearby schools with completion of the pro- posal ( . 25 pupil/unit X 280 units) . • 4 . Social: Increased opportunities for social interaction will be available with the introduction of new residents to the area. 5. . Traffic : The proposed development would generate approximately 1500-2000 additional vehicle trips in the area. For specific breakdown see Traffic Section of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Appendix C. J. ENVIRONHrwTAL S1 SSI 0 In+T/'7C`m m m S OLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City .of Renton' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amend-d, RCW 43-21C, the Final Environmental Impact Statement was filed and made availalbe for public review on July 20, 1981 . _ K. HOICES/®EP,..m` HTS CONTACTED: 1 . City pf Renton Building Division. 2. City Hof Renton Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4 . City of Renton Utilities Division. 5. City of Renton Fire Department. 6. City of Renton Parks and Recreation Department L. PLANNING DNPARTN G NT ANALYSIS : 1 . The proposal complies with the existing R-_4., multiple family residential'_zoning of the subject site. The 280 dwellina units will create a riPngity of PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. SA-010-81 PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 4 , 1981 PAGE FOUR 2. The site approval review is a condition of the mining and Grading Ordinance, Section 4-2303 (2) (b) and (c) . j In 1976, Can-Am Properties under Special Permit (SP-876-76) was granted partial approval for excavation of the site subject to twelve condi- tions. Based upon the present condition of the site, it appears that six of the twelve conditions were violated: Specifically, the partial permit was expandedlby the excavator to include the entire site. In addition, required setbacks and natural landscape buffers were violated by the contractor. During .1976, the property owners and contractors were advised that they were in violation of the buffers and setbacks and that the areas would have to be restored. These original conditions were placed on this site to allow the Planning Commission at that time the flexibility in determining the vegetational buffer for future development of the site. Now that a specific project is proposed, the design review can be considered in the review process by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner should consider the site as it exists and not penalize the present property owner for the previous owner' s actions. It is no.W the authority of the Hearing Examiner to determine, if the activity would not be unduly detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner should consider in his deliberation- (1 ) the size! and location of the activity, (2) traffic volume and patterns, (3) screening, landscaping, fencing and setbacks, (4) unsightliness, noise, and dustl, (5) surface drainage, and (6) the length of time the application of an existing operation has to comply with non-safety provisions of this ordinance. Since there has not been a primary use of the site, the provision that deals with re-use of the site is applicable only to the compati- bility of the proposed use. 3 . The proposal is generally consistent with the 1981 goals and policies. However, there are some apparent inconsistencies with specific policies addressing 1 ) Urbari Design, (2) Residential, (3) Transportation, and (4) Community Capital Facilities. 1 ) URBAN DESIGN: In the Urban Design Section of the Goals and Policies, the Landscape objective is, "Landscaping should be used for buffering, screening less attractive activi- ties and minimizing detrimental impacts between PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. SA-01081 PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 4 , 1981 PAGE FIVE consideration imposed by the Building Code and Zoning Code. The Terrace, on the other hand, is being reviewed under the Special Permit provisions of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. The Hearing Examiner has authority to increase landscaping areas, if he feels the buffer separations in this proposal are not adequate. Policy 3.D. 10 states that "Landscaping should be compatible with significant natural conditions. " Windsor Hills Park to the north already provides a degree of land use buffer. Based upon the implementation of the Special Permit so far, all natural amenities on the site have been eliminated. The question remains whether those natural amenities should be replaced by the present applicant, since the applicant purchased the property with limitations resulting from the Special Permit. 2) RESIDENTIAL: The Residential Goal is to Encourage suitable housing and living envi- ronments. " This is provided through a series of policies . The subject proposal appears to conflict with Section 4 .D. 6. , "Screening and setbacks along arterials should be more extensive than along local streets . " Again, the issue arises that along N.E. 4th and N. E. 3rd Streets, specifically N.E. 3rd, that addi tional screening through landscaping should be required to buffer the project from the impact of the increasing traffic on the arterial streets and provide a suitable environment for the apartment or condominium dweller. 3) TRANSPORTATION: The primary Transportation Goal is "To promote a safe, efficient, and balanced multi-model transportation system. " The decisions reached to require the construction of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and the necessary traffic improvements are based in part upon Policy 7.B. 6, which states, "The development of a property should provide for public street improvements necessary to serve the site. " In this specific case, the Environmental Review Committee has determined that specific chan- nelization and signalization will be required along with the normal street improvements for Edmonds Avenue N.E. as a mitigating measure. The exact design has not been submitted and agreed upon by the City. . 4) COMMUNITY FACILITIES : Under Community Facilities the applicant has attempted to meet -all of PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. SA-010-81 PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 4 , 1981 PAGE SIX 4 . In addition to the mitigating measures which the applicant has agreed to as stated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Environmental Review Committee on July 20, 1981 , imposed five additional conditions on the project itself as authorized in Section 4-2810 (c) of the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance. At the time of this report preparation, the applicant has not requested relief from any provisions of the required mitigation. The Committee raised a policy issue related to the maximum acceptable traffic volume on N.E. 3rd. Therefore, the City Council will be required as an environmental measure "to determine in the approval process that the traffic impacts can be mitigated by the proposal or that overriding social, economic or environmental considerations make approval of the project appropriate. " In addition, street improvements to make this proposal appropriate would include (1 ) the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. as a public roadway from N.E. 3rd to N. E. 4th Strets, (2) channelization, street widening and signalization of the intersection of N. E. 3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. to provide for left turns from N.E. 3rd Street, and (3) any operational improvements necessary to accommodate traffic at the N.E. 3rd Street and Sunset Boulevard intersection, including widening, paving, or signal modifications. The fifth condition was an analyisis of the 'downstream sanitary sewer and storm water capacity and submission of plans to accommodate this development in these two systems with the approval of the Public Works Department. The question of proportionate sharing of the costs of the mitigating improvements can be resolved by the City Council in possibly the form of a late- ' comer ' s agreement. 5. Other department comments are attached for review. M. DEPARTMENTAL OII ND\TIO S: Based upon the above analysis , it is recommended that the Hearing Examiner approve the request for site approval, file SA-010-81 , subject to the following conditions : 1 ) That the City Council must determine in the approval process that the traffic impacts can be mitigated by the proposal or that overriding social, economic or environmental considerations make approval of this project appropriate. This is based upon the fact that significant adverse primary and associated secondary impacts will occur due to traffic increases PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HOMECRAFT LAND 'DEVELOPMENT, INC. SA-010-81 PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 4 , 1981 PAGE SEVEN I 2) Edmonds Avenue N.E. shall be extended as a public roadway from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th Streets. 3) Channelization, street widening, and signalization shall be provided at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue N.E. to provide for left turns from N. E. 3rd. 4) Any operational improvements necessary to accommodate traffic at the N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard inter- section, including widening, paving or signal modifi- cations, shall be provided by this development. 5) An analysis of the downstream sanitary sewer andstormwatercapacityshallbecompleted, and plans for accommodating this development in these systems shall be approved by the Public Works Department. I I I I sr G]Tfo aarrrur' -- ---r-•• - I b 0rti Ip07M C'l_jA--01 rV7•c 1D,Z`10,4, 0 i.,jO ._ - i wi.-rt'y: n w w] S .Mg I I KLR 1 8N, Jit IOO S Ti.i.!0 r' r.PL ii' O• •KO R'P.-C rite b per S Y- o.-° "` C!Y•,LC.././!-O, o'.. n d- rCY. Ju„Pntfv:Et,"nrtzWN o=u .0 GCM.Y C.CY'.•Q IZ Pa%S-i,— ii/kp.52.J00,5..•W.slv Lbi it•-i{ N• r PPo.6C.r ~ fa •M/Ca1S iCEh•.S'I.GM bCt t] Ca2-•`a.-- tv/ o!CTr,E:7 r.D..[/y rr 1 Ii d. CCi y CEr Co-,..C.,-OEMrr, ]-l L - y:. - 1 y:. t p - y 11 ti ri.eS '• j-. pI(•afIIL MTR v Q •tRE0-9 ]A:/[M ]'Sy. 01 Iil. re,504.1PEOIOP . l i . _'. O 1P!O--oS[w : V.A!TY Ira YeSOL •-. -( 2,21 SO'L I'7V-. O•,. w- c`,„_ti C Y.srirnN wirct rc-i e+ti+0. ' ELSCnti.S],r{Tavq. 51 tn ,y w ^ J O1,CE• ly.,CM. a • I KC:_ ,Ff.../l l'1 /:' C_ •,- w Yam.'' r'" W.-MI7e,I 0 UcEEVEnCvp. Sy. 111 14,a I.„ '1• sei.. Trl...,'JrLLw Er hlaa 1 7 r w/' V •O O I W. v` on SMEETi ES) 1 74•..4 i. $r='r.t,. r 4.0 f. .iiVp e davr: d,q p li n.._ - 1-... . - Ahle.,-- coi-- h = L.„ k I 66, w,'•- rt.ri 0 '••••• -',,,.„.. ' rr•zsd 1111 I. 1°':.( 7)L.•:_.• '''- Tgt.et ----I:4V,o• 5':::'C'....4ft. / ' N..., 4iPO' of • • ,/ ' 1 e /* Aft jrw `.: i 1 Ai l'.---.411.11P" r-- W r V: s \: FF•2Ya. yO,t4".i]1]' , f• I I.• ' l4= 0 11[ i / o G1. rn pnc• y may ,ee ..:..ems —rim4412— —ltin i O Q pl•ai .s ei- .o.....csl i' _<d` Vim' oidws r;Ef- ter;, towi.A 44 a ."1411.- room— •,,,.nr- v ki _ .7,,/ ,..e,,,k....A...,....:,.........000jorify : _:. pii.4110 'noir° i_kiV.,''''..:6•42'174/ Gaiii -.c.... e.-- 1:fAirde''' A• imina p \®\ Y C' 4(T(/ // ®N.a i I - La'CT•) L E L._ `dN. d 1 r TFT Et PETN•.'(i,r•Lb Ibu-GM1T ITEM xl Fxie 1 sa>r FEET PeEc€nT 1 9L'l!Z•GZ I . lol,9te . 17.] ISS.]<] t.] I CITY OF RENTONt.86 540 mrnbnas i'n'ni._•1if• c vrovv• ez I E ; or..a..r T or z, i ,t,,r c_r54'-II. R .:.o•,-rEr Ito r THE TERRACE ne7.o.'r_j Lam. u so - _ '- aJ i + e.....,iQ.s/TE PLAN TO;".r1.-E"• 0, ' 3e7 90I Ilb 0 rt9- !. J s 1-- s.........t.::••••,.................,....• ...... • -• A 2 e I s. ' a 1.•:. i I .1 • i •—ii . T:,.._....7._ . 7„.___,.. .:„..m_ . 4--.--- M 4... -,. ..._ U I * —=•— r------111...2.-7 -.--7--7. :_:::TS:1':-.111.4__.-.M.-m_..„-• ..=—•=—.=.?: A.....en ilm• ... _ 2.7........1..1 ~.'.e.•--;.• I.-7.1=-= 7.L"-' -17.1 .i-I2N.:--='w..Q........1-=------;a •..7.r..4 Ee.4...-7.:=.•-• .. apsk•irE .,.., t*'-ali-N-M aff-- -•tgai-- --:1 , .1- Ipi- . Wz 11 .---r.,-. -mr-ml- .--- . . .7'':raiz 5 tl"'4 "-'.t. EglitlEgil 3: i ' 1 1 1 :.:111I—gBiR 14,1:o. ro./ I Cue".C.orrif) I ...C--•d. a,4 woo .•. ......T C..% 7....stes,-... 1. . 1, RIGHT S'.DE ELEVATION -.BLDG 4 •i.•'. ' :•.;..- '- L EF T SIDE .•E L E VAT 4ION-BLDG 17.1"rrn Va.•r•ti j 1• 1/ 0---..j - id ------i. 7,•. 7/1311I .....,-- ..I... 4'141-1- C.....`'.-..,.7 Z..--1 7_7-_L_:=721 . c.jar;:-- - ,L' i-- .-. 2___,. :__ -,_- --77.._: _..f-=" .".. 51 2r--- .-• _..7. _ „1::i;'•'''' 4 L:: .___-•L-L.------ =-1-------.-1 trt .:EN_ •-t-.0:.•.....-v-i1-....L „en.: .‹.-:-...--...CI,- ___-= i d 1111-_4_r------____:-_--------FM\1‘ - --__--=! -7-_-_- -______ 1 p.:___I-7- 1----•- Jr— , e,,,,,-.1 -,-=-, .-1.--,• oa - .=---=____--„-_..;. a il... .....: 1,..1-fr. : -I--.I s A ....)-71.41 I 71.'t:....••••••I...- M.D..;•,,,i.1',......1.,..i ERO.NTE_E_LEV/1_1 0 N_S UIL DI_N G_4_1- EAR:EN E_SA_ME-__— rival. Do* 6_:. •6iL f= 11E.m I I ! 1 1 m 111-1 I• ,r . IA -A-1 •1---, 1 A. L. 1111--v-7.. A C\----).' SECTION A-A BLD'G. 4 T.T.,..• . . , ..... 4,4lIMMI0MME11 MINI. 1 4. 0 p 1r1 i I r• ,i11.7.. 1:71.r....• ....,..r.1 9.0FF'• s, III o I I illaill7 SECTION B B . BLD'G. 4 1.-----. al MI M • M.W L. Zbi 0.......1 11._El OF. CB11F111 ‘ %\.:1-.'__ A a /• I l• nu A SECTION C-C BLDG. 4 y.,..•r..,..* 1 n 6.-„, 1 N., i............ a,.lisilim1uAllAnzumni I pi III 1 Ro.ane Nat ill gri A II SECTION D-D BUILDING 4 ProttnNta t VP-1*-0. CCe• Planning1! I . . e..-,, 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Appli cats n :_ IJ . , e___iL S- 0O0-ec) o e coosf kud'iou o A. ?e)C0 vs..o-1- C-9, 0Mxivoc0Ai, Ni (6, Oaf e.1 .eg 1Location : ..'tts=eec a Fa..F. 3 4. N,, EC. ry ^' ciaeeeim -- estpcf E c q oh ADP. W Applicant : (Lfr me. al L af.J pet 0hi 'N. TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ' Police Department Public Works Department Engineering Division Tr1affic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OlR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION R V EW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT V:U0 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO AITEND THE ARC, PLEASE RtIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not ApprovedPP s:' y / 17-7:'4 01434:_ nluC/- , j s;'i2.//rc!- eli./S -7;61/C_7dz-- 7, i' c_ !" /- : 9 /3L-i:‘ e- i //t." r_7t /2 i1 G' 4, '.G/t./.\ •,..'ee .7.!0i .i C'O/L! :_tcJ"27tfC__C F ".-GTi.'L. 'j L'C_i%/ /' C i'T2 S/a .7 " j%.' 4 c • . e /6 /e/ gnature of D rector or Author.' e71--Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENTi/DIVISION : 1,1ir.ri-/ q. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DI1Jk ION :p Approved SC I Approved with Coondid ons Not Approved p74-"-4a----- N c .3'-4) He:v —? .w.. /Yd/e 2) ,9l/ dv-I vex S 1 7g el s!vu c GJ 1 // weImo. , _e-V 6.-1 L.....4c'0., 3) c r e s , '/ s C1-- 5- 1---- Z—// 7 k/ Signature of Director or Au orized R pre entative Date 1 REVIEWING_DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; (- L6.) Xi Approved Approved with Conditions i Not Approved 1 I I 7 Signa oi Director or Aut o'rized Representative Date 6. 5) -P/ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved lApproved with Conditions Not Approved I 1 Signature of Director orlAuthorized Representative Date 1 KtVitW11'V UtVMtIMLNI /U1VIS1UN : Traffic Engineering DivisionL ' Approved Approved with Conditions///Not Approved See attachment M DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET RE : Homecraft Land Development, Inc. (SA-010-81) 1 . Street lighting is required in accordance with established City standards localted along NE 4th Street and along Edmonds Ave. to the extent of the' propierty line limits. Street lighting plans to be submitted to the Traffic Engineering Division. 2. The proposed development will contribute to an increased use of the inter- section of NE 3rd Street and Sunset Blvd. NE which is over capacity at peak hour. It ould be reasonable for the development to contribute financially to an int rsection improvement project to increase the capacity of NE 3rd Street and Sunset Blvd. NE. Estimated vehicle volume generated by the proposed development: No. of units x Trip ends per unit = Vehicle Trip Ends 280 x 5.6 = 1 ,568 71 71_,,c-1.,,,,,_ CEM:ad I 1- REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE DEPT. Approved Approved with Conditions xxxx Not Approved See attached memo Lt. D. R. Persson Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ME ® '‘_ ANMI TO Dave Clemens, Planning Dept DATg/10/81 FROM' Lt. D.R. Persson SUBJECT Homecraft Land Development Inc. After reviewing thelinformation supplied for the proposed Homecraft Development it is my opinion that the development will have a significant impact on police services. However these impacts could very possibly be mitigated if the proper information were supplied. Unfortunately the time limit of two days to respond to the questions raised by this development is not sufficent for me to properly respond to all the areas of concern. The main areas of concern to the police department are; (1) Personal safety of the occupants of the development (2) Security of the buildings personal property ;and (3) Traffic. Safety in the area. If these concerns are not addressed at this time the Renton Police Dept. will not be able to adequately serve the new development and existing developments in the larea. Hopefully this mattelr can be continued for a couple of weeks to allow some of the questions that I have to be answered. 1 Sincee Lt. . . Persson y , I Planning 12- 1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET I Application : SIm A peov?L aa- o/0_81 c o G O a S Q u"O u t o pe4e's-. Location :1vGecv lit.E. 3es $r 14, a lt8 c-t eet ,jest o$ Ect.,o...i5 pup.W. Appl i cant : iirme-c-Rait Iovd "--De1telopme..t T G. TO: arks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :, 3110 ft3 IoliceDepartment Public Works Department M Engineering Division Traffic EngineeringI Building Division ' Utilities' Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR UGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED INWRITINGFORTHEAPPLICATIONRgV1EWCONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT : 0 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM.IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ' ATTEND THE ARC,PLEASE R VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:0U P.M. ON I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 0--*- Approved Approved with Conditions Not Ap proved 01-i-A- e- 14- w e-gt ----t 0--,.... ,..1-e_.-c -0-e___....--rz,,—,_ _ t__..,_:_..L...r,_ 4....c<r---e4-42 7642 c.,--egcLa- T ct, i A ODatezedRepresentative i RFVTCWTMG r r ADTMrmTinfl.TCTn.I _ of • `6 THE CITY OF z i , ENTONA x .. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 PARKS and RECREATION o P JOHN E. WEBLEY - DIRECTOR FD SEP1c05 235-2560 February 6, 1981 Raymond S. Wiltshire 320 Andover Park E., Suite 260. Tukwila, WA. I 98188 Dear Mr. Wiltshire: After reviewing) the recreational amenities proposed in the HomecraftShortPlatPreliminaryPlan, it would appear that you are attemptingtomeeton-site1 recreational needs in a number of ways. I do have some difficulty in assessing the plan without benefit of the finaltopographicplanorascaletoapplytothefacilities. Final land- scaping plans would also help as would projected demographics as thefacilitiesshouldreflecttheneedsoftheresidents. I realize that as the plan goes forward there are likely to be other changes thataffecttherecreationalelements, however, I would recommend that where possible you consolidate the usable active recreation spacelawns) to maximize potential uses. The stream, for example tendstodivideusablespaceup. The elements you are programming in aregenerallythosewhichreceiveconsiderableuseinourparks, however it would be nice'; to see a combination tennis/basketball court on-site. I look forward to seeing your final plans at which time I will make some definitive recommendations to you. Thank you for the opportunitytocommentatthistime. Sincerely, ohn E. Webley Director Parks & Recreation JEW:mc Exhibit 7-A. September 23, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON MINUTES, APPLICANT (APPELLANT) : Homecraft Land Development, Inc. FILE NO. SAIO10-81 ECF-013-81 LOCATION: Between N.E. ,3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. PUBLIC HEARING: Following are the minutes of the public hearing for the rjeferenced files. The minutes constitute a summary of the proceedings, and are not a verbatim record. The Examiner's Report and Decision regarding the matters was published on September 8, 1981 . The hearing was opened on August 18, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. I Legal counsel for the applicant/appellant introduced himself as follows: Bill Snell Haggard, Tousley & Brain i 1700 Daon Building 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 In order to expefdite the hearing process, Mr. Snell requested that both the interrelated site approval aqd the appeal be heard concurrently to avoid repetitious testimony. The Examiner concurred in the request to consolidate the hearings, noting that a single report would be issued for both matters. Mr. Snell submitted a prehearing statement to the Examiner which included a testimonial outline, and introduced other representatives testifying for the applicant/appellant. He then called his first witness who introduced himself as follows: Ray Wiltshire Senior Vice President Homecraft Land Development, Inc. 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Mr. Wiltshire reviewed his responsibilities with the firm, including acquisition and development of Property for U.S. Home Corporation during the past four years. He advised that the subjectsite was acquired in September of 1980, the property was and is zoned R-4, and the prposal conforms to all zoning and Comprehensive Plan. requirements for development of 280 condominium units on 8.4 acres of land, half the allowable site density. An Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for the property to mitigate environmental impacts reasonably related to the proposed development and to meet all applicable City of Renton codes and regulations. As a result of that review, he noted, building configurations will be slightly modified to reduce square footages of each, structure to less than 12,000 square feet. He submitted a letter from the Environmental Review Committee, dated July 20, 1981 , containing conditions which had been impose upon the project, ar d advised. his opinion that they are burdensome and in excess of requirements to mitigate th impacts directly caused by the development. The conditions were reiterated as follows: imdrovement of Edmonds Avenue N.E. to full width between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th Streets; channelization, widening and signalization of the resulting intersection of N.E. 3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. ; and provision of operational improvements to accommodate traffic on. N.E. 3rd Street and Sunset Boulevard. Mr. Wiltshire stated that the improvements Irequired on Edrionds are not supported by the facts presented in the EIS, and while he had no objection to contributing to the improvements on N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard, he felt that the contrbution should be consistent with the impacts generated by the project. He objected to the position of the city that the applicant should pay for other improvements , required as a result of additional traffic generated from Edmonds, or, in other words, the applicant is being asked to create a problem so that he can mitigate it and provid other city traffic improvements to intersections to which he has not contributed impacts. Should the conditions imposed by the City of Renton remain, the cost of developing the subject property will increase by approximately $300,000.00, not including. the cost of additional interest, and will ultimately increase sales prices of the condominiums by approxi ately Y A r SA-010-81 Page Two ECF-013-81 1500.00 per unit. The Examiner r<'quest_d review of the Planning Department staff report by Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner. Mr. Blaylock reviewed the report, and entered the following exhibits into the record. These were briefly perused by Mr. Snell . Exhibit #1 : Application File, SA-010-81 , containing Planning Department report and other pertinent documents Exhibit #2: Appeal File, ECF-013-81 The Examiner noted that the site plans, the draft and final EIS's are part of Exhibit #1 . Mr. Blaylock also advised that new drawings had been submitted by the applicant which were entered with other exhibits as follows: Exhibit #3: Supplementary Drawings (5 sheets) Exhibit #4: Site Plan of subject proposal with staff comments designating streets' Exhibit #5: Short Plat File and Special Permit File, SP-099-80; Rainier Sand & Gravel road alignment (by reference) Exhibit #6: File No. SP-876-76; CAN-AM Special Permit original fill and grade (by reference) Exhibit #7: Short Plat 095-80, W-096-80; Homecraft Land Development, Inc. (by reference) Mr. Blaylock clarified Section L.5 of the staff report pertaining to departmental comments for connection. of Edmonds Avenue N.E. , noting that the city had acquired property along the eastern side of the site prior to purchase of the property by the applicant, and approval of the short plat had been conditioned upon construction of that roadway. Responding to Mr. Snell ' s cross-examination regarding the city's traffic analysis, Mr. Blaylock advised that the' traffic analysis prepared by the applicant had been reviewed by the city's Traffic Engineering Department, and the staff comments contained in the Planning Department report had been obtained from the same department and the Public Works Department. Responding to Mr. Snell ' s' inquiry regarding the Planning Department's recommendation for approval , although certain questions and concerns have been raised, Mr. Blaylock confirmed that approval is recommended. In response to an inquiry regarding compliance with all aspects of the city's landscape ordinance, Mr. Blaylock stated that compliance with the 5% interior parking landscaping has occurred; however, there are no additional landscaping requirements required for the site other than those stated within the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Snell inquired regarding concerns of the Park Department for off-site recreational facilities and whether information is contained in the environmental documents which are the official review documents for that particular project that would indicate that the project is not meeting all of the recreational needs on the site. Mr. Blaylock clarified that the documents state that "the" recreational impacts will be mitigated, not "all ." He also stated that response was based upon the immediate recreational needs on site; however, the general needs as proposed and documented in the Comprehensive,Park Plan do designate the difference between neighborhood community and regional park facilities, and while the applicant is meeting needs of the immediate neighborhood, needs of the community park system are not beinglmet. Mr. Snell inquired if it is Mr. Blaylock's understanding that the purpose of an EIS is to provide full disclosure and provide the comments at the time the document is prepared rather than providing supplements after the EIS is final . Mr. Blaylock stated his belief that state law allows for supplementary EIS's which may be an interpretative decision of the Hearing Examiner. Responding for the applicant/appellant was: Steve Clark Director of Planning Stepan & Associates 930 S. 336th, Suite A Federal Way, WA 98003 Mr. Snell submitted a copy of Mr. Clark' s resume into the record as follows: Exhibit #8: Resume for Steve Clark I L) SA-O , ..,1 Page Three ECF-013-81 4 Mr. Clark expanded on certain key points raised during review of the Planning Department report. He stated reasons that reuse of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and reviewed uses currently existing in. surrounding .arei..:- to illustrate compatibility with the proposed use. He pointed out that if the proposal were developed "tb its maximum potential density of 70 units per acre, potentially 588 units could be constructed; however, in ,keeping with the applicant's objectives of constructing moderately priced, medium l density development, 280 units or approximately half of the allowable density are proposed. Mr1 Clark presented building renderings of the units in proposed structures and a conceptual landscaping plan for the site. For illustrative purposes, the renderings were accepted by the Examiner. Mr. Clark described the building configurations and designs, noting that approximately 20% of the site is devoted to structures, 40% is devoted to parking, and the .remaining 40% for landscaping, recreational activities and open spacer. The proposed recreational amenities, landscaping, and setbacks were discussed to illustrate compatibility with the intent of the urban design section of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clark iterated engineering requirements of the subject property, advising that the Public Works Department has reviewed storm water plans, temporary erosion plans, and sewer anid water plans, and has made a preliminary recommendation for modifications which the applicant is currently undertaking for resubmission. He summarized by stating that the reuse of the site should be granted, that the proposal is in conformance with the Colmprehensive Plan, is consistent with the urban design goals and policies in terms ol screening and buffering, all utilities are available, and height limitations will be imposed on structuures.11TheExaminerrequested clarif;cation of a comment contained on page 30 of the draft EIS regarding the possibility that the storm system may not be efficient during periods of heavy storms. MrL Clark indicated that the problem has been resolved and the proposed design will provide for the ortfall of water released in the 10-year storm rate. Mr. 1 Snell then questioned Mr. Clark regarding investigation by the firm of cost estimates of making recommended traffic improvements. Mr. Clark estimated that construction of Edmonds to Full width would cost approximately $75,000.00 to $85,000.00; channelization and signalization at the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Edmonds would be from $100,000.00 to 25,000.00; improvements to N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard, while undefined, would range from approximately $15,000.00 to $35,000.00, but additional widening or channelization would increase that figure; and providing half-width improvement to Edmonds would be , estimated at $50,000.00, but if improved at half-width from 4th to the entrance to the project, the amount would be reduced to approximately $15,000.00. The Examiner noted that the improvement of at least the half width of Edmonds Avenue had been a condition of 'the short plat, and questioned the relevancy of the testimony. Mr. Snell advised that the slhort plat has not yet been inalized. ad not alluded to the fact in the s:aff Mr. Blaylock not d that the Planning Department h He also advised thatreportthattheprojectwasincompatiblewiththesurroundingarea. the Planning Department and the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) had not recommended additional conditions regard'ng recreational provisions, although such park contributions Could have been imposed, and finally, he took issue with the placement of cost on mitigating measures since trey are a necessary requirement of the city. Mr. Snell submitted a resume for the next representative testifying for the applicant, Which was entered into the record by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #9: Resume for David Markley Responding was: David Markley Transpo Group 23-148th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 Mr. Markley reviewed his educational and professional employment background. He referenced page 4, figure 2 and page 11 , of the draft EIS, which lists daily traffic volumes, and stated that during peak hour, approximately 10% of the daily volume isla carried on those streets. Mr. Markley advised that off of cs to the extension' te is of thephalfded itstreetof two points, one directly off of 4th and another an Edmonds Avenue connecting 4th with the site entrance. He referenced a site drawing which illustrates various street configurations in separate colors, entered into the record by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #10: Shaded Streets On page 11 of the draft EIS, traffic volumes on a daily and peak hour basis are reflected including proj ctions for 1982 with and without the project. Mr. Markley advised that use of transit was not assumed in estimating traffic volumes, and a higher than generally accepted trip generation rate was used so that the analysis results are conservati\e. i i u y SA-010-81 Page Four ECF-013-81 Following evaluation of the extension of Edmonds Avenue, it was concluded that it should not P be extended to intersect with N.E. 3rd Street, based largely on the fact that problems currently exist along 3rd Street, particularly at the intersection with Sunset Boulevard. To extend Edmonds through and to connect 4th and 3rd would provide an additional convenient access and result in additional traffic volume over and above that generated by the subject project to utilize 3rd Street, and exacerbate an already existing problem. The possibility of a half street improvement between 4th and the site entrance was examined, and it was felt that this improvement was necessary and appropriate since it would provide a second access to the property and an alternative in the event one access off of 4th were blocked to emergency vehicles. Also evaluated was the possibility of construction of a half street on Edmonds Avenue right-of-way connecting 3rd and 4th, and it was felt that similar impacts would occur as in utilizing the first alternative when it was discussed that constructing the entire street would introduce a new link to 3rd and allow traffic now flowing north to go in a southerly direction, thereby aggravating the already congested situation. The Examiner inquired at what point congestion would be increased, because N.E. 4th eventually funnels into N.E. 3rd at the present time. Mr. Markley concurred, but stated that his analysis showed that the development did not warrant that connection because there was no congestion at Bronson Way and 3rd where the bulk of the project's traffic would flow, and providing a more convenient, direct link between 4th and 3rd would induce traffic volumes that were not related to the subject project. He recognized the city's ultimate desire to extend Edmonds as far as the Maple Valley Highway, and he also advised the applicant 's willingness to pay a fair share of that cost at the time the complete connection is made and when impacts associated with segmenting it could be minimized. As part of the connection between 3rd and 4th., the need is introduced to establish a new intersection, roadway widening to allow left turn storage, and left turn signalization as well as signalization of the entire intersection to allow safe movement of traffic in and out of the area which is not warranted by the 4.5% of the 1982 traffic volume which would pass through that intersection from the proposed project. Responding for the applicant/appellant was: Joel Haggard Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1700, Daon Building 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Haggard's cross-examination of Mr. Norris included inquiries regarding his educational and professional employment background, his familiarity with the ITE Manual , LOS methodology utilized, and other matters. Mr. Norris reviewed his professional background, stated that the ITE Trip Generation Manual is the accepted methodology for estimation of trip generation rates, and the Webster Technique and the Highway Capacity Manual Technique are methodologies utilized to establish levels of service. Responding to Mr. Haggard's inquiry regarding the basis for indicating that Mr. Markley's analysis is not conservative, Mr. Norris stated that because Mr. Markley's study did not delineate transit trips and although the ITE. Manual provides a high range trip generation rate, Mr. Markley did not use that high range rate. The accepted methodology is to use an average trip rate, but the point in the discussion is that Mr. Markley stated that his analysis was a "worst case" analysis, and it is actually an average case analysis. The Examiner clarified that the figures utilized in the draft EIS were 7.2 trips if 150, units were contructed on site and 5.5 trips if 300 units were constructed on site, as noted on page 13 of the document, table 1 . Also, discussion is found on page 10 which refers to rates of 5. 1 or 7. 1 so the numbers do differ 'in the report itself. Mr. Haggard inquired if Mr. Norris had ever indicated to Mr. Markley that his characterization of the generation rate is not a worst case analysis or was incorrect. Mr. Norris believed that the fact had been pointed out in previous discussions. Responding to Mr. Haggard's inquiry, Mr. Norris stated that the analysis is an adequate analysis. Mr. Haggard further cross'-examined Mr. Norris regarding discussion of the Transportation Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan contained in the Planning Department report which indicates that the ERC has determined that there be normal street improvements for Edmonds Avenue as mitigatling measures. He inquired if there are any facts contained within the staff report to indicate the truth or falsity of that conclusion. Mr. Norris felt there was no need for those facts to be presented because Ordinance No. 3538 of the City of Renton requires that the developer construct that roadway and because it is desired to extend that road to Maple Valley in the future. The Examiner clarified that it should be expressed as possibly the city's desire reflected in its Comprehensive Plan that the roadway be extended, and he noted Mr. Blaylock's earler comment that the plan shows that arterial running the length of Edmonds and intersecting either Maple Valley Highway or a roadway in that vicinity.) Mr. Haggard questioned Mr. Norris regarding his familiarity with the Renton Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, 1965-1985 and the Land Use Report, 1965, I. SA-010-61 Page Five ECF-013-81 and the Street Arterial Designations, and whether these documents were reviewed prior to providing recommehdations for the traffic improvements for the project. Mr. Norris stated that the document were not reviewed. Questioning then entailed the date of designation of improvement of Edmonds Avenue in theQ99P Six Year Traffic Plan, and if Mr. Norris had any opinion as to whether Edmonds, if installed to full width betl een 3rd and 4th, would attract diverted traffic from the areas north off the hill . Mr. Norris stated that he did not anticipate a diversion of traffic to that roadway. Mr. Haggard referenced page 51 of the draft EIS pertaining to diversion of traffic at the Group Health Medical Flecility, and inquired if Mr. Norris had disagreed with the estimate contained in the EIS that about half of the existing traffic would be diverted off of 4th down to 30 via Edmonds. Mr. Norris stated that he had not disagreed with the statements becausie it would constitute his argument against the applicant's argument,I and that the statements were not significant because requirements of Ordinance No. 3538 are sufficient to establish the need for a full width street plus the desire to extension of that street. Mr. Haggard questioned city staff regarding the access roadway into the ERADCO proper1ty On the south side of N.E. 4th Street. Following discussion, it was determined that the roadway was constructed for purposes of access to construction. Mr. Haggard then inquired regarding the al 'gnment of proposed Edmonds Avenue to the roadway on the southern side of N.E. 4th Street. It was stated that the city owns right-of-way along the eastern edge of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property contituting approximately 80 to 85% of the length of that road, and the other 15% runs northerly across other property not owned by the city to intersect N.E. 30 at an approximate 75 degree angle. Responding to Mrs Haggard's numerous inquiries regarding the extent to which trafficiwill utilize Edmonds between 3rd and 4th, comments contained in the EIS, the functional classification Of Edmonds upon completion, and the percentage of traffic generated b the proposed development, Mr. No{-ris stated that the intent of the 'proposed roadway is not to accommodate existing traffic, but to provide an alternative access around the intersection of N. 3rd and Sunset, which is currently operating at LOS E, to Maple Valley Highway]; to provide alternative access to Bronson Way; and to provide alternative access to the freeway. He indicated that Edmonds Avenue would probably be classified as a neighborhood collector, and the traffic from the proposed development will contribute approximately 5% to the volume at the intersection of N. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard. Mr. Haggard stated that the city has never required a landowner as a function of development to cionstruct a thoroughfare benefitting the general public. Mr. Norris disagreed, citi g development of roadways in the valley floor area in which the entire arterial system was constructedl for the benefit of adjacent landowners and paid for them sunder an LID, noting that the property is owned by a single landowner. Mr. Haggardi indicated that I-'omecraft does not own the property on both sides of Edmonds, and inquired if Mr. Norris would disagree with Mr. Markley's comment that a half-width street extending from 4th down to Edmonds to the project access would be the requirement for traffic 'raccess through the project, in addition to the access off of 4th. Mr. Norris stated that for purposes of access to the subject property, even that would not be required. Responding to Mr. Haggard's request for clarification of the applicant's requirement to construct a portion" of Edrionds Avenue, Mr. Norris stated that the roadway required by the app scant between "3rd and 4th would constitute a "portion" of Edmonds Avenue extending from N E. 4th to Maple Valley. Responding to M . Haggard's further inquiries, Mr. Norris stated that in the exercise of discretion of determining the extent of off-site improvements, a distinction is not made between a situation in which the developer owns only property adjoining one side ofla roadway from a 'situation in which both sides are owned, and' in this case, it would not be possible to provide two lanes of traffic on half of a road, half of a traffic signal , or half of a chann'elized intersection. Mr. Norris also indicated that the ordinance provides that all necessl ry appurtenances including street widening be determined by the Publlic Works Directorlor his representative, including other improvements necessary, whether related to the development or not. Mr. Haggard noted that Mr. Norris' previous testimony had indicated that the Edmonds project is not specifically necessary to service the proposed devel pment. Dan Kellogg, A sistant City Attorney, requested Mr. Norris to explain the factors that he and his department consider in determining required street improvements for a particular project. Mr. Dorris advised that consideration is made of the overall traffic circulation in the area, t e long range forecast of traffic in the area, how the total area might be best served if the development is allowed, and measures which can be accomplished in the development process to enhance traffic circulation in the area relating to the project itself and the surrounding community. Mr. Kellogg inquired regarding the technical, standards which are, reviewed and analyzed in making this determination. Mr. Norris stated SA-010-81 Page Six ECF-013-81 that the following are reviewed from a traffic standpoint: capacity analysis of adjacent intersections; channelization of the roadway; sidewalk, curb and gutter; paving conditions; street widening conditions; forecast for future development in the area; and the overall service to the area. Responding to Mr. Kellogg's question regarding adherence to specific codes and regulations concerning standards of improvements, Mr. Norris referenced the APWA standards and city ordinances as they relate to the issues. Mr. Haggard referenced paragraphs 1 , 2, 3 and 4 on page 10 of the Transpo report which describes worst case traffic conditions, and inquired if Mr. Norris disagreed with the characterization contained in that report Mr. Norris indicated his disagreement. Mr. Blaylock clarified, that the dedication date of Edmonds Avenue occurred in 1979 prior to the purchase of the property. The Examiner noted that the proponent of the project had indicated that the development would occur in three phases, assumed to correspond to the three lots of the short plat; and he questioned whether landscaping or other mitigation measures should occur on the remainder of the site, particularly since the EIS indicates that development would depend upon market conditions. Mr. Wiltshire stated the intent of Homecraft to develop theiparcel in phases, and although the short plat has not yet been recorded, it is anticipated that subsequent to a decision on the matter by the Examiner, the short plat will be filled. Also, he noted that the property exists in two separate tax lots. 1 Mr. Snell summarized the lissues in the matters of site plan review and appeal of the mitigation conditions. He described the proposed development and its amenities, noting compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and requirements of the Zoning Code. The real issues, in summary, are those relating to the appeal of conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee. He objected to Condition No. 1 , which pertains to City Council review of the mitigation of traffic impacts from the proposal , an improper and un- lawful condition in his opinion, and a process which should be established by ordinance and not through an imposed condition. He cited R.C.W. 43.21 .C.060, which provides that a project may only be conditioned or denied based on specific environmental impacts identified in the environmental document; and the letter from the ERC is deficient since specific city policies are not cited to form a basis for conditioning the project. Condition No. 2, the issue of improvement of Edmonds Avenue, was discussed, and it was noted that the EIS is the city's document, approved by the responsible official under the guidelines of SEPA. In that document, two problems were identified with Edmonds Avenue, that provision of that roadway will increase tralfic on 3rd and it will increase the need for signalization. Although the applicant's most desirable alternative is to provide only the parkway access into the site, particularly since according to Mr. Norris' testimony, even access off of Edmonds is not required for site development and its resulting impact, the key issue is the extent of the burden which should be placed on the applicant with regard to the impacts disclosed in the EIS. Mr1 Snell suggested that the LID process would be the most equitable in placing the burden of cost of improvements in proportion to benefit received. He objected to reference to Ordinance No. 3538, which contains no language on full width improvement of roadways, as the authority for requirement of full width installation of Edmonds; and indicated that it is very clear from Mr. Norris' testimony that the city wants the developer as part of the project to bear the cost to solve the general traffic problems in the area in providing a bypass from already congested intersections which is not a legitimate or legal method by which the city can solve such problems. Another alternative method suggested by Mr. Snell would be to establish a fund by which the applicant could make contribution to the intersection improvements. In summary, Mr. Snell stated his opinion that the conditions imposed by the ERC are excessive, they are designed to benefit the general public to solve general traffic problems in the area totallly out-of proportion to that which is generated by the specific project. He requested the Examiner to refer to Statute 43.21 .C, which clearly limits the power of the city with regard to the environmental impacts that it can condition, to refer to the EIS document, and to note that the applicant's basic consideration is that white there is agreement to provide what is fair, equitable and reasonable based on the submitted documents and under state law, they should not be required to meet excessive and unlawful conditions. 1 Mr. Norris made the following closing comments: that full width improvements should be clarified as only paving of 36 feet in width, not curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the street; also, that the intersection at N. 3rd and Sunset is at capacity, further increase in traffic volume, whether it be 2%, 5% or 25%, would exceed that capacity, and the only solution is provision by the applicant of alternative access via the extension of Edmonds Avenue to Maple Valley. Mr. Blaylock reiterated previous comments, stating that although the city has not accomplished an area-wide transportation study, a bottleneck currently exists at the intersection of N. 3rd and1 Sunset; therefore, in order to allow approval of the project, certain mitigation measures were required to be imposed by the Environmental Review Committee. Specific negotiations in the form of an LID, a latecomers' agreement, or a SA-010-o i Page Seven ECF-013-81 cooperative agreement between the developer, other property owners, and the city would then be available to the applicant prior to construction of the project. The Examiner requFsted further comments. Since none were offered, he closed the public hearing with a request that am extended 21-day period be allowed in which to publish a report on the matter. Since there were no objections, the hearing regarding File No. 1 SA-010-81 and appeal , File No! ECF-013-81 , was closed at 12:00 noon. I I I j I I September 8, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPLICANT (A'PELLANT) : Homecraft Land Development, Inc.FILE NOI. SA-010-81 ECF-Q13-81 LOCATION: Between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Approval : The applicant requests site approval for a 280 unit multiple family housing project. Appeal : Appeal filed by the applicant of a decision of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) , acting as a responsible official under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the City of Renton with regard to the extent and nature of the mitigating conditions imposed on the Terrace Project File No. ECF-013-81) . SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Site Approv l)1 Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval with conditions.' Appeal ) Hearing Examiner Decision: Reversed in part and modified in part. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on July 29, 1981 . On July 29, 1981 , an appeal was received from the applicant regarding the mitigationconditions issued by the ERC. To expedite the process, the site approval hearing scheduled for August 4, 1981 , was continued to August 18, 1981 to be heard concurrently with the appeal . PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report and the letter of appeal , examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject matters. Minuted o5 e public heating wit be ma,i,eed to ate patties os neeond upon comp.2eti.on. ) FINDINGS, C NCLUSIONS & ,DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes a 'd enters the following: The applica t/appellant filed a request for site plan review pursuant to Section 4-2303(2) (C) of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance and prepared an Environmental Impact Stat ment (EIS) for the proposal . The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) after review of t e EIS conditioned approval of the site plan upon institution of certain miti- gating measires. The public hearing on the site plan was scheduled for August 4, 1981 . The item wash continued after receipt of an appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's decision. To expedite consideration of the two related items, they were scheduled to be heardtogether on August 18, 1981 . The items were then joined in one proceeding as all parties indicated that the facts and issues presented would be similar for the two hearings and consolidation would eliminate redundant testimony. FINDINGS: 1 1 . The subject property is located on the north side of N.E. 3rd St. immediately east of the Edmonds Ave. right-of-way and south of N.E. 4th St. The site is approximately 8.4 acr s. h site is relativelylevel except for two areas on the east and west borders2. The subject t P of the site where elevation differentials of about 20 feet occur. Drainage occurs to the north for a majority of the site toward N.E. 4th St. A small portion of the site drains to the southwest toward N.E. 3rd St. 3. The site was cleared of most vegetation under Special Permit SP-876-76. While that permit limited the amount of property subject to the permit and required certain protective measures the then property owner violated the conditions of the Planning Commiss'on. The Planning Department indicated that those violations should not be considered at the present proceeding. r- r SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Two 4. The subject property is oned R-4 (high density multi-family) , which could permit up to about 440 units on the subject site depending on the mix of studio, and one and two bedroom units. The applicant has proposed constructing 280 mixed units on the site or about 33.3 units per acre. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that area in which the site is located is suitable for the development of high density multi-family units. 5. The environmental , social and economic impacts of the proposed 280 units are disclosed in the environmental impact statement, but certain impacts are summarized below. The proposal is expected to increase the population of the City by about 700 persons (2.5 per unit) ; increase the school age population by about 70 students (.25 per unit) ; and increase the daily vehicle trips by about 1 ,500 to 2,000 trips. 6. The Environmental Review Committee indicates in its July 20, 1981 , letter to Raymond S. Wiltshire the following mitigation measures: a. A significant adverse impact on the environment will occur due to traffic im- pacts and associated secondary environmental impacts because of traffic increases on N.E. 4th Street from this proposal , the Schneider Hilltop development (170 units, 1 ,000 trips) , the Mastro 4th and Monroe and 4th west of Union developments 544 units, 3,200 trips) , the ERADCO project (425 units, 2,500 trips) , and the proposed Cascadia development (500+ units, 3,000 trips) . Therefore, the City Council must determine in the approval process that these impacts can be miti- gated by the proposal or that overriding social , economic or environmental considerations make approval of this PUD appropriate. b. Edmonds Avenue N.E. shall be extended as a public roadway from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th Streets. c. Channelization, street widening, and signalization shall be provided at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue N.E. to provide for left turns from N.E. 3rd. d. ; Any operational improvements necessary to accommodate traffic at the N.E. 3rd j and Sunset Boulevard intersection, including widening, paving or signal modifi- cations, shall be provided by this development. e. An analysis of the downstream sanitary sewer and storm water capacity shall be completed, and plans for accommodating this development in these systems shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Item #5 concerning sewer and storm water capacity has been satisfied, and that issue is no longer in contention, although the separate issue of the capacity of the Metro Renton Treatment Plant was not addressed. 8. The question of sufficiency of recreational facilities was raised. The impacts on parks and recreation are covered in the EIS. The applicant proposet 0i-liividing approximately an acre of ground to support the proj-ect residents' recreational needs. The facilities include a swimming pool , bath house, half-court basketball court, open unassigned lawn area, tot-lot and a pathway throughout the developri;enit. 9. The applicant submitted a landscape plan, which appears to provide reasonable screen- ing of the subject properity from adjoining uses and roadways. 10. A variety of uses are developed in the vicinity of the subject site. East of the sub- ject site is the Vantage, Point multi-family condominium development. Directly north of the site is the Windsor Hills Park. The areas north of the park, including areas to the east and west, are developed with single family homes. Gravel and quarrying operations are located east and south of the subject site. The Mt. Olivet Cemetery is located to the south. The Monterey Terrace community is located southwest of the site. The proposed ERADCO residential complex is located to the south. 11 . The major east-west arterials and/or roads serving the subject site or area are the N.E. 3rd St. Corridor and N.E. 4th St. Access to the proposed site is proposed via direct access onto N.E. 4th St. and via a southerly extension of Edmonds Ave. N.E. to provide access to the eastern portion of the subject site. 12. The intersections which will be impacted by the proposal are the N.E. 3rd/Sunset Blvd. and the Bronson Way/N.E. 3rd St. intersections to the east as well as the entrance ramps to 1-405. The levels of service (LOS) for these intersections are currently calculated at an LOS D/E for the N.E. 3rd/Sunset intersection and LOS C for the Bronson/3rd intersection. a . SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 page Three The project is expe ted to increase the daily vehicle trips through these intersections by abou 1 ,100 vehicle trips per day and about 130 vehicle trips during the peak hours. The 1ev 1 of service for the above intersections is expected to drop to LOS E for N.E. 3rd/Sun et and LOS D for Bronson Way/N.E. 3rd by 1982 without the project (Traffic report, Draft Environmental Impact Statement) . 1-405 i operating at capacity, and the subject proposal will further aggravate this problem (Pg. 26, 27, Final Environmental Impact Statement) . 13. Metro T ansit opera es two routes in the vicinity of the subject site. Some residents of the roposal would be expected to utilize these routes for commuting pur'oses. Sidewalks connectin the site to the bus routes are lacking between the site and Bronson Way. Express bus service along N.E. 3rd St. has been proposed, and sidewalks providing access to N.E. 3rd would be required to allow the residents easy access to he bus routes (Traffic report, DEIS, Pgs. 17-19, FEIS) . 14. Van poo ing as coordinated by the Computer Pool decreases the amount of sin le occu- pancy vehicles by providing vans capable of carrying up to about 12 people. 15. The information contained within the environmental documents except as modified herein s incorporated by reference. 16. The Fir- Department's ladder equipment can't be taken up N.E. 4th St. without being damaged CONCLUSIONS APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION 1. The dec sion of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to "sub tantial weight"' (RCW 43.21 .C.090) . Therefore, the determination of the Envi- ronment l Review Committee, the City's responsible official , is entitled to substan- tial weight, and the appellant has the burden /of demonstrating that the det rmination was in rror. 2. The con ition of the Environmental Review Committee requiring approval of t e site plan by the City Coirnci,l was contested by the applicant as being contrary t. the express ordinances of the City which specify the procedure for processing v rious permits Section 4-3010(A) (6) indicates that in site approval permits the Examiner shall e ter "a decision which shall represent the final action on the application, unless ppealed. . ." It is c ear that the requirement of the Environmental Review Committee that the City Council review the proposal is contrary to law. The Examiner after a public hearing and review of the record, including the EIS, must determine whether the project should e approved and,, if so, under what circumstances (i .e. , what conditions, if any, sh uld be imposed on the project to allow it to comply with ordinance require- ments) . Therefo e, since condition number one of the ERC is contrary to the expresslrequire- ments of the ordinance, it should be deleted. 3. The improvement of dmonds Ave. N.E. , a dedicated but unimproved public right-of-way adjacent and to the east of the subject property, was required by the ERC. The ERC require the improvement as a method of mitigating the impact of the proposal . While t e ERC did not indicate the reasons for this measure (that is, whetFer it was to miti !ate the impacts' of the proposal on general traffic problems encoun ered on roads i the area or whether it was to provide access to the N.E. 3rd St. arterial ) , the con. ition may be superfluous in light of Sections 4-101 , 102, 103 and IO2(a) of the Renton Building Code. But, it should be noted at this point that the Fire Department has indicat 'd that the aerial ladder cannot negotiate N.E. 4th St. without damaging the apparatus (Pgs 32 and 33, Final Environmental. Impact Statement) . That Department considers alte native two of the draft environmental impact statement the preferred way of providing emergency access. 1 The ERC required that Edmonds Ave. N.E. shall be extended as a public road lay from N.E. 3rd St. to N.E. 4th St. The sections cited above require the improve ent of abuttin , roadways as part of the building permit process. The Edmonds Avenfue right- of-way is an abutting roadway. The specific criteria of that section and the SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Four L. interpretation of those criteria by the appropriate official were not originally raised on appeal , and no determination on that matter is made herein. The ERC's condition was only to re4ire the applicant/appellant to comply with an ordinance; and, therefore, the condition which requires the improvement of Edmonds Ave. N.E. is not truly a controversy under this appeal . Further, the approved short plat of the subject property required the improvement of Edmonds Ave. N.E. abutting the subject property and, while the short plat has not been filed, the approval is still valid and may be filed pursuant to Section 9-1105(10) . Therefore, two City ordinances require the improvement of Edmonds Ave: N.E. The ERC, therefore, has not required of the applicant/appellant that which is not already required by Ordinance. 4. The meaning of substantial weight has been further defined as whether the decision of the responsible official is arbitrary and capricious (Short v. Clallam County, 22Wn. App. 825, 829, 1979) . That is whether it is "willful and unreasoning action in disregard of facts and circumstances" (Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 82 Wn. 2d 109,114,1973).. The record discloses that the existing and potential problems associated with the existing and/or proposed intersections at N.E. 3rd St. and Sunset Blvd. N.E. and Edmonds Ave. N.E. and N.E.. 3rd St. are not specifically attributable to the subject property, although the subject property will no doubt increase traffic at these intersections, further exacerbating the existing problems. To require this appli- cant to bear the entire cost of improvement is unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. The traffic analysis indicates that, if Edmonds Ave. N.E. is opened as a through street, that more than likely both signalization and channelization will be required to accommodate both through traffic on N.E. 3rd St. and turning traffic from or to Edmonds Ave. N.E. Therefore, using the assumption that the ordinance requirements will be followed and that Edmonds will be improved, both signalization and channeli- zation will be required. The applicant indicated willingness to participate in the costs of such improvements, and the City indicated that such participation would be welcome. The costs of same should not be borne by just the applicant/appellant, as traffic would be diverted from other areas to the .pliroposed intersection and would not be generated solely by the subject property. The applicant should, therefore, contribute a pro rata share of the cost into a fund ;to be used to improve the intersection. The amount of the contribution is a matter better determined by the ERC; and, therefore, the issue of what is the appropriate level of participation is remanded to the ERC. 5. The subject proposal will also impact the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset Blvd. N.E. , as the majority of the traffic generated by the proposal is anticipated to travel west from the subject site; and, whether they travel via N.E. 4th or N.E. 3rd, . they will eventually be . raveling through the 3rd and Sunset intersection. Therefore, the applicant1should again participate in the costs of intersection improve- ment, and again such costs should be based on a proportionate share of traffic the project generates to the total . Condition number four should be modified, and the matter again remanded to the ERC for a determination of the appropriate amount of participation. SITE APPROVAL 6. The reuse of the site is governed by Section 4-2303(2) (C) of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. That section provides that "the new use shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the surrounding area." North and east of the subject site are residential developments, and a proposal to locate additional residential development on the subject site is compatible with those residential areas. The transmission line on the west serves as a buffer between the subject site and the chuch located to the northwest of the site and other R-4 zoned but undeveloped property. South of the site are the Mt. Olivet Cemetery, the proposed ERADCO development and various gravel pits. The .proposal is separated from those uses by N.E. 3rd St. , some topographic relief, and internal landscaping. The proposed use is compatible with the northerly uses and with adequate screening, which appears to be provided, can be made compatible with the still operating gravel s. SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Five operations located south across N.E. 3rd St. 7. Since he applicant proposes developing the subject site in phases and the entire property is subject to the original grade and fill permit, the applicant s ould rehabilitate all portions of the property. That is, if any of the propose. phases which ere to follow phase one are abandoned, the remaining portions of the property would emain unkempt vacant lots. The residents of the project should not be sub- jected to such areas and, furthermore, the code requires rehabilitative me sures. Theref.re, the applicant will have to concurrently with its building permi post •a' bond s bject to approval of the City's landscape architect in an amount su ficient. to pro ide for rehabilitative landscaping commensurate with the landscaping on those ortions of the property previously developed. The bond shall be released in propor ion to the amount of work accomplished either as a result of completion of furthe phases or further landscaping. All recreational facilities and other common areas also must be completed prior to occupa cy, as they are an integral part of the applicant's mitigation of the impact on the existing recreational facilities. 8. The is ue then is not the compatibility of the proposed use of the site or surround- ing us=s, if only the residential character of the use is reviewed. The issue remaining is' whether the use is compatible or consistent with: the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The ma. element indicates that the area in which the subject property is located is suitable for high density multi-family uses. The 280 units the applicant I as pro- posed -or the subject site is consistent with this designation of the map lement. Theprehensive Plan also consists of a number of elements which indicat the type9Copreenctyp of dev=lopment envisioned for the City and the way development should be i tegrated inte0 e existing infrastructure. Among these other elements of the Comprehensive Plan are transportation go is and policies and transportation plans consisting of the Arterials and Streets Plan. The Arterials and Streets Plan envisioned certain major improvements to the east-west arteri is in the area surrounding the subject site. These roads and improvements remain unconstructed. At pag 19, the traffic report indicates that congestion problems exist anc are due at lea t partly to the fact that the land use plan (Comprehensive Plan) was not cut back t reflect the reduction or elimination of several planned roadways arlid high- ways. In other words, the traffic report indicates that the potential density of the Co prehensive Plan was not decreased in accordance with the ability or inability of the existing ro ds and the cancellation of planned roads to handle increasing traffi volumes. It is rroneous to read the Comprehensive Plan in that manner. If the transportation infras ructure whi h was to support the higher level of density was not provided, then the map element must be read in that light. Reference in the traffic report to density is based on just the map element, which is only a single element. That map and the land uses reflected by it, ref ect only potential areas in which certain types of development may occur. These areas are not deemed suitable. They are deemed potentially suitable, and that potential is based 4pon other factors such as the capacity of the roads serving the are , sewers, and water as well es the impact on adjacent uses. If the map element shows an area is suitable for high density development and even if the area were zoned for such development, other factors come into play. If the roads are a , capacity and can't support a proposed level of develop ent, then develo ment must be held in abeyance until the infrastructure can support the proposal . for traffic remains an issue, and traffic congestion raises certain policy10. Therefore, t 9matters. The FEIS at page 31 may be quoted as follows: "The question of whether to limit future development is both an environmental and policy issue. This and other EIS's can assess the level of environmental impact. However, a decision as to whe her the cumLlative impacts are sufficient to warrant the denial of permits for future development is a policy issue and must be made by the appropriate legis- lative body." 11 . The traffic impacts of the subject proposal do not appear overwhelming andlhave gen- erally not been considered such by the analysis in the EIS, but the cumlative impacts ' of the various projects in the area as evidenced by the now deleted Condition #1 impose by the Environmental Review Committee and as described in the EIS 'will tax r SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Six the east-west arterial and street system serving the subject site and surrounding areas. The project itself is expected to increase traffic at the N.E. 3rd/Bronson/ Monterey Terrace intersection by about 33°i generally and by about 50% during the PM peak (1982 projection) . The DEIS indicates that the traffic at Sunset and N.E. 3rd is operating at a LOS level of service) D to EJ LOS E is considered capacity. Intersections are gen- erally designed to operate at a LOS of C, and Bronson and 3rd is at LOS C. The problems of east-west traffic are expected to become more severe as development increases east of I-405 both in the City and east of the city limits in King County Pg. 16, traffic report) . The LOS at both these intersections are expected to de- crease to LOS E and LOS D, respectively. 1-405 is at capacity (LOS E) and operates at LOS F during many peak hour days. Certain methods of reducing the impact were presented in the EIS, and they should be included as a conditioh of approval . The Comprehensive Plan also indicates a multi- modal transportation system should be encouraged, and single occupant vehicles dis- couraged. Among the purposes and policies enunciated in the Comprehensive Plan is a transpor- tation goal , which is "to promote a safe, efficient and balanced multi-modal trans- portation system." (P. 15, Goal 7) Through traffic should be routed around residential , commercial and industrial areas Pg 16, Policy 7.C. 1) In order to reduce the impact of traffic congestion, alternatives to single occupancy automobile should be encouraged." (Policy 7.A) 12. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 150 additional vehicle trips dur- ing the PM peak hour and a similar amount during the AM peak. Use of Metro Transit by residents would decrease the overall impact on the peak hour transit, as would the use of van pools. The precige decrease is not predictable, but any method to ease theiuse of such methods, or rrovisions to introduce and familiarize potential resi- dents with these options, would enhance the prospects of such methods succeeding in reducing the number of single occupancy vehicles originating on the subject site. Therefore, the applicant should provide monthly passes through the homeowners' association during the first six months of occupancy of each phase. This method would have the advantage of introducing the transit system to those who can use it and provide the initial incentive to try the system as an alternative mode of com- muter transportation. Similarly, the ease with which residents can get to the transit areas will induce residents to use the bus rather than single occupancy vehicles. Therefore, side- walks should be provided both to allow pedestrian access to N.E. 3rd St. , and a con- tinuous sidewalk system should be provided to allow access between the subject site and Bronson Way. The site should not be isolated as far es pedestrians are concerned. The only method of tying the project to the City should not be solely a roadway sys- tem, and sidewalks connecting to the existing system should be provided especially, as it would ease the route to transit and help relieve pressure on the roads. The applicant has admitted that the proposal will impact intersections remote from the site; and the impact on sidewalks, or the lack thereof, is not any different. Such off-site improvements are reasonably related to the project and will allow the pedestrian elements of the subject site a safe method of traveling to bus stops somewhat removed from the site. 13. Van pooling is another method which was suggested to relieve the impacts of the development on the arterial and street system. Van pools have the potential to remove up to about 12 single occupancy vehicles from the street system. Therefore, the applicant should provide the homeowners with three vans for use in a van pool operation. Covenants for the association should be drafted to provide a continous source of maintenance and replacement. Three van pools could decrease the peak hour traffic by up to about 36 vehicle trips or about 25% of the peak hour load of the development. Such efforts should be coordinated with the computer pool organization. 14. We now come back to the issue of the improvement of Edmonds Ave. N.E. The various ordinances, including thel short plat provisions, and the building code provide that the abutting right-of-wayi must be improved. In addition to those requirements, additional need to improve that right-of-way may be gathered from the fact that the Fire Department's ladder truck cannot negotiate N.E. 4th St. without jeopardizing the equipment. Emergenc') access via N.E. 3rd St. could be severed at the entrance I • SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 age Seven and a d version to Jefferson would be costly in terms of response times. Edmonds Ave- nue wou d provide a valuable link in the emergency access to the subject si e. The Pol cies Element of the Comprehensive Plan also provides guidance in this matter. Through traffic should' be routed around residential , commercial and industrial areas." (Pg. 16, Policy 7.C.1) While the EIS indicates that opening Edmonds Ave. N.E. between 3rd and 4th ould divert traffic from N.E. 4th to N.E. 3rd, the major' difference would be to Cause an earlier diversion of traffic to N.E. 3rd, that is, traffic would tend to ap roach the arterial via Edmonds rather than Via Bronson. The EIS indicates that s ch diver- sion would eliminate queuing on neighborhood streets and further states that if this arteril flow versis residential flow) is an objective, then the intersection of Jeffers n/4th/3rd is preferable. Removing traffic to an arterial is an objective of the Comprehensive Plan. The EIS does not clearly indicate why an upgrade of the Jefferson St./N.E. 3rd inter- section would be preferable to the Edmonds N.E./3rd intersection. The Edmo'' ds route is consFdered questionable because an extra signal at 3rd and Edmonds is anticipated to cause delay, whereas the EI.S does not raise this concern for the Jeffers n inter- section which is only one additional intersection to the east. The div rsion would also eliminate heavier traffic usage from the steep grade and sharp c rve at Bronson and N.E. 3rd. The ultimate traffic load would be the same at the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset and would actually increase the distance between stop lights controlling major traffic, if Edmonds Ave. N.E. contained traffic farther east along the N.E. 3rd corridor. 15. The conditions imposed are reasonable and are related to the public welfare, health, and saf-ty and are equired to mitigate impacts of the proposal . RCW 43.21C.060 provide. that condi ions imposed as a matter of environmental mitigation be based on poli ies incorpoated into resolutions, regulations, ordinances, plans and codes. Section 4-3014(d) permits the attachment of conditions which may make the project compatide with its environment and the goals and policies of the Comprehe sive Plan. he conditio s imposed are reasonably calculated to carry out these objectives- and "environmental Considerations which are not amenable to precise quanti ication." Polygo Corporation v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59,66,578 P.2d 1309) 16. While t is decision would not ordinarily be reviewed by the City Council ; he issues present, d by the environmental impact statement and the concerns raised by the Environ- mental Review Committee about the traffic situation along the N.E. 3rd St. corridor are such that the City Council should. be apprised of the matter. Therefore, this decision is being forwarded to the City Council for its consideration and for such further action as the City Council may see as proper. DECISIONS: ADMINIS RATIVE APPEAL: The decision of the Environmental Review Committee is modified, reversed a 'd remanded as foll .ws: 1 . Condition #1 is deleted, and the Environmental Review Committee is rev rsed. 2. Condition #2 is deleted only insofar as required by the Environmental eview Committee pursuant to environmental review. 3. Conditions. #3 aid #,4 are modified and remanded for a determination by the Environ- mental Review Committee as to the appropriate pro rata share of the imlrovement costs associated with the respective intersections. SITE APPROVAL: The site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . The rehabilitation of those areas of the subject property not otherwis- improved pursuant to the phased development of the subject site per the above c•Inclusions. 1 Su h rehabilitation shall consist of landscaping which is subject to a•proval of th City's landscape architect and which is commensurate with the land taping I otherwise employed on the subject site. A bond shall be furnished in .gin amount to be determined by, the City landscape architect to assure said rehabilitation. 2. All recreational facilities demonstrated on the site plan and otherwis ' indicated R SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 Page Eight in the EIS shall be installed prior to occupancy of Phase I , notwithstanding the failure to compleite or otherwise construct any additional phases of the development. 3. The extension of sideiwalks from the subject site to Bronson Way N.E. as required to provide a continouIs and safe pedestrian route to Metro transit stops. 4. The extension of sidelwalks from the subject site to N.E. 3rd St. 5. The applicant shall provide to the Homeowners Association monthly passes for • residents for Metro Transit during the first six months after occupancy of each phase of the development. 6. The applicant shall provide to the homeowners' association three vehicles to serve as van pools arid provide in covenants to be executed by the homeowners for a maintenance and replacement fund for said vehicles. 7. Edmonds Ave. N.E. shall ] be improved to City standards between N.E. 3rd St. and N.E. 4th St as required by ordinance. ORDERED THIS 8th day of September, 1981 . 41"1 Vet.", Fred J. Ka f an Land Use He ing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of September, 1981 , by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Ray Wiltshire Homecraft Land Development, Inc. 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 William Snell Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1530 Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 j Steve Clark Stepan & Associates 930 S. 336th, Suite A Federal Way, WA 98003 David Markley Transpo Group 23-148th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 Joel Haggard Haggard, Tousley & Brain 1530 Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 I Gary Norris Traffic Engineer Morgan Llewellyn 677 Strander Blvd. , Suite A-C Tukwila, WA 98188 TRANSMITTED this 8th day of September, 1981 , to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke IRichard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney 1) SA-010-81/ECF-013-81 ' Page Nine 1,4 Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before September 22, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in ju gment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonable avail- able at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner', within fourteen (1f ) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the s ecific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of t e record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal of the site approval to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are avail- able for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased a cost in said department. An appeal o the environmental determination is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires th t such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 d ys from the date of the Examiner's decision. I 1 RECEIVED 4 1 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER DAVID D MARKLEY A U(I I 0 1981 The TRA SPO Group AM PM 71819110,11112i 10293141516 Professio al Status Mr. Markley is a co-founder and officer of The TRANSPO. Group. He has full 11 technical and administrative responsibility for a wide variety of traffic engineering projects. His pragmatic approach is particularly well suited to detailed analysis and evalirtion of applied traffic engineering problems. An important part of this , work involves bringing together private developers and public agencies to find realistic solutions to controversial issues. Ex erien e Through participation i numerous studies in Washington, California and along the east coast, Mr. Markle has gained recognized expertise in the fields of traffic circulate n, parking analyses and design, signalization, nonmotorized and pedestrian transport tion systems, and,short-range transportation planning. He is particularly well qua ified to support or respond to environmental impact statements. His expert to timony is frequently'sought when complex traffic operations issues'result in public 1)r legal conflicts. His areas of special expertise are: Tr/ffic circulation and operations studies; Traffic impact analyses for large and private developments; Short-range transportation planning; Pa king demand and utilization analyses; De ailed signal system studies including developing of plans and sp cifications; De elopment of plans for non-motorized and pedestrian circulation systems.11 Background Mr. Mar ley is a graduate of the University of Washington (BSCE, 1969) and Pennsylv nia State University, Bureau of Highway Traffic (MCE, 1972). Before-co- founding The TRANSPO Group in 1975, he worked with JHK & Associates and Tudor Engineering Company. He also has served as an instructor at Seattle Universit , the University of Washington and Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo. Mr. Markley is a member of: American Societ of Civil Engineer G . Institute of Transportation Engineers EXT-IIIIL ) , • 9 ITEM NO• g-oio -/ tee- oi3-471 i_ I I Biographical Data RECEIVED STEVE R. CLARK C ON OF f3E ON HEARING EXAMINER Land Planner j.;, + 1981 i AM i r9dO 11rlZ1 i 2r3 4156 PM Personal Information l i Date of Birth: 13 July, 1949 Education B.I. Urban Planning, 1972, University of Washington I 1 Professional and Honorary Affiliations EXHIBIT NAmericanPlanningAssociation cam, Experince Record I ITEM Q, .5,D 10 -g/ , i °( -. 4,51- ` j 1972 - 1974 American Peace Corps/Iran. Volunteer Urban and Regional Planner. Supervised comprehensive plan implementation within the State of West Azarbaidjan; developed an interim land use plan for the City of Rezaiyeh, popu- lation 160,000; the provincial capital of West Azarbaidjan, as well as for the cities of 0shnavieh and Piranshar. Designed and supervised the constructionlof the central market area renovation project for the l City of Mahabad. liI j 1974 - 1976 Tosehe-0mran Ltd. , Associate Planner, Supervisor of a Iland use planning team in the development of comprehen- sive plans for the cities of Mahabad, Khoy, Aradebil, Astara, Rezaiyeh and Karaj . I I 1976 - I John P. Flynn & Associates, Production Designer of I single-family residences.I 1976 - 1978 l Yakima County Conference of Governments, Senior Planner. Supervised a planning team developing comprehensive plans i for the cities of Selah, Sunnyside, Grandview, prepared a draft regional land use strategy for Yakima County land model zoning ordinances.l 1 1978 - 1980 Harstad Associates, Inc. , Staff Planning Consultant,. Supervised staff in the preparation of land use and site plan studies, project feasibility studies, environmental assessments and impact statements. 1 1980 - Present Stepan & Associates, Inc., Director of Planning. Super- visor, site plan studies, preliminary design development, l . land use.. planning, environmental assessments and impact statements, contract negotiations and project budgeting.1 I_I 4` A t RECEIVED P 1 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 2 fkU(1 8 1981 AM PM 11 3 71819d0I)II12111213141516 4 4 il 5 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 6111 11 7 Si e Review Hearing And NO. Ap•eal Of Homecraft Land 8 De'ielopment, Inc. , From The ) APPLICANT'S PRE- Decision Of The Environmental) HEARING STATEMENT 9 Review Committee 10 11111ThishearingbeforetheHearingExaminer (the 12 " xaminer") linvolves two distinct proceedings: (1) a site 13 pan review under the grading ordinance, and (2) the 14 a eal of conditions imposed by the Environmental Review 15 p Committee ("ERC")) in a letter dated July 20, 1981 (see 16 attached copy marked as Appendix A) . Both proceedings 17 relate to the same proposal, the Terrace Project, and have 18 been consolidated by the Examiner for review into one 19 hearin . T e onlyre alral issues in these proceedings are 20 the reasonableness of and necessity for certain conditions, 21 being imposed by the City upon the applicant. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Th project applicant proposesto de velop a 280 11 24 nit multip a family housing project on an 8.4 acre site 25 located between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th streets directly 26 ast of the Puget Soundgn Power and Light Company trans 27 ission line right-of-way and west of the unimproved 28 HAGGARD, TOUSLEYI&BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW PLICANT'S HEARING STATEMENT - 1 1530 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER BOO FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE,WA 98164 682-100S II I I 1 I At. I I 1 right-of-way of Edmonds Avenue N.E. The purpose of the 2 housing is to; respond to the demand for moderately priced 1 3 housing units. An Environmental' Impact Statement ( "EIS") 4 has been prepared for the project. I 5 I. SITE .PLAN REVIEW 1 6 A. Special Permit 7 In July, 1976 a special permit (SP 876-76) was 1 j •8 . gr nted to aiprevious owner to allow excavation of the 1 1 g site. Even though excavation activities have ceased, 1 1 i 10 Section 4-2303 (2) (c) requires the Examiner to approve the 11; refuse of the' site based on the' following standard: 12 pThe inv eew Puan shall c omp acnsw with st npre-i 13 area. 1 I. 14 Since the site underwent excavation activi'tes, it is 15 'largely devoid of vegetation except for scrub brush and I. 1 16 weeds. Based on the existing conditions and the proposed 1 17 r use for residential purposes, 'the new use will result in 18 a marked improvement for the site.' 19 The standard of review to be applied by the I 1 20 Examiner to the proposed reuse is limited ,to a test of 1 21 consistency) with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility , 1 I 22 with the surrounding area (Section 4-2303 (2) (c) ) . How- 1 23 ever, the Staff in its Report to the Examiner attempts to'. 24 broaden the standard of review to include the six element 25 to be considered in reviewing a special permit under I 1 26 Section 4-2303 (2) (b) . This interpretation by Staff is not 27 reasonablelsince there is no reference in Section 28 1 1 1 APPLICANT'S HEARING STATEMENT - 2 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' 1 1, 1 I i 1 4-2303 (2) (c) to the standards of Section 4-2303 (2) (b) . 1 2 Here, the applicant is not applying for a new special I 3 permit to do excavation work but only for approval of the I' I I I 4 reuse of the (site for residential purposes. An ordinance 5 must receive la reasonable construction in order to serve 6 its general purpose. State Ex. Ref. Meany Hotel v. 7 Seattle, 66 1/1) 1n. 2d 329 (1965) . In this case the only 8 reasonable interpretation based on the plain meaning of I 1 9 the ordinance language is that the review of the reuse of 10 the site is limited to the standards set forth in Section 11 4-2303 (2) (c) i i.e. , the Comprehensive Plan and compatibil 12 it with the surrounding area. 1 i . 13 According to the Staff Report, page 4, several of 1 i' i 14 the conditions imposed on the excavation permit were I I 15 violated by the permit applicant. Since the site is now I i. 16 under new ownership, the present applicant should not be II 17 held responsible for the previous owner ' s activities. The ,, 18 Staff concurs . in this position. see paragraph 2, page 4, i I 4 19 S aff Reportl. In addition, since the proceeding before I, 1 i. 20 t e Examiner is the reuse of the site for residential 1 21 purposes it. is improper to prejudice these proceedings I 1 22 with matters! brought forward in a code enforcement pro- I 23 ceeding . 24 B. • Comprehensive Plan Standards . . 1 I 25 , The degree of consistency with the Comprehensive 26 Plan that can be required by Section 4-2303 (2) (C) is I 1 27 limited. First RCW 35A.63.080 provides "that the compre- 28 L1 APPLICANT'SIHEARING STATEMENT - 3 i 1 1 I I I 1 he sive plan 'shall not be construed as a regulation of I 2 property rights or land uses. " It is evident from the III 3 plain meaning! of the statutory language that elements of I 4 the Comprehensive Plan cannot be used to regulate land I 5 uses. In otner .words, specific limitations on land use 1 6 must be based on implementing ordinances and not general 7 policies contained in a comprehensive plan. Second, the I 8 courts in this state have expressly held that the compre- I 9 hens.ive planis to be viewed as a guide and that strict I 10 and exact adherence to its provisions is not required. I 11 Ba rie v. Kitsap County, 93 Wn.2d 843 (1980) . ji i 12 C. Compliance with Ordinance Standards 13 Testimony will be presented at the hearing to I i j i 14 establish that the Terrace Project is consistent with the I' 15 Comprehensive Plan and compatib.ile with the surrounding 16 area. Mr . Clark of Stepan & Associates will testify that I 17 the proposedi residential development is consistent with 1 18 tie Comprehensive Plan designation of High Density Resi- 19 dential. i20 . .. The: Staff Report at page 4 evaluates four poli- i 21 cies in the !Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the H i 22 Terrace Project. The Staff argumentatively states that I there are "somesome apparant inconsistencies' with specific 24 policies" ini the plan.- But the policy explanation given 1 25 bjr Staff does not support this argumentative generaliza- 26 t on. Ii' 27 The first policy is Urban Design. Mr. Clark will) 28 I APPLICANT'SiHEARING STATEMENT - 4 I r testis . - and . show throu h- exhibits that there 'is adequateY . g q . . 2 ..lan scaping and buffering provided between use areas- to' 3 meet -tie, intent •of this policy.. The Staff Report does 'not . i 4 -app ar to; conclude that ,we are. actively contrary to the i 5 .Pia ' s policies. The second policy is Residential. Mr. , , 6 . Cla k :will' testify that, the project ,provides a very satis ! 7 . factory residential environment and that. adequate screen-• 1 6.. ing and setbacks, are provided, along arterials. Specif i-- . 9 . ca ly ,Mr. ,Clark, will _show that provisions of the land- 110 scaping ordinance .hay.e been met. . Staff appears. to say . , j• ' 11 • ag in we are inconsistent with this, but, the only basis 12 St ft could use. ignores our Landscape Plan. The third , 13 To icy is Transportation. Mr. Markley of Transpo will I 14 to tify that , the project is. providing public street im- 15 provements necessary to , serve. the site. -This presents a : 16 cr tical issue when. laid against the.. Staff Report. Staff 17 wants ,a .full width: Edmonds. Street even, though it is not i. 18 needed to serve ,this project.- And. Staff-appears to want 19 :Edmonds that ;a. worse, traffic condition can occur -so it 20 , can cause us to .buy. traffic improvements .;for them to. be 21 ' -used. by the .general public.. The fourth- policy is Commun 1 22 it Facilities. Mr. .Clark .will testify that the applicant,; 23 . . is providing` adeq.uate on-site .recreational facilities to • 9 24 meet the , intent, of this policy. Contrary to , the implica-: . I ' 25 t.ibn in the Staff Report, , the ' letter. from the Parks . 2 .. • • . , 26 be artment, which is attached to the . Staff Report, does 1 27 not state that off-site facilities used by the residents , . ,; 28 f. - APPLICANT'S HEARING- STATEMENT - .S I I j 1 1 of the. development will be inadequate. The testimony as 2 out ined in the preceding paragraphs will amply demon- 3 strate that the Terrace Project is generally consistent 4 with the poliies of the Comprehensive Plan. 5 Any reuse of the site must also meeting the 6 second test of Section 4-2303 (2) , which requires compati- 7 bility with the surrounding area. Mr. Clark will testify 8 that the Terrace Project is compatible with the surround- 9 ing uses consisting of the Vantage Point Condominium to 10 the east, single family residences to the north of N.E. 11 Fourth, a church• and vacant land to the west and vacant 12 land and scattered residences to the south. I I 13 In summary, the site plan hearing is limited 14 under the provisions of Section 4-2303 (2) (c) to a review 15 of the reuse of the site with regard to its consistency 16 with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the 17 surrounding area. Substantial evidence will be introduced 18 into the record to show compliance with the standards set 19 forth in Section 4-2303 (2) . 20 II. APPEAL OF ' CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY ERC 21 A. ERC Decision 22 The ERC, acting as the responsible official under 23 the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") , imposed i • 24 - mitgating conditions on the Terrace Project in a letterit25fi dated July 20; 1981. The applicant is agreeable and will- 26 ing to take actions necessary to mitigate those impacts 27 that are directly attributable to the Terrace Project. 28 APPLICANT'S HEARING STATEMENT - 6 1 r I i 1 I I 1 However, somelof the conditions imposed by the ERC are I 1 i I 2 unreasonable and they require a mitigation far in excess 3 of the impacts generated by the proposal as identified in the EIS. The ERC has also not shown any relationship be-4 I 5 tween the conditions and the adopted City policies as re- 1 6 quired by RCWI43 .21C.060. Based on these factors, the 7 applicant had no choice but to appeal the unreasonable, 8 illegal and excessive conditions imposed by the ERC. r 9 B. Condition on City Council Review 10 The first issue on appeal relates to Condition 1 . 11 .No. 1 in thelJuly 20, 1981. letter of the ERC. The l 1 12 language in this condition is somewhat confusing since is 13 does not appear on its face to be a mitigating condition. I 14 A close analysis of Condition No. 1 reveals several h 15 . aplparent inconsistencies. First, it discusses the signi= 16 ficance of t,'raffic impacts but .since an EIS was proposed', I I 17 environmental significance is not at issue. Second, the i' 18 condition refers to a City Council approval and a PUD. 19 Since the Terrace Project does not involve a PUD, this I 20 portion of the condition is not applicable. Third, the 21 language inlConditon No. 1 was lifted verbatim from a I 22 letter sentIto the sponsors of the Eradco Project and may 23 have been inadvertently applied to the Terrace Project. i! 24 Onlfinal analysis we can only guess that what washi 25 intended by; this condition is a requirement that the 1 j 26 matter be reviewed by the City Council. Such a condition I 27 in our opinion is not only unreasonable but unlawful. The I 28 l APPLICANT' S HEARING STATEMENT - 7 . I I j 1 1 method and procedure by which permits are 'reviewed and L 2 approved in the City of Renton .is established by ordi- I 3 .nance. -• Certain project approvals, such as the subject 4 _ proposal, do riot require City Council review unless an 5 apPeal, is filed. The Staff by means of a condition is 6 attempting to create a new procedural step in the review 7 proess. If automatic City Council approval of ERC t'i is considered8ac. ons consi ere desirable then the appropriate g remedy is to !seek an ordinance amendment that would 1 10 establish such a procedure. Condition No. 1 should be 11 deleted since on its face it is an improper and unlawful 1 12 procedure that would only create confusion and delay. C. Condition on Edmonds Ave. N.E.13 14 The IERC has imposed a condition that Edmonds Ave. 15 N.E.. be .extenlded as a full width public roadway. from N.E. 16 3r to. N.E. 4th.. The applicant is agreeable to extending 71EdmondsAve.A . 1N.E. for a half width from N.E. 4th to the 1 18 access 'point Ito the Terrace but not all of the way to N.E. 19 3rd. .This is only reasonable since the Terrace Project is I 20,. on being developed on the western side of undeveloped 4ny21Edmondsand future development on the eastern side 22 should bear its proportionate share of the cost by .con- 1 23 structing ' the remaining one half width at a time. when the 24 nerd for a full width street will. be justified .and 25 needed. . Besides the preponderance of the -evidence will I 26 'show this is! all that is needed. If' more is required, the 27 City will beicausing a new significant adverse impact to 28 AP LICANToS HEARING STATEMENT - 8 1 1 I occur, not due' to our project but due to its desire to 1 1 1 2 construct a full. width Edmonds Street. 3 We ask the Examiner to review the need for a full 4 width Edmonds not based on assumptions but on the facts 5 contained in the EIS. This is the information that the f 1 6 responsible official, the ERC, was supposed to use but did 1 1 not. In the draft EIS at Appendix C is an extensive71 i 8 traffic analysis which shows that the extension of Edmonds 9 Ave ' N.E. between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th would not have j 10 positive benefits as one would reasonably anticipate (See 1 11 page 18) . Inlfact the extension would add volume (1500 to 2000 vpd) to N.E. 3rd which is already experiencing con-12 13 gestion at the foot of the hill with its intersection with 14 Sunset Blvd. 1Why the City wants to create such a situa- 15 tion is unclear. Second, the extension would likely 16 create the need for signalization at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds 1 17 which would create additional delay for traffic traveling 18. eastbound.. Ironically, then the ERC through its condition 19 requiring a full width Edmonds creates additional impacts 20 at the N.E. 3rd and Edmonds intersection and the N.E. 3rd 1 21 ' and Sunset intersection which require additional mitigat- I 22 ing conditionls. See ERC Conditions No. 3 and No. 4. I 23 Under RCW 43.21C.060 a project may be conditioned 1 24 or denied under SEPA only on the basis of "specific envi- 1 25 ronmental imp'acts, " which are identified in the environ- 1 26 mental documents. Here the EIS does not contain the type 1 1 27 of information that is sufficient to support the condi- 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 APPLICANT'S HEARING STATEMENT - 9 1 I I s rtioning, of the project to -require .a full width Edmonds It is the preference of the. ERC to ' have a full width but2 3 that :is not sufficient and without adequate supporting: in-- formation, in the ,EIS it is unlawful to , require it. -SERA . 5 giv us all a basis to eliminate or mitigate adverse im- pac tts, not create new ones. Based on the information con- 7. tained in the EIS the only .reasonable alternative is to . • g:, req tl ire the improvement of Edmonds by applicant to a half 9 wid h from N.E.. 4th .to ,the access point to the . Terrace ' • 10 Project. The applicant is agreeable to meeting 11 ditlon and is also: agreeable to executing .a no. protest LID 12 so hat later when the City determines Edmonds needs to be' 13 improved to :full width :the total distance from 3rd to 4th, 14. there will be no objection from the Terrace Project owners. 15 D. Intetsection Improvements . 16 Conditions No3 and No. 4 relate 'to improvements 17 at ..he intersections :of:.`NE.' 3rd and Edmonds- Ave. N.E.',and 18 . N.E 3rd • and Sunset Blvd.. The project applicant does not 19 • obj ct .to making"! some- reasonable contribution to the 20 r:ec mmended improvements. The fact ,.that other projects 21 will contribu e to -traffic at these intersections is i. 22 den nstrated by, the ERC letter on .the Eradco Project, . 23 whi h'" requres similar...improvements to be -made (:See 24 App ndix BY. • We `believe that the only fair method Of re 25 sol ing the issue is to require that traffic .improvements 26 regluired of this: applicant be' related to' the actual amount 27- of •traffic generated.,by the proposal in Proportion to :the APP ICANT'S HEARING STATEMENT - 10. I I I I I I I 1 base traffic now existing or projected without this • 1 I 2 development. ! The formula implements the special benefit I 1 3 conItext of cost allocations under local improvement ' I 4 districts and would be reasonable. Mr. Markley of TRANSPO I I I 5 has reviewed..the traffic information and will testify that 1 6 the Terrace Project would contribute 4.5 percent of the I I I 7 to1a1 traffic! at the N.E. 3rd and Edmonds intersection and i I I 8 2.7 percent of traffic at the N.E. 3rd and Sunset Blvd. I 9 intersection.; These percentages ' are based upon 1982 peakj 1 I I I10hourtraftic,l which overstates the percentage contribution 11 of the Terrace Project to the total traffic volumes. In 12 an effort toformulate a positive solution to this problem 13 we suggest that the City place the applicant 's monetary 14 contribution ; in a fund for making the improvements at the I 15 ' intersections of N.E. 3rd and Sunset and N.E. 3rd and I I 16 Edmonds and require contributions from other developers 17 based on the; amount of traffic their specific proposals 18 generate in proportion to the base traffic now existing or1 19 i projected without the development. The City can collect 1 20 the funds based on the fair and reasonable basis we have j 21 proposed. Tihis type of procedure would be analagous to I' 22 tat established for local improvement districts (RCW, 23 Chapter 35.43) -where property is assessed in accordance" 24 i with the special benefits it will receive from the I I • I 25 improvements Here, .each new development will 1 26 1 27 . 1 28 APPLICANT 'S HEARING STATEMENT - 11 I I i , I 1 I j 1 benefit from the traffic improvements and should bear its I I 2 proportionate share, however, the Terrace Project should 3 not be' required to bear the full cost of the improvements i 4 at the beginning. Again the information contained in the 5 EIS does not Provide a basis under RCW 43.21C.060 for 6 req iring the, Terrace Project to bear the full cost of the 7 traffic improvements at the 'subject intersections. ' Condi- .j 1 8 tio,ns No. 3 and No. 4 should be modified to provide a 1 9 reasonable and equitable means of sharing the costs of the I 1 1 10 needed improv;ements. 11 E. Conclusion i' 12 The conditions imposed by the ERC are clearly 13 excessive and not. based upon demonstrated impacts. Even 14. the landmarkcase of Polygon Corporation v. Seattle, 90 15 Wn. 2d 59 (1978) , which held that SEPA conferred substan- 16 tive authority, • recognized the need for procedural safe- 1 17 guards and general standards. The Court at page 67, 18 f. . 2 noted that the then recent amendments to RCW 1 19 43 . 21C.060 would result in greater certainty and predict- I I 20 ability. Unfortunately thathas notyprediction. proven to 21 be true in this case. Not only has the ERC failed to base ! I I j 22 its conditions on specific impacts disclosed in the EIS i 23 but it also !has not related its conditions to 'adopted I.. 24 policies of the City. For these reasons, we believe the . j 1 i 25 conditions ilmposed by the ERC are unlawful and should be 26 modified as (follows: 27 1)1 . Condition No. 1 should be deleted. I i 1 28 1 APPLICANT'S1HEARING STATEMENT - 12 i I I 1 2) 1Condition No. 2 should be modified to pro- videlthat only a half width Edmonds be provided 2 between the project access and 4th. 1 3 3) 1Conditions No. 3 & 4 should be modified so that 'the applicant is only required to contribute 4 monies to the specified traffic improvements based on the amount of traffic the Terrace 5 Project generates in proportion to the base traffic now existing or projected without 6 development. 7 DATED THIS / i/ day of August, 1981. 8 Respectfully Submitted 9 10 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN 11 I 12 Joe g ard I 13 William Snell Attorneys for Applicant 14 15 16 I i 17 18 7378A 19 20 j 21 I p I i 22 23 24 f 25 26 27 28 APPLICANT'S HEARING STATEMENT - 13 of RF A. .. o THE CITY OF RENTON V _: Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.980I5 uJ. Z, ' N BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT d. 235- 2550 lb'' T July 20, 1981 I Ep SEPO- Raymond S.Wiltshire, Jr. HomecrafbLand Development, Inc. I 320 Ando'er Park East, Suite 260 Tukwila, Washington 98188 1 I RE: THE TERRACE DEVELOPMENT I Dear Mr. Wiltshire: I The environmental process on the above site approval application is now com- plete. The Environmental Review Committee, acting as responsible official, has found the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements to be complete. Based upon the findings of the EIS, the Committee finds that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, and the following mitigatin measures are required to be incorporated into the proposal: 1) A significant adverse impact on the environment will occur due to traffic impacts and associated secondary environmental impacts because of traffic increases on N.E. 4th Street from this proposal, the Schneider Hilltop development (170 units, 1,000 trips) , the Masro 4th and Monroe and 4th west of Union developments (544 units, 3,200 trips) , the ERADCO project (425 units, 2,500 trips) , and the prolposed Cascadia development (500+ units, 3,000 trips) . Therefore, the! City CouncHl must determine in the approval process that these impacts can be mitigated by the proposal or that overriding social, economic or environmental considerations make approval of this PUD ap ropriate. 2) E nds Avpnue N.E. shall be extended as a public roadway from N.g. 3rd to N.E. 4tti Streets. III 3) Channelization, street widening, and signalization shall be provided at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue N.E. to provide for left turns from N.E. 3rd. I I 4) Any operational improvements necessary to accommodate traffic at the N. . 3rd and Siinset Boulevard intersection, including widening, paving or signal modifications, shall be provided by this development. 5) . An analysis of the downstream sanitary sewer and storm water capacity sh 11 be completed, and plans for accommodating this development in these systems shall be approved by the Public Works Department. RECEIVED • HAGGARD, TOUSL.EY & BRAIN APPENDIX A JUL 2 3 1981 PMAM 7.819,1011.112.11213141516 8 1 I Raymond S. Wiltshire, Jr. Homecraft Land Development, Inc. July 20; 1981 Page Tao At such time as the plans for this development are revised to accommodate the mitigation listed above, we will proceed with public hearings and final approval. Very ly yours, 6 Z2 t( the nvironmen al Review Committee David R. Clemens Acting Planning Director . DRC:wr - 1 cc: Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Environmental Review Committee Members Steve Clark, Stepan and Associates I 1 1 1 i 1 1 of Key, CITY pF RENTpN ir ETt1O. RENTON.WASH.96055MILLAVE.AVE• N `- MUNICIPAL BUILDING PLANNING DEPARTMENT,.•_ ." Jy-; BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • V E 0RECEIVEDBRAIN 19 81 pUSLEY 5-2550 June 8, HAGC,p RD. 9' TED EP JUL 151981 pM •.s J AyM IO U a l'2`3'4` g Hayhurst orationRobertaMnge= ment Corp S .9propertyReseachandDevelop 180000 PaciIfict' al Highway South, Suite 1115 IPacificHig att e, tshington 98188 Seattle,MpNTEREY TERRACE PUD ENVI ONMENT' MITIGATION, RE: Hayhurst: application is Dear Mrs. the above PUD PP acting process on Committee s ental Review Final EIS The envi onment e Environmental and EIS, the now complete.has found the s Draft and impact _ or plete officialBased upon the finding nif sSant imp as rest Based P have a significant to beit ce finds that project may sting measures Cnmtheee .firo ent, and the following thet PUDiga proposal: Con the environment,to be incorporated 1 for .all are re Iu•red provide must be updated to p ovidec or the 1) The submitted PUD the PUD Ordinance avail- able C until . C pt revised ordinance are Copies of the y Council Co i Cb the City Clerk.will':':- able from act on environment' seconadfectntaafficimpactandassociatedent 2) p' sign to traffic traffic n e vi dueacts because' of. increasesa developer enm is prop the Schneider environm sal, Monroe anfl this proposal, Mastro 4th and3 o trips) , N .4th from 1000 trips) , meats (544 units, trips) • 41h units,. Union develop 290 units, . 1300 3000 and 4th west of Terrace project ( meat (5, . 1 00 trl tad the rop Cascadia development must 4 unitSne tF the proposed the City Council beemitigated t ip ) Thierefopr these impacts can s rocess that social, economic the pro oval P or that overriding royal . n micthi - Y the envir proposal,considerations make app r sap roam form a four (4) UD aPPropriate• proposed PUD shall northerly( 4) the prop°with the future shall le3) The intersectionCt NE 3rd xy ns onsectEd n Ave• .NE• The intersec for tion turn move- s gna of and widened to provideeet• be signalized and the pro] i tents into and out of shall be cofsar cted tsix The proposed set standardsyconsisting4) streetcollector APPENDIX B 1. p . r r., a fi i I I Roberta Hayhurst Environmental Research and Development Corporation Monterey Terrace Mitigation June 8, 1981 page 2 36) foot curb-to-curb section, widened to forty-four 44) feet at the intersection of NE 3rd. In addition, sidewalks, street lights and other appurtenant improve- ments shall be provided along the access roadway. 5) Any operational improvements necessary to accommodate traffic at the NE 3rd and Sunset Blvd. intersection, including widening, paving or signal modifications, shall be provided by this development. 6) Any exposed cut or fill slopes on the subjecty property shall be immediately reseeded and stabilized with jutematting. 7) Blaine Ave NE shall be improved by the project to accom modate public safety vehicles by widening, grading or alignment ¶evisions. 8) The- t p - --mi igating measures suggested by the Police Deartm nt shall be included in the final building plans. At such time as the plans_ for this development are revised to accommodate the mitigation listed above, we will proceed with public hearings and final approval. Very t my your , I/ e,O•a r the Environm ntal Review Committee David R. Clemens - Acting Planning Director DRC:dc cc: Mayor Shinpoch ERC members 0 I TESTIMONY OUTLINE FILE NO. SA-010-81 TERRACE PROJECT I Testimony concerning the site review and appeal from the decision of the ERC are to be provided by indivi- I duals with a diversity of expertise. The objective is to prov 'de the Hearing Examiner with a reasonable and ade- quat basis for showing that all requirements of Section 4-233 are met and that the conditions imposed by the ERC I are excessive and unlawful. For the Examiner 's conve- nien e, a summary of key elements of the testimony is pro- video as follows: A. Ray Wiltshire, Jr . , representative of the applicant, Homecraft. 1. Mr. Wiltshire will discuss the history of I I the site as follows: I a. Purchase of property in September, 1980. L. Proposal calls for 280 condominium I residential units on 8.4 acres. c. Our proposal conforms with the zoning and comprehensive plans. d. An EIS was prepared for the project with the Final EIS issued in July, 1981. TES IMONY 1- e. Homecraft has worked with City officials in an attempt to mitigate environ- mental impacts reasonably related to the proposed residential development and to meet all applicable City codes and regulations. f. Homecraft's intent is to construct a project providing quality housing for the moderate income market. A short description of market makeup will be presented. g. The Environmental Review Committee in a letter dated 7/20/81 imposed conditions that we believe are burdensome and in excess of that required to mitigate impacts we cause: Letter submitted as exhibit) i) the requirement for Edmonds Ave. being improved to full width. The EIS does not show this is required (See p. 17 of EIS) and our traffic consultant will provide detailed information on this point. ii) the channelization, street widen- ing and signalization at NE 3rd and Edmonds. We do not object to contri- buting to the improvements in propor- tion to impacts generated by the pro- ject. TESTIMONY 2- iii) the operational improvements to accomodate traffic at NE 3rd and Sunset Blvd. Again, we do not object to mak- ing a contribution toward the improve- ments but only in relationship to the j impacts generated by the project. h. Conditions proposed by ERC will signi- ficantly raise the cost of the housing. Mr. Clark of Stepan & Associates, who will tes- tify later, has calculated the cost neces- Jary to comply with the traffic and off site storm conditions imposed by the ERC which come to a total of about $310,000, not in- cluding interest costs. The selling cost would thus increase by about $1,100 per unit. i . We are revising the site plan building footprint slightly due to comments received to date. The principal difference is build- F ing sizes which have been reduced to less Lan 12,000 sq. ft. and associated slight elocation of buildings. j . The remainder of the project testimony will be turned over to those professionals Lho will address the specifics relating to the site review and the appeal. TESTIMONY 3- B. Steve Clark, Planner with Stepan and Asso- ciates. Mr. Clark will outline his professional qualifi- cati ns and then show how the proposed project will meet thecriteriarter a ot the grading ordinance and the costs asso ciat d with th ERC conditions. I i 1. The Draft and Final EIS and the site plan I are Exhibits and 2. Historical development of site: a. Property was originally subject to an excavation permit which was issued to a pre- vious owner in July, 1976 in App. No. SP-876-76 with certain conditions. Copy of permit is submitted as Exhibit b. As pointed out in the staff report some of the conditions on the grading permit were violated but this was done by the previous owner. This is not a code enforcement pro- ceeding and this material should be disre- garded as prejudicial. c. Under the grading ordinance any re-use of the site requires a review by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Section 4-2303. d. We request re-use to multiple family. TESTIMONY 4- I 3. Description of existing site: by referring j to site plan exhibit, the following charac- teristics of the residential development are identified a. Dimensions of site b. Slope of site c. Location of streets 4 . Description of development. a. Number of buildings and units. i) Our density is significantly below per- mitted density: actual density 33 du/acre, zoning density 70 du/acre, or less than 1/2 of the permitted density. ii) Could have 411 units with a mixture of studio, one and two bedroom units. b. General architectural style. 5. Describe surrounding properties and identify significant projects. (See Exhibit a. Property to the north. b. Property to the south. c. Property to the east. Property to the west. 6. The proposed project will be compatible with he surrounding uses. TESTIMONY 5- I 7. This property is zoned for multiple dwell- ngs R-4 and the comprehensive plan shows he o e tprpr y to be used for High Density Iesidential. 8. Sewer and storm water capacity. a. Storm water system will be designed to retain and release water runoff at a rate not in excess of the previous natural rate. b. Both the design of the erosion control plan and the storm water system will be co- ordinated with the City of Renton Public Works Department. c. The preliminary storm water plan and report has been submitted to the City, re- viewed and red-lined by them, and appro- i priate revisions being made. The erosion control plan has a similar status. Exhibits and 1 During construction, a temporary ero- sion control plan will be followed to pre- vent the entry of sedimentation into the drainage courses. e. A landscape plan will be implemented to further reduce potential on-site erosion after construction. 1 TESTIMONY 6- 9. Landscaping a. Description of landscaping and submit- tal as Exhibit to landscaping plans. We comply with City's landscape ordinance. b. The Urban Design Section of the Goals and Policies provides for landscaping that is suitable for screening and buffering be- I t een use areas and that landscaping be com- patible with significant natural conditions. c. Our landscaping does provide for separ- ation of use areas as follows: i) About 30% of the site is retained in open space ii) About 8 - 9% of the parking area is landscaped even though the code only j requires 5% iii) Landscape separation of buildings is provided iv) Supplemental street trees and ground cover will be provided along 3rd and 4th Avenue and proposed Edmonds within an area of about 20 feet. v) Building setback from N.E. 3rd right of way edge is 77 feet and 97 feet to sidewalk. From N.E. 4th, the building is set back from right of TESTIMONY 7- way. The setback from Edmonds is about 57 feet. d. Thus, there is no conflict with the Residential Goal, Section 4.D.6 which pro- vides that screening and setbacks along arterials should be more extensive than along local streets. 10. Recreational Facilities a. We are providing the following active use facilities with the residential develop- ment: swimming pool, recreation room and bath house, jaccuzi, half basketball court, volleyball court on grass and tot-lot. The estimated development cost of this is about 200,000 or more. The facilities will be maintained by the home owners and not impose costs for maintenance on the City. b. A one acre mini-park for both active and passive recreation. c. As shown in comment to final EIS p. 38 adequate on-site facilities will mitigate recreational demands of residents. 11. Traffic a. With regard to traffic conditions im- Iosed by ERC our engineers have prepared the following estimates with regard to costs: TESTIMONY 8- full width Edmonds $ lii( ) half width Edmonds $ iii) half width Edmonds from`'4th N.E. to entrance to Terrace Project $ iv) improvements at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds v) improvements at N.E. 3rd and Sunset 1 1 1 1 TES 1 IMONY 9- 1 L 1 David arkley, traffic engineer with TRANSPO. Mr. Markley will outline his professional quali- fica ions and show that Terrace Project will contribute very little to traffic impacts in the area. 1 I 1. Presents exhibit showing map of streets 11 ist of streets in the area. I a. to the south is Third Street. 1 1 b. to the north is Fourth Street. I c. to the west is Puget Power right-of-way. d. to the east is the right-of-way for Edmonds. I d. The proposal calls for 280 units on an I 8 .4 acre site. See p. 16 of Draft EIS I umbers and unit types. e. Parking will be provided on site and 1 I will meet Renton zoning requirements. I 2. Access to the site will be provided from two 1 entry-exit points: one at 4th Ave. and one at Edmonds. (showing full width Edmonds, calf width Edmonds to 3rd and half width I 1 Edmonds only to entrance to project. ) I I TES I IMONY 10- I I 61 i 3. The project 's traffic generation is estimated conservatively using accepted methodology. See p. 11 of traffic report, appendix C of Draft EIS. 4. We prepared a traffic study for the proposal which is included in Appendix C of the Draft EIS. 5. At p. 17 of Appendix C we discussed the opening of Edmonds Ave. NE and concluded Edmonds should not be extended to intersect with NE 3rd because: i) it is not warranted by traffic volumes since the existing street system serves the volumes that would use this extension. ii) the extension would compound existing east-west traffic congestion and require im- provements at the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset and N.E. 3rd and Edmonds. 6. Half width improvement of Edmonds from 4th Lo access point is the most reasonable con- lition based on traffic analysis. 7. Improvement of half width Edmond to 3rd is an alternative but will have the following negative impacts: TESTIMONY 11- I i 11 i) increase volumes along 3rd. ii) result in new intersection at 3rd and Edmonds which will require new intersection improvements. 8. The ERC has requested channelization, street widening and signalization at NE 3rd and Edmonds NE to provide for left turns from NE 3rd. 7*The project will generate the following of the total 1982 traffic at this intersection: 4.5% . b. As a result of the Terrace Project the only improvements that should be required are signing, striping and pavement marking or as an alternative, a percentage contribution to the improvements. 9. The ERC has requested operational improve- ments to accommodate traffic at NE 3rd and Sunset. The project will generate the following of total 1982 traffic at this intersection: 2.7% . b. As a result of the Terrace Project the only improvements that should be required are striping and channelization or as an alternative, a percentage contribution to the improvements. TESTIMONY 12- I 10. In my professional opinion the mitigating measures imposed by the ERC with regard to traffic are far in excess of what the traffic analysis and EIS shows is required in this case. I 11. Imposition of the conditions I have sug- I ested would mitigate the traffic impacts generated by this proposal.I I I 7312A I I I I I I I I I I TESTIMONY 13- I OF R4, ty © THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 0 mom BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 09 235- 2550 0, 9gT O SEPZ• Q July 24, 1981 Mr. Steve Clark Stepan & Associates, Inc. 930 South 336th Street - Suite A Federal Way, Washington 98003 RE: THE TERRACE DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Clark: In response to your request for clarification of the last paragraphy of the letter dated July 20, 1981 , from Mr. Dave Clemens , Acting Planning Director, to Mr. Ray Wiltshire, Jr. of Homecraft Land Development , Inc. , the specific plans addressing mitigating measures do not need to be submitted prior to the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 1981. However, this is only ture, if the applicant agrees that he will provide the mitigation to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department . The issue of a latecomers agreement is entirely separate from the design issue. Only the City Council can grant a latecomers agreement after proper application through the Public Works Department. The staff report for the project should be available on Wednesday morning, July 29, 1981 for you to pick up. Sincerely, Roger J. ayloc'_: Associate Planner RJB; rjb F1 ') I 4 INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO: Files 1DATE 7/21/81 FROM: Willis Roberts RE: LETTER TO HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT OF 7/20/81 RE. 1 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF "THE TERRACE" AND MITIGATING MEASURES I1 1 1 The subject letter was transmitted to Homecraft by mail 1 on July 21 , 1981 , and a copy picked up by Steve Clark of Stepan and Associates on July 21st . 1 1 i I 1 I I 1 V OF J? 4 I THE CITY OF RENTON yor 'MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9,0 co- 235— 2550 qTEO4 6 1E July 20, 1981 SEP Raymond S. Wiltshire, Jr. Homecraft Land Development, Inc 320 Andover Park East, Suite 260 Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: THE TERRACE DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Wiltshire: The environmental process on the above site approval application is now cora- 1 plete. The Environmental Review Committee, acting as responsible official, has found the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements to be complete. Based upon the findings of the EIS, the Committee finds that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, and the following mitigating measures are required to be incorporated into the proposal: 1) A significant adverse impact on the environment will occur due to traffic impacts and associated secondary environmental impacts because of traffic increases on N.E. 4th Street from this proposal, the Schneider Hilltop development (170 units, 1,000 trips) , the Mastro 4th and Monroe and 4th west of Union developments (544 units, 3,200 trips) , the ERADCO project (425 units, 2,500 trips) , and the proposed Cascada development (500+ units, 3,000 trips) . Therefore, the City Council must determine in the approval process that these impacts can be mitigated by the proposal or that overriding social, economic or environmental considerations make approval of this PUD appropriate. 2) Edmonds Avenue N.E. shall be extended as a public roadway from N.E. 3rd to N.E. 4th Streets. 3) Channelization, street widening, and signalization shall be provided at N.E. 3rd and Edmonds Avenue N.E. to provide for left turns from N.E. 3rd. 4) Any operational improvements necessary to accommodate traffic at the N.E. 3rd and Sunset Boulevard intersection, including widening, paving or signal modifications, shall be provided by this development. 5) An analysis of the downstream sanitary sewer and storm water capacity shall be completed, and plans for accommodating this development in these systems shall be approved by the Public Works Department. lI I I 1 I Raymond S. Wiltshire, Jr. 1 Homecraft Land Develpihent, Inc. July 20, 1981 I I Page Two I 1 I I I At such time as the plans for this development are revised to accommodate the 1 mitigation listed above, we will proceed with public hearings and final appr1lval. I Very r, ly yours, ? 1 7 :,, /I ellCC 6.UtheronmenallReviewCommittee I David R. (Clemens . I Acting Planning Director I DRC:wr I 1 cc: Barb ra Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Environmental Review Committee Members I Steve Clark, Stepan and Associates I I I 1 11 1 I 1 i I I 1 I II 1 I 1 I I I I I i 1 I I 1 I I I I , OF k4.,Ar o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 k MEW BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9. 0 co. 235 2550 0 4TED SEP S July 16, 1981 I i Raymond S. Wiltshire, Jr. Homecraft Land Development, Inc. 320 Andover Park East, Suite 260 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL, FILE SA-010-81 , TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 280 DWELLING UNITS MULTIPLE FAMILY COMPLEX ON 8.4 ACRE SITE IN R-4 ZONE: Property located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street and west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Gentlemen: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on July 16, 1981 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. has been set for August I , 1981 at 9 :00 a.m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions, please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours, 1911e Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:cl cc: Mr. Kent K. Stepan, P.E. Mr. Joel Haggard MrJ Steve Clark Malka Fricks riz NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINE AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON; WASHINGTON, ON August 4 , 1981 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 . LHOMECRAFT LAND--nEV>ELOPMENT,_ Appiication -for -site approval, file SA-010=811; to allow construction of 280 dwelling unit multiple family complex on 8. 4 acre site in R-4 Zone; property located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street and west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Legal description of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITION IS INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON August : 4 , 1981 ,.=.AT 9 :00:-A.14. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: July 20, 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I, Steve Munson, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. j I ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residinlg in King County, on the 16th .d7 of July, 1981 . C ! % 114- SIGNED:SIOL.e r/ 7 k r..4 r.yt 1 r,1 r a 4k, d , I r . ;• 'Sli:::. ri r 1 I GENERAL LOC TION: AND, OR ADDRESS: i ( 1 PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN N.E. 3RD STREET AND..N.E, 4TH STREET AND WEST Ii1 OF EDMONDS AVENUE N .E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: P LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT, iJ li c i t Y1 II i11 I I 3 POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF 1i A. ,i , _ , irr ID: LI iY' Ai, y Ii TO BE HELD . Jj it IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON AUGUST 4, 1981 BEGINNING AT 9:00 ',! A.M. P.M. CONCERNING I a. EM Z j' REZONE H 1 1 P E ! PE .:s-M IT 1I' ill 280 DWELLING UNIT MULTIPLE 1 ra SITE 4 ''O` '. PR VAL _ FAMILY COMPLEX( i 1 WAIER i t t ,I `i I it SHORUNE M N. a EMENT PERMIT 1 lI iI{.I . J` FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ISSUED - AVILABLE; FOR REVIEW , IN LIBRARY OR RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT j it c Pr FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 23a; 250, THIS NOTICE T TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT AU , TION F THE CITY OF RENTON t 4.k V4y MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 isao 4- ` BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 235- 2550 O1?, q SEP1'-' P July 2, 1981 Mr. K-nt J. Stepan, P.E. Stepa & Associates, Inc. 930 S uth 336th !Street Suite A Feder 1 Way, Washington 98003 R : THE TERRACE/CORRESPONDENCE OF DUNE 24, 1981 Dear r r. Stepan:1 In response to your letter of June 24, 1981 directed to Mr. R.y Wilshire, Jr. , we would agree that the proposed sched le is possible under the constrants of the City ' s Ordin.nces and procedures . However, we can not assure you t at this schedule will be adhered to. This office will do all that is possible to meet this schedule. We can not control ',the actions of the Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner in their processes. Since I will be On vacation the week of July 6-10, please contact Mr. David R. Clemens , Acting. Planning Director concerting any questions. 1 Sincerely, Roger . layloc Associ. te Planner RJB; r 'b ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 27, 1981 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A.M. FOURTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM OLD BUSINESS : ECF-053-81 HIGHLAND VILLAGE LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY Application for building permit to allow construction of 306-unit apartment complex; property located north of Puget Drive S.E. and east of Eagle Ridge Drive NEW BUSINESS : ECF-052-81 PACIFIC AGRO COMPANY B-254 Application for building permit to allow construction of 5200 sq. ft . building for storage and blending of bulk ferti- lizer; property located in the vicinity of 903 Houser Way North ECF-013-81 THE TERRACE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL SA-010-81 IMPACT STATEMENT Review of The Terrace DEIS regarding application for site approval to permit construction of 280 multiple family dwelling units by Homecraft Land Development, Inc . ; property located between N.E . 3rd Street and N. E . 4th Street and west of Edmonds Avenue N .E . I 1 a -114 A 1 z 4/ 1 I 1 w . i c I 111 e. AL,^: , c liA)i fait lk .. 1 Alma ta• _ ' ii.--..!•\\11 LAKE III Iov% WASHINGTON r. „, ' d\ i' i ri:....„... eil!1 =jOEACIFICAGROCO. n +, . k\ N- lists40 -utI1hk 4iii * imur" UK 6.11' 1111,,,101411111111%fit,*,* 1 L.____._, . i 1 Nr;_ifirlaw Eli 114111-.---- i ( WAlk-W611LAPP1111 1Illt , 1 1 ?14. - soiling I, 4kmir . . 1 di r-,IJI1PJ.....J ''HIGH ND' VIL. 17. AGE 21/.,,,.,—,--_ i_ 147_ ___\1 _ __ 7__ 1_ ter:.. k Iip. 1- i 1111\4,_ It_y J virAt, rift . i . , 111"1-9116 IIIII 1111Wilitit- - 1-t-4411-1"1----1 —_ IMMO "3111,••• vtl k 4,, atimullii66.111k !..e.,, li"emirIrIlla 7,c ..2, i a .1. 1 A 1 1151Pm r 1 c_i 1 _.- . Pr 1 g. 1111111 '. . 1 icy al I i 1rdA r. . . _ ..:. 7, i imi , 11 LA 1 KErLAKE s I_( ' f 1 1 1 OF R6 f. 4.°o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 641.w BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235- 2550 94, D March 19 , 1981 SEP1E* Stephan & Associates 930 South 336th Street Federal Way , Washington 98003 Attention : Mr . Steve Clark RE : Homecraft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr . Clark : Pursuant to our discussions regarding this Environmental Impact Statement , I have attached various pieces of information which we have indicated we would provide . These include planning area population totals for the Northeast area which includes the pro- posal , and analysis of the cost of providing police services to various land uses including multiple-family residences . I discussed with John Webley , Parks Director , the issue of off- site public recreation , and it appears that the City of Renton ' s Park and Recreation Master Plan addresses this area adequately . The standards provided in the report should give you the oppor- tunity to provide analysis of the park needs based upon the scale of your project . However , if you are having difficulty with this section, we will be happy to set up a meeting with the Parks Director to evaluate your comments and concerns . City of Renton ' s property tax rate for the calendar year 1981 is $2 . 297 per $1 , 000 of assessed evaluation. By estimating the assessed evaluation of the project once completed , an estimate of the property tax revenues can be made using this tax rate . This can then be compared to the costs of providing police ser- vices . Although this is not a direct relationship , it will give some hint as to the cost and revenue impacts related to this project and the provision of police services . If you have any further questions with regards to this matter , please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience . Very truly yours ; Da 'i . C‘) 211( lemens Acting Planning Director DRC : gh Attachments OF R4, o 4, 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o M 92 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 T.3 co• 235— 2550 6 SEP- r-,A 0)UM May 5 , 1981 TO : Building Department Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Division Utilities Engineering Parks and Recreation Department ire Department FROM: roger J. Blaylock, Associate Planner RE : PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIS - THE TERRACE H-O=MECk FTT) Forward-d for your review and comment is a preliminary copy of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding Homecraft Land Develop ent Company ' s multiple family residential proposal to be situate. between N .E . 3rd Street and N.E . 4th Street west of Edmonds Avenue N .E . right-of-way and east of the PSP&L transmission line ri•ht-of-way . Inasmuc as only three copies were received, we would appreciat- your sh-ring a copy as follows : OPY NO. 1 : Building Parks and Recreation OPY NO . 2 : Fire Utilities Engineering OPY NO. 3 : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Traffic Engineering Your ea ly response would be appreciated. Attachm-nt f OF THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o 15 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 09gTFD SEPS° 4<e) March 17, 1981 Mr. Joel Haggard Haggard, Tousely & Brain 1530 Bank of California Center Seattle, WA 98164 RE: File No. ECF-013-81 ; Homecraft Land Development Company; Appeal of Environmental Determination. Dear Mr. Haggard: Your letter withdrawing the referenced appeal filed on behalf of your client was received this date by our office. Notification of official withdrawal of the matter will be forwarded to city staff members, and the public hearing tentatively scheduled for April 7, 1981 will be canceled. Very truly yours , Fred J . I .iufman Hearing Examiner cc: ,Members, E.R.C. City Clerk City Attorney Mayor 4d CCDIEb ° MAR 18 I981 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1530 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER k; RUSSELL F. TOUSLEY 900 FOURTH AVENUE JOEL E. HAGGARD SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 TELEPHONE CHRISTOPHER I. BRAIN 206) 682-1005 WILLIAM N. SNELL March 16, 1981 Hearing Examiner r\ City of Renton Renton City Hall 1 l,Z 19a1 200 Mill Ave. S . V Renton, WA 980554//' Re: DS Appeal ( SEPA) for Homecraft P Dear Sir : Based upon a comprehensive review of the total proposal, we believe that an EIS is unnecessary. We also believe that the mitigating measures identified by the City, i .e . , alternative sites and reduced size, are improper criteria regarding the need for an EIS. However, as an Expanded Checklist was prepared making available largely all the data necessary for preparation of an EIS, and as the timetable for a decision would extend into mid-April, we have decided to moot the appeal by agreeing to have an EIS prepared. We therefore withdraw the appeal of the City' s DS for the Homecraft/Renton project. Sincerely yours, HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN Joel Haggard JH/id cc: Mr . Ray Wiltshire Mr . Kent Stephan I'r . Roger Blaylock (Renton Planning) ri OF R AI A, 0 :. . . z THE CITY OF RENTONU4OA3. 4', :-•MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o 01 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR e PLANNING DEPARTMENT 94 i t•• 235- 2550 941.Fo SEP . 0 March 11, 1981 Mr. Joel Haggard Attorney at Law Haggard, T1)usley and Brain 1530 Bank of California ' • 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, W shington 98164 Re: Letter of March , 6, ; 1981, Homecraft Residential Project Dear Mr. Haggard: 1 The Environmental Review Committee has received your letter of March 6, 1I981 . . .The questions raised therein are identified in the Declaration of Significance dated February 21, 1981. Based upon the five areas of environmental 'concern identified in the Declaration of Signilficance, two possible mitigating measures could include a reduction in the scope of the project or an alternate location. Other mitigating measures will become apparent with the analysis to be provided in the Environmental Impact Statement whi1ch this Committee has- required to be prepared. Following a full disclosure of the environmental consequences by the Environmental Imipact Statement, we will be in a position to more s ecifically define available mitigation. If you have any furth r questionls • wiith regards to this matter , please feel free to contact us at your earliest convenience. very trul y u , i u vi Clemens Acting Planning Director onald G. Nelson Building Director chard H ugh n Acting Pullili Works Director I DRC:gh r ,,-„,.eye fr,'1.-; ..----' r' lIo FT r (. r ` l' HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, IN r` , J 2600 SOUTH LOOP WEST, SUITE', 650 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77054 rj9//t.;, (713.),.-685=3939 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 20147, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77025 32',0 Andover Park East, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 SOUTH TEXAS- NEW MEXICO RAYMOND S.WILTSHIRE,',JR. AND OKLAHOMA REGION VICE PRESIDENT-MANAGER March -10 ,- 1981 Mr. David Clements, Acting Director City of Renton Planning Department Renton City Hall ; 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, lWashington 98055 Re: The Terrace Condominium Proposal Preparation of Draft E. I .S . Dear Mr. I Clements:' Concerning our proposed condominium project, The Terrace, we acknowledge receipt of the Environmental Review Committee Final Declaration of Significance. As you know, it . is our intention to appeal the decision of the ERC, for which you have received our appeal notification. During the interim, in the interest of saving time should the Hearings Examiner concur with the decision of the ERC, I am informing you of our desire to initiate the preparation of the project E. I.'.S . , • and to further propose that Stepan & Associates, .Inc. be retained as consultant to the City of Renton for the preparation of the draft - and 'f.inal E.I .S . documents . In reviewing Renton' s Environmental Consultant selection process., I believe the next step will be to arrange a meeting with Stepan '& Associates, Inc. to discuss the scope of the E:I. S. In doing so you should contact Mr. Steve R. Clark at 682-4771 . i 1 to 6.‘ Mr. David Clements Ac,) 11\- March 10 , 1981 Page Two v1/4-11/ Please keep Me advised as to the procedural aspec •s, o --, e E.I.S. process and consultant selection process. 1 Si rely, R mond . Wiltshire, Jr. RSW:djn 1 1 I prPrrj I OF RA,, o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Z o BARBARA'.. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0 CO'FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 094, sEP E P March 10, 1981 TO:David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director Ron Nelson,, Building Official Del Mead, City Clerk FROM: Fred JI Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RE: Appea0of Environmental Determination; Homecraft Land Development Co. ; File No. ECF-013-81 . An appeal from the determination of the Environmental Review Committee has been received in the above entitled matter. Please forward all official documents and correspondence concerning this matter to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. , Tuesday, March 17, 1981 . At the same time, the Planning Department should schedule a public hearing on this subject for the earliest possible date. The city officials who may need to be available for this hearing will be those members of staff who reviewed the matter for analysis by the Environmental Review Committee, the members of the IERC, and the City Attorney, who may want to represent the city in this matter. Since the hearing may take the better part of a day, its should be scheduled after the normal public hearing agenda. In the evnt a secondlhearing day is required, provision for a meeting location should be 'Fade, such as the basement of the Fire Station or the Library ConferenceIRoom. If further assistance on proceduralmatters is required, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman cc: Mayor f ly'`` D E City Attorney MAR i 1 1981 I 1 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY S, BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1530 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER RUSSELL F. TOUSL Y 90,0 FOURTH AVENUE JOEL E.HAGGARD i CHRISTOPHER I. BR IN SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 TELEPHONE WILLIAM N. SNELL 206) 682-1005 March 6, 1981 Mr. R ger Blaylock City of Renton Renton Planning Department 200 Mull Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 ' Re: Homeciraft Residential Project Dear 11 oger : The City issued effective February 22, 1981 a DS for applicant ' s proposal. After modification of the total proposal, the City reconsidered the matter and affirmed a DS on March 4, 19811. We request that you provide us a speci is listing of,, the environmental impacts which led to the DS together with a brief explanation of what measures, if anyi, could b taken to prevent or instigate the alleged envir nmental i1 acts such that the City could withdraw the DS and issue a DNS., See WAC 197-10-355 (3) , -370. Sincerely yours, HAGGAR TOUSELY & BRAIN Joel Haggar. JH/id cc: Mr. Ray Wiltshire 1it. /Pri MARLtm i 4,/fr G. EP P!''` 1 k 2611 N.E. 4 St. #234 Renton, Wash. 98055 March 6, 1981 David Clemens , Director 3 Planning Department City of Renton 300 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wash. 98055 Re: Eradco Project Dear Mr. Clemens, On behalf of the Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association, I should like to call to your attention some con- cerns about the Eradco Project proposal and its effect on the Renton Highlands community. Although this project is not immediately adjacent to Vantage Point, the proposed ingress/egress for Eradco residents would be the N.E. 3rd Street corridor. It is a known fact that traffic at the junction of N:E. 3rd St. and Sunset has already reached Level "F" capacity - or 18% over the maximum for which it was designed. The Developer of Eradco claims that the 425 units in his project would "only" add another 6% impact to the traffic flow. Presumably, these aforementioned percentages are based on current, actual traffic densities - plus the estimated Eradco impact. However, I should like to call attention to the many vehicles about to increase the traffic flow from projects under construction it are at various stages of development: Homecraft: N.E. 3rd/N.E.4th and Edmonds N.E. 280 units proposed Highbnry Park: Edmonds N.E. & N.E. 4th 97 lots 21 homes presently under construction Hilltop Apts. : 158 units Mastro Development: 244 units In addition to the actual and proposed number of vehicles using (or about to use) the N.E.3rd St. corridor, I understand that Homecraft, in its proposal, wishes to extend Edmonds Ave.N.E. between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th to permit its project owners ingress/ egress directly on to N.E. 3rd. In order to do this, they are rec- ommending a turn lane (left turn going East) at what will become the corner of Edmonds N.E. (extended) and N.E. 3rd. In addition also, Eradco proposes a similar turn lane left turn going West) at what will become the corner entrance to the Mount Olivet Cemetery Road and N.E. 3rd St. to give its project residents access (ingress when traveling West) . i 2- Both Homecraft and Eradco are proposing traffic lights in addition to these turn lanes . Although I can understand the logic of these two developers on behalf of their future purchasers, I fail to see how two additional traffic lights coupled with tliro additional turn lanes (within several hundreds of feet of each other) will helpIto increase the smoothness of the traffic flor and mitigate this traffic problem. Apparently an even greater hindrance to both East-West flow of through traffic would be created by even one of these Developers being permitted to pursue this plan, let axone two Developers doing so. According to an estimate of traffic to be generated by the Eradco Project (Renton Record-Chronicle 2/4/81) , 2,546 vehicle trips per: day was listed. Presumably, this accounts only for reg- ular commuter traffic. However, with a project this large (425 units) , there needs to be a consideration of daily school bus traffic and service vehicles, as well as occasional public vehicles police, fire, ambulance, etc. ) , thereby bringing the total of regular vehicular trips to a considerably higher figure. Also, when considering school bus traffic in peak morning drive time, consideration must be given to the stop and go effect on all traffic in both directions during student pickup.1 Aside from traffic problems, the other major concern I wish o present relates to the increased burden on city services : i.e. ±ire, police, schools, hospitals, etc. , which according o Eradco 's impact statement, would be negligible . Eradco sees ' no additional need for the expansion of these services . " This latter conclusion is irresponsible and prepostcrous. As a professional public school employee, I can attest to the fact that each additional child in a school creates an impact on s rvices . The of.necessity creating new school bus routes where none existed before is a significant case in point.) In conclusion, I suggest that the various major impacts that the development of the Eradco Project (as proposed) would create serious problems and hardships for the community and City services, unless some of the possible solutions (particularly traffic) are addressed PRIOR to development. Sincerely, 0.??.,e-igiC--?Lie-e,-/<-7 I I Malka Pricks, President i I Vantage Point Co dominium Owners Associate n OF RA,A 4, N THE CITY OF RENTON U © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 235- 2550 091' Eb SEPI` 1 March 5, 1981 Homecraft Land and Development Company 320 Andover Park East, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Request for Reconsideration : ECF-013-81 ; SA-010-81 Gentlemen: At its regular meeting of March 4 , 1981 , the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the correspondence dated February 25 , 1981 , from yourself and dated February 25, 1981 , from your counsel, Mr. Joel Haggard. The Committee has concluded that your points #1 through #4 of your letter of February 25 are insufficient grounds to reverse the Committee ' s previous action to require an environmental impact statement on the above proposals. The Committee continues to feel that the five items listed in the Declaration of Significance dated February 22 , 1981 , have been inadequately addressed, and that full public dis- closure and analysis of these potential impacts must be addressed. The Committee continues to feel that since there is a clear disagreement as to the level of environmental impacts as a result of this project, that the public interest is best served by full analysis , and full public disclosure of these concerns which is appropriately addressed in the environmental impact statement process. I - I Letter t Homecraft Land and Development Company Page Two March 5, 1981 I Should you have any questions in regards to this matter, please feel free t'o contact the Planning Department at your I earliest convenienIce. I Very r'uly yours , 6. ((ezte_t. vid Ra USEmens Acting lanning Director Ronald G. Nelson Building Directors r._ . -; , .,1.;-i r f,i -1t Richard Houghton 1 Acting lublic Works Director DRC:gh cc : C 'ty Attorney Park & Recration Director I I I I I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 4 , 1981 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10 : 00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PENDING BUSINESS: NORTHWEST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY (AUSTIN COMPANY) ECF-602-80; SA-092-80) FRED BOWSER (ECF-642-80; R-135-80) DAVE BEST (ECF-634-80; R-125-80) FOR RECONSIDERATION: HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. (ECF-013-81; SA-010-81) NEW BUSINESS: ECF-020-81 H. A. AND JANET BLENCOE SA-017-81 Application for site approval to V-019-81 allow expansion of medical/dental facility through second floor addition and application for variance from Parking and Loading Ordinance regarding parking requirements; property located at 138, 200, and 206 South 3rd Place ECF-624-80 CHARLES R. UNGER SM-87-80 Application for Shoreline Manage- ment Substantial Development Permit to allow construction of 20 ' x 20 ' deck; property located at 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard North ECF-017-81 EMILIO AND RICHARD PIEROTTI SP-013-81 Application for special permit to fill 8+ acres with material from PACCAR, which would consist of dirt and iron scrap; property located in the vicinity of 3315 Talbot Road South ECF-019-81 DAVID G. WOODCOCK, JR. R-015-81 Applications for rezone from R-2 to R-3 and special permit to allow parking lot addition for existing adjacent medical/dental clinic; property located at 123 Pelly Avenue North r/.., in...,........._1_. IMMIMMINIIRCSIAMIEZMINSOGIMNIM 1 ' . ENVIRONME NTAL REW COMMITTEE 1 W i tREGULRMEETINGMARCH4, 1981 i 1 7 CITY OF RE TON 1 S a k.',43` . I Rilim r----N, o, iy.„.,1 aG+ re. 3 x'. ter:. a 0 f ' UNGER a { r. . 1 MAY CREEK '\ , , h W.`^ in 1 111"li LAKE i11-rl 9 WASH I NGTON sa -VI4 a P r:i, , .,/li,\.....;:,j7 Ts II( :.i ' . i 1111611 : ii . \-\ l _•ANTI -L r r' —L , :i F yy a lit U i tc 013-81.)—n 1 1, - :c CEDAR RIVER4.14J t L ", 1 f, os4,.00K CP-019-:'. I I I i. n _ l""s F TtEI '.. 1 '' I ii-•\ ----'-- : ' J n LI_r 1 - -- . - .-: SPRINGBROOK ''-,, 1 1i , 7 ......: will I, ' h' .' CREEK L.1 ;1 w<, r=<.j. 1 , r q lia0, ..--- -7.- rL j\a yy" irk r4I ru1O liollt; 11,.....„, AU S I 1 1 1 .\______. mot 1 1 I ' i, s " ..,IER07' lI1 ','1 1 orl ri --L---- 1 EST (EC -634-8- _ I 1 GR:EN j ( 'BOWStR (l.0 =6- 2-80) i RIVER I t it U r. LAKE Sl . Ii J ti A. THE CITY OF RENTON 4 F_ es` MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 7 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR C PLANNING DEPARTMENTnoap 0 235- 2550 0, 9gT D February 26, 1981 TO: Environmental REview Committee FROM: Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RE: HOMECRAFT CONDOMINIUMS The applicant hasrequested reconsideration of the declaration of significance issued by the Environ- men-Lal Review Committee based upon a modification of the project including three major revisions . These would include full construction of Edmonds, participation in the signalization of Third and Edmonds, and contribution funds for recreational impacts. Att ched is a legal opinion from their. attorney. Please review the attorney' s letter carefully in ligt of possible legal actions against the City. RJB:wr cc: Lawrence J. Warren City Attorney Attachments 7/7::,,, ic \\ 1, U. 1 " 1,s,\ H FT i 5 193I L, HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.nR V/n, C r°.'I 2600 SOUTH LOOP WEST, SUITE 650 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77054 713) 666-39391 • MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 20147, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77025 320 Andover Park East, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 SOUTH TEXAS-NEW MEXICO RAYMOND S.WILTSHIRE,JR. AND OKLAHOMA REGION I VICEPRESIDENT—MANAGER I 1 February 25, 1981 1 1 Mr. Roger Blaylock 1 I City of Renton i Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South , Renton, Washington '98155 Dear Mr. , Blaylock: We have been informed that the Environmental Review Committee ERC) ha issued aJDS for our total proposal. We find that' this is unfortunate since the people that really have to pay the increased costs due to inflationary effects on the construction are the people - who. williwant to live in the project. Based upon the following grounds, we herebyirequest the .ERC to reconsider the matter for purposes .of issuing a DNS ,for the following total proposal. 1 We hereby substitute in-lieu-of -the present total proposal, all of those elements of the total proposal as well as the following as the total proposal for ERC review: I 11. All elements of the total proposal as contained . in our Environmental Checklist, submitted plans 1 and application, and correspondence with the Parks Department;I 1 2. Construction of Edmunds Street adjacent to the eastern boundary of the plat to full-width road standards of Renton; 3. Particlipation in the cost of signalization of the intersection of Third Avenue and Edmunds in an amount proportional to the total 1 I I ' J Mr. Roger Blaylock I. February 25, 1981 . Page Two cost ashdetermined by the ratio of our projectl' s intersection Average Daily Traffic, (ADT) to the total intersection ADT; and 4 . A paymelnt to the City of monies to be used for recJreational facilities in the neighbor- hood ins an amount determined reasonably by the 1 ERC less the actual cost of recreational improvements provided on site, but in no event to be less than $14 ,000 . We would also appreciate the opportunity to respond to the ERC questions regarding this current total proposal and share our thoughts with themlat the next reguarly scheduled ERC meeting. I S ' - cvrely, , ,' I qir,7R- mon. S. i tshire, Jr. RSW:dn Enclosures.:. I . cc: Mr. Joel Haggard Mr. Steve Clark I I i I I 1 I 11 FEB 25 1981 I I I I I i HAGGARD, TOUSLEY S. BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1530 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER RUSSELL F. TOUSLEY 900 FOURTH AVENUE JOEL E.HAGGARD SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 TELEPHONE CHRISTOPHER I. BRAIN I 206) 682-j1005 WILLIAM N.SNELL February 25, 1981 R/`/(OV EB 25198] 1 N.:\ On/ED 9-- Mr. Rayl Wiltshire' Vice President and Manager liHomecraftLandDevelopment, Inc. e ate, 320 Andover Park 'East Suite 260 liir n5y Tukwila, WA 98188 1 Subject) Renton Multi-Family Development Dear Ray: You have requested our evaluation of the legal issues involved in the City' s decision to require an EIS for your total proposal as described in the submitted Environmental Checklist . We note that the City has not apparently followed usual practice in first discussing a Proposed DS with' the applicant before actually issuing it. Accordingly, we believe that a request for reconsiderationlis appropriate, and you are advised to file such a request with the City I We understand that one factor which led to the DS was the size of ' the project. We further understand that there may be the impression that if a development exceeds 200 residentiallunits, an EIS is automatically required. If so, this is clear error. The SEPA implementing Guidlnes (WAC 197-10) utilize the size of a residential development as a criterion for the nature of required environmental analysis only in the categorical exemption section. The construction of 4 residential units or less is categorically exempt, WAC 197-10-170 ( 1) ( a) . Where a development exceeds 4 residential units, it is not categiorically exempt; however, there is no presumption of significance to be given to any proposal which is not categorically exempt, WAC 197-10-160. And the threshold determination depends upon the significance of the impacts for environmental elements set out in the Environmental Checklist, WAC '197-10-365. The decision to require an EIS is to be basedisolely on the questions in the Checklist WACr197-10-360 ( 1) ) , and the Checklist in Section II contains no question as to the size of a project. While H O Mr. Ray Wiltshire R I 1- February 25, 1981 Page 2 I FEB 25 1981 j e q C A v the Supreme Court in Norway Hill v King County Counci'l:; NG D 87 Wn.2d 267 (1976) , recognizes that the magnitude of a project is relevant to the EIS determination, this is related to the magnitude of the environmental impacts, not the magnitude oflthe project. It is reasonable to suspicion that the larger the project the more probable the impacts. But even this is not true because the impact dependls upon what the total proposal is, the site where the development occurs, and the area influenced by the impacts. 1 The threshold determination is applied to the total proposal as presented by an applicant, see WAC 197-10-060(1) . 'You. have defined a total proposal which contains many elements, all of which eliminate or. substantially mitigate impacts conceptually associated with a development project. For example, you have as part of your total proposal both a temporary erosion control and a temporary land permanent storm water runoff program. Thus the total proposal includes these plans which are to be implemented in accord with governing regulations and City approval. The total proposal then will not be . reasonably expected to have more than a moderate impact on water and earth environmental elements due to this element of the total proposal. Similarly, land use impacts are not significantisince your total proposal is in accord with the City' slComprehensive Plan and provides for a number of unitsiless than permitted by zoning. . As to traffic, it hasbeen suggested that there is a significant impact. We believe that the record before the City does not support such a conclusion. As a factual matter, the Edmunds St. construction you propose is sufficient and does not cause a significant LOS decrease. It may be argued that signalization of 3rd and Edmunds is desireable. If so, the City may request that you participate in the cost of that signalization. Participation can be required to the extent olf the relationship between your project ' s traffic at that intersection to the total traffic at the intersecton, as1 calculated for the time of signal instal- lation. We advise you that your being required to pay the full signalization cost or a substantial portion of it is unreasonable and would constitute in onerous burden contrary to law. Should you desire to modify your total proposal to reflect added work on Edmunds or signal participation, ilthis is specifically authorized by the SEPA Guidelines, see WAC 197-10-355( 3 ) , 375 . We recommend that this be done ih the form of withdrawing the present total proposal statement and substituting in place thereof, a new total proposal which includes all previously stated total prposal elements and the added elements. Mr. Ray Wiltshire February 25, 1981 FEB 25 19 1 Page 3 j i-u/ Another legal issue arises us to the demand f#Cel DSO' ' fee-in-lieu-of - for off site recreational purposes. We seriously question the legal authority of the City to impose such a fee at all on you as the City has not adopted an ordinance imposing such fees. Even if the City did this now, it would not apply to your development due to the vested rights doctrine; that is, you are subject only to ordinances in effect as of the date of the complete building permit application. We understand that the City has a policy or administrative direction that a fee-in-lieu-of equal to $300 per dwelling unit is nonetheless requlired. If based upon administrative policy, it has no force and effect due to the absence of author- izing ordinances. If based upon the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, it has no force and effect since the Plan is itself not an official control and only a guide.. The P an also tells us that for the Highlands and Windsor Hills Neighborhood, in which your project islocated, the Neighborhood Acquisition Priority" is None and the Neighborhood• Development Priority" is "Low" . This is important sinceioff-site in-lieu-of fees must be based upon a reasonable relationship between demand and the satisfaction of that demand in the area. Further, case law arid other municipal ordinances either explicitly or inexplicitly recognize the extent and nature of on-site recreational opportunities in determining the need for and demand on off-site facilities. Your extensive on-site recreational facilities strongly suggest that recreational needs are adequately handled on site. The highest ranked recreational demand in Renton is swimming (see PFll, Recreation Plan) , and you are providing a swimming pool on site. There appears to be no factual or legal basis to support the extraction from you of a recreational in-lieu-of payment. I We recognize that you may wish, for reasons other than legal, provide the City with additional elements to your total proposal. This would eliminate your subsequent opportunity to administratively or judicially challenge the conditions. However, if •the conditions are. imposed, as discussed herein, we advise you that there is a more than .reasonable' probability of successfully challenging the City due tolthe want of authority or absences of reasonable factual basis. Further, if it can be shown that the City ils using the EIS process to extract Mr. Ray Wiltshire February 25, 198i Page 4 conditions, which are within legal sanction, this would constitute action not sanctioned by SEPA ( see Parkridge v Seattle, 89 Wn.24 454, 466 ( 1978) ) and open the City to appropriate legal proceedings and possible damage Sincerely yours, HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN I oel Haggard JH/id aL v/1VG I I 4 oF R o THECITY OF RENTON00+4z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9 ® l BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT o i 235- 2550 94TED SEP-c° I February 23, 1981 I Mrs. Malka Fricks, President Vantage Point Condominium Owners Association 2611 N.E. Fourth Street Suite 234 Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Highlands Area Park-and-Ride Lots Dear Mrs. Fricks : Thank you for your letter of February 19 , 1981 , regarding Park-andHRide facilities in the Highlands area. The Planning Commission, through its Northeast Quadrant Comprehensive Plan Committee, is 'currently reviewing the essential elements of the Ccmprehensive Plan relating to this entire geographical area. Among the issues of which the Commission is well aware are traffic and similar concerns. The Committee in its dis- cussions has felt strongly that Park-and-Ride facilities along the Northeast, Fourth Corridor should be located as far easterly as possible to minimize the effect of traffic entering the City of Renton and then transferring to public transit. The Site 10 Park-and-Ride facility may be appropriate to serve the immediate Renton residences ; however, it would appear to the Commission that at least one other facility of this type should be located east of Renton. We would also appreciate any comments or suggestions which may be appropriateifrom either yourself or your Association. As notediabove, the Commission will soon be accepting public comment on the Northeast Quadrant Comprehensive Plan area. The Commission has scheduled a public meeting to discuss these issues on Wednesday evening, March 11 , at 8 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers (second floor) . We would encourage yourself and your Association members to attend this meeting and provide input to the Commission in its early p 41 Letter to Mrs. Malka Fricks Page Two February 23, 1981 I deliberations. Final decisions on the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Quadrant area will be made after completion of the environmental impact statement and public hearings, which are not expected to occur until later this summer. We will be happy to keep you advised. If you have any furthur questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Very rIuly yours 7 I 11 ZC D id R. Cl m s Acting Planning Director DRC :gh I cc : Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor cc : Northeast Quadrant Committee I I I Planning112-1979 I I I I i RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : s2"Th , pepoV L SA OIO 8I) Boa D a)Sik uelee+) 4._ Locati on :I eNa• 3 4- N. F. lit& El 7slelst ® Edmo& Lc Applicant : lirme.c oft Ltaad P lor #40o ' wad. Parks DepartmentTO: P SCHEDULED 'NEARING DATE : 3 1 0 181 Police Department Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division. tilities Engineering ire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9 : 00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF, YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE R VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved O/CJJ_iC J/c Y fu— f 2G` l2-t_/il/‘ ZL(qz2 r t -C6AV iiel-t•c;U 472s///l' te-/ Signature of Director or Authori a epresentative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved e3)24__A Signature of Direca or or Authorized Representative ' Date planning 2-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : S2T ApPIOvVL afi- 010-81) e- oie GDoSireuctioi' 0 I 01-- ?wla--t" Gph oMzoeum GC10(eX ai ±8.40categV. Location : e 64 fo.z 3es it N., E J Si e ell -West o fc it C Applicant : HrrMe.c.pcit 40vd, evelope+e Aft , Tioe, TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 3 bo fII Police Department 1 Public Works Department 1 Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : llCOMMENTSORSUGGESTIONSREGARDINGTHISAPPLICATIONSHOULDBEPROVIDED1N WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE R OM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PR VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE DEPT. Appro ed Approved with Conditions xxxx Not ApprovedIPP See attached memo 0LtID.R. Persson 2/1 (l/R1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I REVIEWING DEPA'I1TMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved II I 1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Datle r. MEMORANDUM TO Dave Clemens, Panning Dept. DAW10/81 FROM Lt. DIR. Persson SUBJECT Homecraft Land Development Inc. After reviewing the information supplied for the proposed Homec aft Development it is my opinion that the development will have a significant impact on police services. However these impacts could very possibly be mitigated if the proper information were supplie Unfortunately the time limit of two days to respond to the questions raised by this development is not sufficent for me to p operly relspond to all the areas of concern. The mai areas of concern to the police department are; (1) Pe sonal safety of the occupants of the development (2) Security of the building: personal property and (3) Traffic Safety in the area. If th se concerns are not addressed at this time the Renton Police Dept will not be able to adequately serve the new development and existing developments in he area. Hopefu ly •this matter can be continued for a couple of weeks to allow some o the questions that I have to be answered. Sinc a, i,t. . . Persson I Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : S2"TE /3fPN Mi. SR-0ao- d, -cco D0.4itue$i®a. v 1 Locati on : 134,1,v eel id..e. N?', F 1011 ciReeh - et EC/IF:006)(h /OIL. At Applicant : Firm.e.c.fec ft /0Md ` PIPCtOreieilt, Toe. I TO: P rks Department SCHEDULED, HEARING DATE : 31431 Police Department Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division. 1 Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON i AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PR VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON 2,(T7 8 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : e XApproved Approved with Conditions Not Approved i 74 / 4 g-42/ Signa - o D rector or Aut orized Representative i Dade REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved . Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Api li cation : crm MO/WO V L SR- 0/0-8I) iced GDRasita,e` aoiv Lop ti on : e e.a 0.-F. 3es t psi'. F. ci gee- -Wiest o Erdtoplas mt Applicant : Ho e-GLeo t load ')eVe ter ri611101‘ ea06. TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 3 /l0 f8J Police Department Public Works Department engineering Division Traffic Engineering 0 0 Building Division.C 4 1 Utilities Engineering 1 1 r Q Fire Department I lOther) : G6, N-..,.. / b4-PA RTIO/ COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9 : 00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE T TEND THE ARC, PLEASE PR VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :AT00 P .M. ON 2,(?7 8 I . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved )C Approved with Conditions Not Approved pd u. ., a- N E. .J J i/ v°-I HE f 1 3 o T c S ` 11Q S 'Imo" c dvu.c- cJ i P l qa we les-e. .,¢-V a-I 0-4 r G A A'Cc J oPQ. T1N.l' C .J Gam-- Z / 7/7/ Signature of Director or Au411111N orized R pre entative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ! Rate Plranni ng 12-1979 I RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET I Appli cation :. SYTtt /9/0l74F01/09L S }- o10-81) -co leGD&isfiievcis- Da.) 01- s2FC.VIo 0vio:i0M 6074f() 1( oa.) ¢$.4n e,S . L'ocati on :114.pee-v 0. e. 3e9 t ht. . / Ci&eefl ntiadst en Ecimeociirithyp. o.t Appl i cant : lic'AleGRe/ lc4Mci ette (op pie mt °.,...06. TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : I Police Department Public Works Department Engineering Division 410..rraffic Engineering Building Division. Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ',REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE R VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Traffic Engineering Division I Appr ved Approved with Conditions - Not Approved See attachment 2r19-81 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved j Approved with Conditions Not Approved I I f I b Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET RE : Homecraft Land Development, Inc. (SA-010-81) 1 . Street ighting is required in accordance with established City standards located along NE 4th Street and along Edmonds Ave. to the extent of the property line limits. Street lighting plans to be submitted to the Traffic Engineering Division. 2. The proposed development will contribute to an increased use of the inter- section of NE 3rd Street and Sunset Blvd. NE which is over capacity at peak hour. It would be reasonable for the development to contribute financially to an intersection improvement project to increase the capacity of NE 3rd Street and Sunset Blvd. NEI Estimated vehicle volume generated by the proposed development: No. of units x Trip ends per unit = Vehicle Trip Ends I 280 x 5.6 = 1 ,568 141 .4.4.y 24.-(5-1.4-LL., CEM:ad I I I Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : cirL ,9pe. ov,9L. 0io-8I) Q- coe coos", to o 0 s Locati on : Teitueoll, ta..f. 3es t 11 C-fPee eS' ® Edmoo(is „$%E.E Applicant : Flo s~Gle ' .d ewe 10 ei'! TO: 40e Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 3 ! ri 181 Police Department Public Works 1 Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division I Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9 : 00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IFI YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISI',ON REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE R VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON I I I I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVIISION : Approv d Approved with Conditions Not Approved 1I{ DY3//Signature of Directo ro Authorized Representative Date I I I I REV'IEWING DEPAR MENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved II I i I I I III 1\ Sighature oft Dirctor or Authorized Representative Date i 1 I 1 1 1 I I 4, i. l, AI, '' Crfr ' , ,:..,, it ,',-4. %;! iLt?' ' '-'' :-. If 1 ''' .,:' Oh ft ; „11 ,.:.. 7-.', %,,d :'' i'.:1,71' 1,'•: M , V ::•.,4'''-, ' '' li, 'Mk,, #' ;1 '4"' '1 ,c,-,40,1 ' 4, j' 4 A ',-17 4 ' 4' ;gip4 1 '::;'; 1 It4 - a , 4 1 PROPDOED APT ICI': APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL SA-010-81, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 280 DWELLING UNIT riuLT IPLE FAMILY COMPLEX ECF-0131781) GENERAL LOCATI• N AND OR AD RESS BETWEEN N.E, 3RD STREET AND N . E. 4TH STREET 'AND WEST OF EDMONDS AVENUE N. E, POSTED TO 1,- -iirTEFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF A:' 4 ENVERC3NIVIENTAL ACTION. iiiii,,;-...' CITY OF RENYL,d,..1 ENVIRCINMENY'AL REVIEW COMMITTEE E E,R.C. :1 j,-,,IAS DETERMI: 4ED MIA" .AT THE. A*"ROPOSED ACT IMID , "aloir DES OD*ES NOT, HAVE A SIGIIFICAN't ADVERSE MPACT ON THE ENVIRON- MENT. AN ENVIRON,MENT,k, L IMPACT STATEMENT; Orli , '-. ILL OWILL NOT, BE PEG' :MED. AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WIT4-3 THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.NI., MARCH 8„ 1981 FOR FLIP2TH ER I N FORMATIO <., CONTACT THE CITY OF RE4TC3N PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 DO NOT EMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following projects: 1. JAMES E. BANKER (ECF-623-80) Application for special permit, file SP-111-80, to construct two-story (65 ' ) office condominium complex which would exceed the maximum 35 foot standard permitted in the L-1 zone; property located in the vicinity of 405 South 7th Street. 2. EDEN ESTATES (MARK HECOCK AND PETER TIERSMA) (ECF-593-80) Application for preliminary plat approval of 11-lot single family subdivision, file PP-079-80; property located on the north side of N.E. 28th Street between Kennewick Place N.E. and Aberdeen Avenue N.E. 3. VEHICLE TEST TECHNOLOGY, INC. (ECF-004-81) Application for site approval, file SA-005-81, in M-P zone to allow construction of a 4 , 200 square foot motor vehicle emissions testing facility on a one acre site; property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Thomas Avenue S.W. and S.W. 10th Street. The Environmental Review Committee (ECR) has further issued a declaration of significance for the following project: 1. HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. (ECF-013-81) Application for site approval, file SA-010-81, to allow construction of 280 dwelling unit multiple family complex; property located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street and west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. The areas of environmental impact include scale and size of the project, traffic, storm drainage, off-site recreation, and public services. Further information regarding these actions is available in the Planning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by March 8 , 1981. Published: February 22, 1981 FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : SA-010-81 Environmental Checklist No: ECF-013-81 Description of Proposal: Request for site approval to permit construction of 280 multiple family dwelling units Proponent: Homecraft Land Development , Inc. Location of Proposal: Between N.E. 3rd Street and N. E. 4th Street and west at Edmond' s Avenue N.E. Lead Agency: Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on February 19, 1981 , following a presentation by Roger J. Blaylock of the Planning Department. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-013-81 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Roger J. Blaydock DATED: February 9, 1981 2) Applications : SA-010-81 3) Recommendations for a declaration of significance were received from the Police, Building, Planning Departments and Engineering and Traffic Engineering Divisions of the Public Works Department. 4) A letter was received from Marla Frick, President of Vantage Point Condominium Home Owners Association, expressing impacts relating to (1 ) parking, (2) traffic, 3) noise and (4) aesthetics should be addressed. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does have significant adverse impact on the environment. Specifically to address these aspects : 1 ) Scale/size of project 2) Traffic 3) Storm Drainage 4) Off-site Recreation 5) Public Services An EIS is required under RCW 43. 21C. 030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environ- mental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Signatures : 7 2 C Ron Nelson, Building Director vid . Clemens , Acting Planning Director 4/ Richard C. Houghton , Acting Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION : FEBRUARY 22 , 1981 MARCH 8 , 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: s 1 ANY'0- 1- \ b2, //- Ate ..,/,_f-7h 42.-1 ,'/ :. II i N X ., 4 *// 44_), Zia-4-4• 'ic-- ---).-&-.-. PE_A Y 7 12e/ . a k)ei-i-e-4-.1-) 6,il4 1 e4e1, &e, a i 7,ke../itim.c...) i 11 i- cil frd 91fe_i : Yz,,e-d_i i: li12_- ,) a.....44_46Y ze...„c/cy __fr ,,,,z.) de - .2 e it". 1_d __46,) ae--4'-e- e.: 90)ze.---ie-k „e...e.c) ',./-./Le.,/ ,Z it-z-fi6--J h ad ) Ae.-4-e-iezuz-1 Y.4- Y deit.-d4-14.-L4J4,‘,7ez, r9 64, 94—e-,Q..) d_d_e_44..,,,a :ek.)- ve_e_e_a_z)vzd ek,t- -) 7 it,<- 641).- 11, i,,...44et Leefizz,:) ,teyx4i, ,,,i, z-- i otz,Lityz, IJ, II. i, 11, I: C2r7r777-er, rr-a--p--z;V 4 /7-7,7_, e'rY -- e'7-7 ',-? cip7 irt, erA 1x,-.777-4? (-7--- -7-P-7(7 42,77s -r-"-7/7-17"e7-4.4r77K1,,,Th ,2.---, 77, „77,-?--7-7-7,-7-7-7--7 •, #7 , pe---,r ,_ -7p-77-/-7,--6,7---d?-7fr-, 1?vv Ofi /7-77/r7-?-' (77W4 r-iir7- 7 /0-777-79r-77"r- yr, ,--A „.7b , t)- 7—,--qz,- 77 V;7'' 7?-i-77-3,77-A7? 7---4 4,-,, 7,A ,-,-?--,47,-,,,,,,c rry ,-3q- -7 ()4 v 7-779-74-,127 -- Te--A>/ "?- 7, _?-7',--,p--?--kd---14-- (71'770(2Th Pc27777i -7-7-74 . ' e7-',"-a` rx, i: A ' ?/ e rk77,2-7 74. 72,072, (-17,7/4-49-?4‘ (276 Z-7-71M-e-X/ -,,•?-27_) 0, 27---1Th 74/1 '„i,,,0_,i.„ 7,--,p-r/-6---J\ ":? r-7-i --x.// - -:-x-7-, - ie c-- ??; t--)---- a7-P6?-y " 71) 3)---- P 1-' c-i ,7v, - e-- --7-r- rx, ,--7?-r-7/---,-)---k L 7, Pp 2-71-77/ 7 e,-;-2.--xe-2---x?-7---/-f -7 ‘' 7, 9V (4-7-7,77/(,c-r (?-?-2:' r7g107' ry77 7r777/74 /r7/771 27-7ff 7(?77<I +2-71 r2 ?`? A° L, :i r - 1 J I/ J / 7-44- /----,7-? 76 1 r-a-27-7-17 e z--6--,----„--e-7,47 irr,„ 0: y, per- 7 (7'?? 7 y-4) 1 e C,r,/ yor,"7/7 74 ..:=7/Kre,c- "er-27'---, (7)-V, 4-7, --r," 7/7(7- - f 47,(--p-p---,--rf,e----/-7.,-; ,--,--7-4-737-7( /(--7.7 pi -7-7---?--?e._ 7;,-7----77 '/(7-7127717( -7 ,/rir 7X r7V (Pe-"Thrjr/P74-7,b77 10--77-7774 e?">•71 .---Zr'r3, ,f02---k-2---co/ (---),., g---17.--,04 0 x--?-r- 1 -j25 = -7rr fi/t--fr--t--?-y--o,r77-77-746 mat. - G- t 7---e- tizt 4-77-'777fir", t7"-,-717:"7"7- q 4.4-7777, 7, f-rn e`r (-)1:1--7-7-7771`.7?-34-V r /v-- fi r ram •^r7 711,-, CrX77-71-/‘/M7 7ff ''7-7Sf, (71 (""ir-r77,0 ---r?" 77 r' /f. -l$ y 1-2- r7k '?sue'' i; pe4 ri-,7-7-g _7/1(* r-w7)--7,--?-7-)---??,?-7/7 7,-- 771, i-277-714 (7---,-P7-v-r-r C' 7?-77"?// 1,, 6- , 27--x".../2'77"-- 1-1,-7?)7T r""71 -7-7-7-7/77-A id?, 4 177_,-77 4:----fr-7-?7, 7 e 477e -- o ",-- 4e r.- Grp - -7- T p i4 "7 ------t>/4-0-ilio P-77-7-7 /(--,fr-?-x/t/--?ye--,-o---x-c r?-71,,-7,-7, 7---,F7-7,v-p--y, , k (7 - -?--,-- (y 7 ,,, - 7 j"'7 7-7 r{ Yik> I 1 I 1 3 14-1 e ---' e-. ---4--/-e-e-/ Cf4-8-0---1, Azdez,z.ed__14i 4 A eiii gee-- 44J ( ,of - 00.„,ez,a.4 jot,t-el•& 4---e--e-4--e) . 24 .iit / Ld41 Adcz- 12--- 1-e--"---(A) LZ26 Lc..1 /-11Z-4/2:---"Y-1' 62-11-iit-g \,/,_ e- 4A_,t- ,_-2144 \ /Le- ,kz...0..,4_,e_, 62-le„, z.._,"__,LL, 04-let-te„) a, 4'5,Q/_ 7k _sze) Lie_e' , cee_Lfrai L.-,28etii 4/-:-.1,-z-leez-/- A-4.1 4_..) J eA_AL.,44L.e.;"_:v1". . .,Z6'-i,e__,, ..,,e,z,,,,e- -i),2,1' e?_(2- f).e-,•,-4-x-egia- i. de4/-iell 14-er4w ,•<44C--) (644--) a-JAZ' II L-fi Z-e--C) J it fez1_de,:x_. _z_ z._. j.,4.Ls 47zz; Aiz_ tz4zi _a_ i _ e1,ix_E.,,( Ai/ ?..f-Za._ cia___)/ a-- •' 47,L,z,-/ zP--- yk, j,e4e___) -e-,--e-• e-.Me- 1--W-4---e- k%) /4/11-1/6"&A"4-"ele-e-/----c-/ ,e4e.--4A- k. v 'J s 1 1-1_,._e,,,- $°-,..e.,_e_ebt_4) ., (--r.L,7_-e.-Le___.,0° ,,. /Y__,,,,yx_e_a. ,.___, r yi,Z4112,44,e_ t ,, 2t--1 Lio,c4e,_ 977Zee.e._1_ ,a___WL"-e-a_//e,eLe__) ° .,,' e_A-6.2-1--,6111A-4-)L1,--d- e-t-L-Gid--t-t) W-e---" s'";194'e-O/--e-e-'X-'(-Cet i', Y-et.„1-4--e---/ View i' l0 • ')/1-01 --e/) af4_,4r2Lie_44_.) -- ozze. ,, ,,,, Aid,e..„ ,,e44„_,_,,e., .64:<4.,p1.<__e_4e: -,„) 0 d e- / ,vye2) _- _ 4.:-ee_. ,ctz_41_e_z_w i2_./„A.e. ,L._e_d___,e..e._,' _ cA.7--E-e- 0E--n-42...-4_c_4_-6, 44,4_, -/.._z_i d*--41,4- -/-46___e ,R,/,24.42_3_.„7.- 4,,, d...A-,/.1-i• ',A-EV--/Z-4--) 11 L e,-- e.„e-- 9.....z•e..„: C- - dz--4-e. 6 mod-/ e-4.-1.-/,.,cd.,..b 4./..-e) 't=2-1.__ ___,Zi ,,,eyt.-e_z_i y4=1-, V---1-e- 11 g L,e_e.-4_,€_,e 1, 94-QJ))-La._zi.,./2,-Le....a., r... Au_._/___,-Le.rz_b- r a_eziet,‘..,...,z,4e. g .,e,e_e__: '‘,z-4., .,,...,x/2_,,_,Lz--- dieig_e__,Vdr_d e_.:,<„,: d-e-- eAL__E.L.,, 3.,,, I.___„ .„,,c_e__,...4.4,.di.<__, y„ h V ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 11 , 1981 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10: 00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PENDING BUSINESS: NORTHWEST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY (AUSTIN COMPANY) ECF-602-80, SA-092-80) BURLINGTON NORTHERN (ECF-523-80; SP-451-79) LETTER SENT BY STAFF) OLD BUSINESS: ECF-623-80 JAMES E. BANKER SP-111-80 For consideration of a report from Traffic Engineering: Application for special permit to construct two-story (65 ' ) office condominium complex which would exceed the maximum 35 foot standard permitted in the L-1 zone; property located in the vicinity of 405 South 7th Street ECF-008-81 CLARK-RICH, INC. B-247 Application for building permit to allow construction of two-story 12-unit apartment building; property located on the east side of Union Avenue N.E. , 600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street NEW BUSINESS: VICTORIA HILLS, PHASE II Application for construction of Phase II condominium complex: re- evaluation of adequacy of impact statement in light of apparent non- construction of SR-515 ECF-013-81 HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. SA-010-81 Application for site approval to allow construction of 280 dwelling unit multiple family complex; property located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street and west of Edmonds Ave. N.E. ECF-012-81 BURGER KING CORPORATION B-248 Application for building permit to construct Burger King Restaurant; property located at the southwest corner of N.E. Sunset and Duvall Ave. N.E. ECF-011 -81 CITY OF RENTON (UTILITIES) TALBOT HILL PIPELINE - W-599 Installation of Transmission Water Mains ; Talbot Road South from South 19th Street to South 43rd Street TRA FM; ENG Date circulated :_ 2/` j/ Comments due : .01A/ 6E UIROU'NENIAL CHECKLIST REUI[Ef SHEET ECF - 0/3 - el 1 APPLICATIOV No ( s ) .Tj E APPRDV01,,, Cc - ow- 81 PROPONENT : ret Hsu V N' '1,..9f,, PROJECT TI LE : 'jO , c. O .' 0 , gt11ato =ajatoC Brief Description of I tojcct : .CA".4 , mac; 4o p ,r, „ MO LOCATION : " peep aC. 3 E. 'Y t..,t StRe ®(0FS air. : V.E.f?u . ,tSITEAREA : 13,gar.62®C BUILDING AREA ( gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (% ) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE * MINOR MAJOR - MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :1/- 2 ) Diret/Indirect air quality : 7 3 ) Wate & water courses : j,' 4 ) Plan life : r/ 5 ) Animal life :V? c 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : V I 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : J 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : V . 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( IfE ) : c 6 o s 7 "v/` t r a f f ' c impacts : 7cr-e'as 7 6:-u. 1s Zvvs,.7 a v.JD•- . vt- 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities ; 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recre • tion : samovar. 20 ) Arche logy/history : 4. cif 1 COMMENTS : l Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information 00_ 71J\J c _S L / /S Reviewed by : ( vG l itle • y p c )'-- Date 9-6'/ d FORM: ERC-06 TAIWS: Date circulated : 2/0/ Comments due : 2/%16/ ENVIIR INHE\ITAL CHECKLIST REVIIE, SHEET ECF - 0/3 - C4 I 11 APPLICATION No (s ) . , UTE APP1eov Om (CA' 0/0- 81) PROPONENT f Home. t lelnit L, I0 ci De t@ ertiewt) Tpco, PROJECT TITLE I"1DAff.c.,pa f - (2e.fo. CONQQi4 *JiuMS Brief Desription of Project : Ca,,fteoc:Kne., og a Z 0 ulli;+0 Ow1u/Una 601vieteX. LOCATION :1-1.4.)€.e°N J.1.7. 30 t A. ./I-a St/met-5 -Goes Eitsi vas flue. V.t. SITE AREAS ± 8.4acees BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPME TAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topo raphic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect. air quality : 3) Water & water courses : ir 4) Plant life :z/ 1 5 ) Anima,l life : v / 6) Nois 7) Light & glare :if 8 ) Land Use ; north,: east : wsoeuthst : I Land use conflicts :i i View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk pf upset : 11 ) Popul tion/Employment : 1 12 ) Numbe of Dwellings : vK 13 ) Trip nds ( ITE ) : traff ' c impacts : 0 14) Public services :NI 1 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : EV. 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : L/" 19 ) RecreTtion : Nei I 20 ) Archeology/history :17- COMMENTS : 1 I Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Z\ Reviewed b : - Title : P0,4„2_... L a7-- Date : FORM: ERC-06 I' A ` '; 1 Date cir ulated : 119/81 Comments due : 2/(11 (81 O EM(IVII7ONMIENTAL CHECKLIST REVIE,,, SHEET ECF - li APPLICATION No (s ) . SITE APPROVAL (cA- o10 -8.i) PROPONENT : 1-10 Ec(APT L/ W -DE VELOPMENT', /AK-. PROJECT TITLE : DMECRAFT- 13ENTOn) CONODMIAf1vMS Brief Description of Project : Cpvst@ve.tiop o8 A - 281) up%t II Goodomzo,uoi tomflcx LOCATION :etweesa IV.E. 3 eft ? Skeet .. wort t! S ecim ouds AAA E tI SITE AREA : ± 8.41 pGRpS BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPME TAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topolrap_hic changes : 2 ) Dire , t/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plan life : 5 ) Anim. l life : 6) Nois: : 7 ) Lighu & glare : , 8 ) Land Use ; north :ilkAbuay - U&aloutllea tit.," it Faddy Yeast : Q, P 41e.. TDil. Ch d or south : Rave l - l ?ti west :' 1. odelre,1oFe et Land use conflicts : PpVE View obstruction :Y' 9 ) Natural resources : 1 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) ,: 4/28 /2.404444;" S,/ 'u,.wx 1 traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services: y/ Q 15 ) Energ : i . 16 ) Utili ies : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreltion : 20 ) , Archeology/history :i/ COMMENTS : M VSr i19KE. NEceSSitKy '7)eftp .rC -TePOVEITEd.fri, 0 Tit iih. S.`p.a t Co 0 siteuet FS Kt wc4 Ave ta,e, oPOs , Recommendation : DNSI iOS, More Information_ Reviewed b (V504,24tXreCeititrti. Title : ASSoc ate7(quNrdiP Date : 2 et FORM: ERC-06 1I Fop : 'i• Date circulated : 2fq/8/ Comments due : 2/ /41 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIIEH SHEET ECF - C/3 - 81 APPLICATION No (s ) . ;5TrE APPlebVklo. ( CO ' 81)I PROPONENT : d B N-f PROJECT TITLE : o p ,c.po ` — Re. eitoo Cop46 W.Ao',toeti Brief Description of, Project : Coo a.,ttethf48-13& OS 0 E LOCATION : ft,4)e,.e ) bte. 302 aU.E.ilia S imes -west 14 E vois_- Flue. SITE AREA : ± 6.4acee.0 BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR \ MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 1 1 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life.: 1/ 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north;: east : south : west : , Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : ; 11 ) Popul - tion/Employment : 12 ) Number. of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip -nds ( ITE )+,: traff ' c impacts: 14 ) Publi services: 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utili ies : S7 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesth- tics : 19 ) Recre . tion : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : AZ(;* Jge‘ Recommenda ion : DNSI DOS More '°nfortion z °. Reviewed by :CI G---- Title : Date : A4RTM I' FORM: ERC-06 IrKPIII ETV7117; Date circulated : . 18/ Comments due : 2/%%,/ if ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEU SHEET ECF - 013 - el APPLICATION No ( s ) . SITE APPR®vf °. CC - No- 81 PROPONENT : ° 1oi1P., est .4 1 ., fit a' 8 I: 'f ? `, , o\'t' Nc.,, PROJECT TITLE : t--o ?,f'1 '_0S g.of,(9.i CON 0 ;j0,1 ;ALLfpg9 Brief Description of Project : Co'd'r4e2c-1-';t ..A rq 280iiiig LOCATION :IU,17. 361 e a E. // S7 oe c -- Fst eg Ef 0i®fs'i S SITE AREA : 8, BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (% ) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Dirlct/Indirect air quality : ro 3 ) Wat r & water courses : 4 ) Pla t life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : X 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Lan use conflicts : View obstruction : 9, f(0 9) Natural resources :X 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : I x 13 ) Trip ends ( I1E ) : tra fie impacts : i 4) /a 4ACT 14 ) Public services : X 15 ) Energy : X 16 ) Utilities : r I 17 ) Human health : Yr 1© ) Aesthetics : X 19 ) Recreation : K 20 ) Archeology/history : 6 COMMENTS : C/v7 Z -v /A/ •7`--/S ,z.Qz - 4i _ 7 g?y C, !J• _•-: 6- . / F /c r1 ,— /#1A P4cTs AS a 1 Recommendation : DNS I DOS X More Information_ Reviewed by :1 itle : r JGP6 7 Date Z - 77; ? FORM: : ERC-06 vrarrass• Date circulated : 2/?7 / Comments due : 2 /®,/S/ ENVIRONMENTAL ECHECKLISI REVIE't SHEET ECF - 0/3 - 8( APPLICATION No (s ) . SIIE C gi9 oio 8 ) PROPONENT : 1-E0i l er ta.s e sot PROJECT TITLE : Ho Rh. Ex.gpre 19e,e.'fa J C00.1d06.4;Aj®UAis Brief Description of Project : CnAnt aAc a_no 280 LOCATION 0,E. e.4/4 sie S -toegt aft4po4s Roe. at SITE AREA : ± 8,4(r elaRe BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :v/ 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Numbef of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : SI DOS More Information Reviewed by : Title : LLa6 6rr«'uo cat_ Date : FORM: ERC-06 wY Oii Date circulated : 2/4/:9/ Comments due : 2://Y /8I d ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IBEVIIEU SKEET ECF - 0/3 - Q/ APPLICATION No (s ) ° SITE APPleDvf CcA - 0/0- 8' PROPONENT : 140K C•gt Le d De Ue Iprieoata isre, PROJECT TITLE : 1110k..k Ee,ieo Reoito , Ccituchwmiaro AS 1. Brief Description of Project : rwilichkodti'vrou QS 0 E8® LOCATION :74ttaae.e.ti D.E. 3 t tv.e.det SIP s 004.)eSt 4Ee r,4,,bs@S_ Rue. L .E. SITE AREA : ± 8,q aC./PeS BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO , 1 ) Topog aphic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : i 3 ) Water & water courses : I,/ 4 ) Plant life :Y 5 ) Animal life : l/ 6 ) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : r 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk o upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : A 13 ) Trip erds ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : vr- 18) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreat ' on : 20 ) Archeol gy/history : COMMENTS : IRecommendati .n : D I DOS, More Information I Reviewed by : Title ° Dote : 4a/ - (i FORM: ERC-06 I t cE Date circulated : 2Nev Comments due : 2 i/8/ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEd SHEET ECF - 0/3 - S/ APPLICATION No (s ) e SIDE APP DV !. Cc/9 80 PROPONENT : Homy,. r.tto. Lo cl a./e Vdel:iIts ,tot PROJECT TITLE : o acepay emt 00 Com doiia;de(1.0 y Brief Description of Project : (7aaAr<tekui- 063 O 0 280 UPa 0Ott t3t4¢0eOM, • C,Opt 11,e.),4 LOCATION :s c .1 eC. A). .4h S S -toes-toest FelpargAs_ SITE AREA : I' 6.'1 ,/c .fee. BUILDING AREA (gross ) g DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7) Light & glare : I p 8 ) Land Jse ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natur1 resources : 10 ) Risk oIf upset : xxx 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : Nxx 13 ) Trip Inds ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : xxx 14 ) Public services : L xxx 15 ) Energ : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : See attached memo Recommendation : DNSI DOSxxx More Information Reviewed by : Ci Persson - T itle : Date : 2/10/81 FORM: ERC-06 c , 7 MEMORANDUM TO Dave lemens, Planning Dept. DATg/10/81 FROM Lt. D.R. Persson SUBJECT HJmecraft Land Development Inc. After r vi6wing the information supplied for the proposed Homecraft Develop tent it is my opinion that the development will have a significant impact on police services. However these impacts could v ry, possibly be mitigated if the proper information were1 supplie . Unfortunately the time limit of two days to respond to the que tions raised by this development is not sufficent for me to properly respond to all the areas of concern. The maid areas of concern to the police department are; (1) Personal safety of the occupants of the development (2) Security of the building: personal property and (3) Traffic Safety in the area. If these concern are not addressed at this time the Renton Police Dept.,' will not be able to adequately serve the new development and existing develop ents in the area. Hopeful y this matter can be continued for a couple of weeks to allow some of the questions that I have to be answered. Since e mot., . . Persson OF R v o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o 01 .r.. BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR PARKS and RECREATION 09g7-e JOHN E. WEBLEY - DIRECTOR Fo SEPl 235-2560 February 6, 1981 Ra "ond S. Wiltshire 320 Andover Park E. , Suite 260 Tuk ila, WA. 98188 Deae Mr. Wiltshire: After reviewing the recreational amenities proposed in the HomecraftShotPlatPreliminaryPlan, it would appear that you are attemptingto ' eet on-site recreational needs in a number of ways. I do have some difficulty in assessing the plan without benefit of the final topo:raphic plan or a scale to apply to the facilities. Final land- scap'ng plans would also help as would projected demographics as thefacilitiesshouldreflecttheneedsoftheresidents. I realize that as t e plan goes forward there are likely to be other changes that affe t the recreational elements, however, I would recommend that wher- possible you consolidate the usable active recreation spacelas) to maximize potential uses. The stream, for example tendstod'vide usable space up. The elements you are programming in are gene ally those which receive considerable use in our parks, however it would be nice to see a combination tennis/basketball court on-site. I look forward to seeing your final plans at which time I will make some definitive recommendations to you. Thank you for the opportunitytocommentatthistime. Sincerely, r I t ohn E. Webley" Director Parks & Recreation JEW:mc Exhibit 7-A. r. 4im i OF 1?4,, AD T CITY OF RENTON ee MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR a PLANNING DEPARTMENT co 235- 2550 gTeD SEP-r° S) February 5, 1981 TO: File FROM: Dave Clemens, Acting Planning Director Dick Houghton, Acting Public Works Director RE: HOMECRAFT SHORT PLAT ERADCO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RAINIER SAND & GRAVEL MINING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT RE: EDMONDS AVENUE N.E. AND N.E. 3RD INTERSECTION Follo ing a discussion on Friday, January 30th, the Planning and P blic Works Departments have concluded the following as it relates to the intersection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. As of this date we have proposals from Homeciaft for approximately 280 multiple family dwelling units and from ERADCO for approximately 425 multiple family units. The net effect of these two developments is to increase traffic flows on N.E. 3rd by in excess of 400 vehicles during peak ours , and 4500 vehicles per day. As a result, it is the conclusion of these departments that access from these two •evelopments to N.E. 3rd Street must be in the form of a pu lic street right-of-way developed to normal City street stan ards. These improvements should minimize or eliminate the 'mpact of additional traffic on Bronson Way N.E. from the omecraft development, and provide for access of the ERADCO project 'into the traffic stream on N.E. 3rd. GENERAL STANDARDS OF DESIGN Edmonds Avenue .N.E. north of N.E. 3rd shall be constructed as p rt of the Homecraft Short Plat and multiple family develop- ment to include intersection improvements on N.E. 3rd providing for -lane street section with left turn channelization and a tr ffic signal providing for left turn movements at this inte section. :.The ERADCO PUD shall provide for the connection of E monds Avenue N.E. to N.E. 3rd Street, provide for 5-lane N.E. 3rd Street channelization including left turn lanes, and ignalize the intersection. Likewise, the Rainier Sand Gr vel mining, excavation and grading permit shall provide K .* Memor ndum to File Febru ry 5, 1981 Page L 2- for t e dedication of the extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. from .E. 3rd to the ERADCO property. Since no development is pr posed at this time in this grading permit application, only he right-of-way dedication will be required at this time. Future development of Edmonds Avenue N.E. extendingsouthrlytoMapleValleyHighwaywillbeconsideredata later time. PREFE il RED ALTERNATIVES Since both the Homecraft and ERADCO multiple family developments will be required to install the public street linkage ofEdmonsAvenueN.E. to N.E. 3rd, it is suggested that this inter ection be a 4-way intersection located at the southerlytermsusofthe ' existing Edmonds Avenue right-of-way at N.E.II3rd. This will ensure the minimum widening, channelizationand1ftturnlanesinN.E. 3rd. This proposal will also only equire one traffic signal to be constructed. Both Homec aft and ERADCO should discuss distribution of the costs relat d to the intersection improvements and traffic signalinstallation. The ERADCO portion of the Edmonds Avenue extension would be constructed over the right-of-way provided by RainierSandGravelinitspermit. Should the two applicants be unabl¢ to mutually agree to the necessary improvements atEdmondsandN.E. 3rd, two traffic signals located at approximatel350footcentersappearstobeanacceptablealternative, altho gh considerably more costly. MAPLE VALLEY EXTENSION OF EDMONDS AVENUE N.E. As a 'art of any development proposal for the Rainier SandGraelCo. site, extension of Edmonds Avenue N.E. southerlytoprvideconnectiontotheMapleValleyHighwayinthe vicinity of the existing Gull gasoline service station shouldbeprovided. The alignment of this street right-of-way shouldbesudhthatpropertiesintheimmediatevicinitycanaccess to this street in order to provide access to Maple ValleyHighwayratherthantherequirementtoconnecttotheN.E.3rd a d N.E. 4th street corridors. cc : Dick Houghton bon Monaghan ary Norris on Olsen ayor ike Parness Planning Department Staff DRC :y i 1. N. 1-11"--- RaRF,:), HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 2600 SOUTH LOOP WEST. SUITE 530 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77054 713) 665.3939 MAILING ADDRESS: P.D. BOX 20147, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77025 320 Andover Park East, Suite 260 Tukwila, Washington 98188 SOUTH TEXAS- NE MEXICO RAYMOND S.WILTSHIRE,JR.' AND OKLAHOMA EGION VICE PRESIDENT-MANAGER January 23, 1981 Mr. John W bley Director, Parks and Recreation The City o. Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Homec aft Short Plat Preliminary' Site Plan Dear Mr. WIbley: Tha lc you for your expeditious review of our preliminary site plan. PU o ' final review of our site plan and your letter of January 15, 1981, it has ben decided that the recreational amenities to be included in our multi-family development located between Northeast Third and Northeast Fourth St eets directly west of the proposed Edmonds Avenue will be: a. Swimming Pool b. Bathhouse with Recreation Room c. Jacuzzi - adjoining the Bathhouse and Recreation Room d. Half-size Basketball Court e. Volleyball Court (on grass) f. Childrens Play Area g. On-site Pathway System h. - Picnic Tables and Barbecue Grills. r—.— REiCE1VEQ HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & 3RA Exhibit 7 . JAN 2 9 1981 AM PM 71Si9,t0,11i12s1I213 5' A 1 Mr. John Web1ey January 23, 981 Page Two We hav decided to eliminate the tennis court in favor of the half-size basketball curt and volleyball court so as to maximize our recreation potential within our largest open area. Your comments regarding these proposed facilities would be greatly appreciated. Si ely, Ra nd S. ltshire, Jr. RSW:dn 7,7 Receipt # CITY OF RENTON 4P-., L.A.-. W NN. i(INV...,G D.,. r:iEfPART(J-,— A,./-- cENT1,. ,. ./,..,-.,/NAME " t / 0 ,11 "41 7 , .i DATE 71/ I e• f• / r4 1i PROJECT & LOCATION ild,./ fra-' , e-" ',-- Y/- 1-.•- 4,1L,' Appliciation Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total 4 VA ,et 17 et 0 f i ii.e• e 1 ,-.,. 9 4/4V I it/.../ 7„/ 1' e, .- A 4,r i el--- 1 1 1 I . 1 1 Environmental Checklist I .•''Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee i I TOTAL FEES 1 Please take thlis receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank you. ITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM s t i`` FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Y Application No. I S,9 -b/6 -1 F f d`fl{.S r rf Environmental Checklist No. Cr ~07,3 PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: QDeclaration o;'f Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: I Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and'Iwhen licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. - Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include referenices to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which • you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include !the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when i,t is completed,, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the 'future. This will allow al;l of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is ; a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . , If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ! r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 2. Addiress and phone number of Proponent: 320 Andover Park East, Suite 260 T»ckwi la , LTA_98188 3. Date Checklist submitted February, 2 , 1981. 4. Agency requiring Checklist Renton Building Department 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: The Terrace 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to; its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : See Attachment, page 1.• r 1 Fn 4 2- r, 7. Location of proposal (describe the plhysical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting, of the proposal ) : See Attachment, page '4 . 8. Estimated date for completion of the' proposal : About 18 months from issuance of permits, see I=6 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rez,ones)-: See Attachment, page 5 . 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: No ' 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal?, If yes , explain: No. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, bUt is expected to be filed at some future date, describe' the nature of such application form: None. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and' "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YES MAYBE Ni b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or:over covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X ES MAYBE NO d) The destruction, covering or modification, of any unique geologic or physical feat'hres? X YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? YES ' MAYBE NO f) Changes in, deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the: ocean or any bay', inlet or lake? X YES RATTE NO Explanation: See Attachment,' page 5 . a 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YES MAYBE NO b) 'The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MAYBE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 7 . 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) ' Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X YES MAYBE NO b) ' Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X YES MAYBE NO c) ' Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YES MAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of X ground waters? YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground" waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through X interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO h). Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria , or other substances into the ground waters? X YES MAYBE NO i ) I Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X' YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 9 . 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a)I Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs , grass , crops , X microflora and aquatic plants)? YES MAYBE NO b)! Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? X YES MAYBE NO c)! Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or 4 in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X YES MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 12. I S_--' Nis 4- c) • 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in a) Changes in the diversity of species , P or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, tenthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? X YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of.fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the r9igration or movement of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO d) - Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page. 13 . 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: SIP See Attachment, page 14 . 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal , produce new light or glare?YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachments page 15 . 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? YESS MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attar•hmPnt, pagP, 16 . I1f 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposalfl result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of; any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 317 . 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardou's substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides chemicals- or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 18 . C 11) Population. Will the proposal alte1 the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population X of an area? YES MATTE- NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 1'I8 . t " 5- 12) Housilncq. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE. NO ' Explanation: See Attachment, page 19 . 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) 'Generation of additional vehicular movement? X YES MAYBE NO b) !Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand X for new parking? YES MAYBE NO c) ( Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE NO d) ' Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X: YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YES MAYBE NO f) ; Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES MAYBE NO ; Explianation: See Attachment. page 19 . 14) PubTic Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? X YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? X YES MAYBE NO c) Schools?' X YES MAYBE NO d) ' Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services?X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 22 . 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 24 . 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : a) Power or natural gas?X YES MAYBE NO X b) Communications systems? YES MAYBE NO i ci Water? YES - MAYBE NO 6 1' 1 6 d) Sewer or septic tanks?X YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage? YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See Attachment, page 25 . III - 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential healt - hazard (excluding mental health)? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: f' 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal resultp in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: SPP Al-tarhmPni-, ragP 717 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x YES MAYBE NO i Explanation: See Attachment, page 28, 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the 4oposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or hi-storical, • site, structure, object or building? YES MAYBE NO, Explanation: i SPP Ati-arhmPnt, page 3 1_ III . SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to thelbest of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or illful 1a ull disclosure--on my part. Proponent: signed Raymond Wiltshire, ' name printed) HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1 City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 I I I ATTACHMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RENTON I I I I I I II 6. Nature of Proposal The Hoiecraft Land Development proposal involves the development of approximately 280 residential condo- minium units located between NE Third and NE Fourth Streets directly east of the Puget Power transmission line. (See Site Plan, Exhibit 1) The 8. 4 acre site is presently zoned R-4 which allows from 40 to 70 units per acre density, or between 356 and 588 units. Building construction and development will cover the entire site, which will also include recreational amenities such as a tennis court and community recreation room. (See Section II. 19 of this Checklist. ) Landscaping will comply with the Renton Parking and Loading Code. I Five different unit types are planned that range from about 535 square feet to about 894 square feet. The breakdown includes' 56 units (Type A) which are planned to be about 551 square feet; 56 units (Type B) planned to be about 662 square feet; 56 units (Type E) planned to be about 774 square feet; 56 units (Type F) planned to be I I I 1/26/81 2717A NR 1 about 894 square feet and 56 units (Type M) planned to be about 535 square feet. These square footages do not include decks. The units will be three stories high contained in 14 buildings with about 20 units per build- ing. (See Exhibit 2. ) All 14 buildings are identical. The typical composition of units is made up of eight units containing one bedroom and one bath, four units containing one bedroom, a loft and one bath, four units containing two bedrooms and two baths and four studio units. (See I typical building elevations, Exhibit 2. ) . The units are to be served by a private street sytem. Access will be provided from NE Fourth and the proposed half-width Edmonds Avenue. Parking on-site will be provided for 420 cars. The proposal will be implemented in three phasesp with total completion anticipated about 18 months after permit approval.) Phase I is planned to cover the North- east quarter of the site and contain three residential buildings (numbered 1 to 3 ; See Exhibit 1) , and all re- creation facilities. Phase II is planned to cover the North est quarter of the site and contains six buildings I I numbered 4 to 9) . Phase III is planned to cover the south half of the site and contain five buildings (num- bered 10 to 14) About 90 days of sitey preparation will be required for each of the three phases. Building construction will •e conducted concurrently with site preparation to the extent sensible and construction of each phase would require about four months. Assuming all approvals are received from the City of Renton by March 1, 1981, Phase I should 1/26/81 2717A NR 2 I be complete by about September 1, 1981. Construction of subsequent phase will be dependent upon the rate of sales for Phase I . The major uncertainty to sales corresponds to the availability of mortgage money at reasonable rates. The entire project is estimated to be complete in 18 months from permit acquisition. The total proposal includes : 1) securing all applicable building and grading permits and approvals from Renton; I 2) cbmpliance with the soils study recommendations; 3) The improvement of NE Fourth Street along the northern edge of the site with drainage facilities and a sidewalk. Although the Traffic Study Exhibit 6) concludes that the extension of dmonds Avenue NE is not necessary to accomodate the project generated traffic, the applicant proposes construction of a half street improvement for Edmonds Avenue NE between NE Fourth to NE Third; 4) Pecreational amenities designed to fulfill the needs of the residents which include swimming pool, bath house with recreation room, Jacuzzi, a half basketball court, volleyball on the grass, tot lot, a sidewalk pathway system, picnic tables and barbeque grills interspersed through the central area; and a meandering stream; 5) Construction sales and occupation of the units by people; 6) All other permits and approvals customary and/or required for this type of development, for example Ltility connections, etc. 1/26/81 2717A NR 3 f I 7. Location. The project site is situated on the NE Third Street rise east of downtown Renton. Its location is outlined on the Vicinity Map and can be seen on the aerial photo, Exhibits 3 and 4. The spatial relationship with surrounding properties is seen on the aerial photo- graph. The 8.4 acres which comprise the property are trapezoidally shaped with the narrow end to the south by NE Third St. ) The site slopes downward toward the southwest at grades varying between 5% to 16%. Vegetation on the site is largely scrub brush and weeds. The site is undeveloped. I North - Single famiy residences on 7200 square foot lots predominate in the area north of the site. The new 90 lot plat of Highbury Park lies off the northeast corner of the property. Zoning to the north is R-1 and SR 1. NE Fourth Street acts as collector road for the neighborhood. Windsor Hills Park is directly across NE Fourth street, and HLghland Elementary is about 3/4 of a mile further north. East - Adjacent to the north & east is Vantage Point condominiums, a 96 unit complex. Like the subject site zoning is R-4 (High density multiple family) . Along the remainder of the eastern boundary is the site of an earth extraction operation. South - NE Third Street crosses at the southern edge of the site. Further south are the remnants of an extensive extraction operation. The Mount Olive Cemetary sits amid the gravel lands in GS-1 zoning. To the south of the cemetary is the site of Eradco Multiple Family Project. See inal EIS for ERADCO, dated January 30 , 1981. ) 1/26/81 2717A NR 4 i I I i I West - A Puget Power Transmission Line runs the length of the western edge. Land further west of that is primarily undeveloped. R-4 zoning covers the area west except for a finger of R-1 that protrudes south of NE Fourth street I taking a church into the R-1 zoning. 9. Permits. Acquisition of building, foundation, and grading permits. Sewer hookup Water Service Installation Agreement Power Application for Service Other permits and approvals customary and/or required for this type of development. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. I 1. Earth A soils exploration and geotechnical engineering study has been prepared by Earth Sciences for the projct i site. (See Exhibit 5) The soils and land forms of the region were developed by the repeated advances of glacial ice occur- ring approximately 10 ,000 years ago during the Vashon period of the Fraser Glaciation. The advance outwash deposited sand and gravel and/or silt and clay. Compac- tion and similar deposits produced glacial till. The recessional outwash produced additional material similar to advance outwash, but uncompacted. The project site is located on the upland area north and northeast of the Cedar River Valley. In the 1/26/81 2717A Nit 5 I j i I vicinity of the site large areas of recessional outwash exist. These outwash deposits are characterized by very gravelly and sandy sediments that range in thickness from four or five feet to 80 or 100 feet on the upland ter- races. Major deposits are several hundred feet thick. The Ev rett series soils were formed in the very granular sediments which are loose and porous. The project site was formerly a borrow pit in which top soils were removed and gravel deposits were i extracted as well as several parcels east and south of the site. The surfacial and subsurficial geologic analysis of the project site completed in December 1980 (See Exhibit 5) concluded that: Subsurface conditions are almost ideally suited for, development as proposed. The natural soils have good strength and slope stability characteristics of up to 35° to 40° inclination. Most of the site was formerly a borrow pit and is clear of vegetation except for a strip along the western boundary. Terrain is relatively flat except for a ridge as much as 20 feet high which runs along part of the west property line and a smaller ridge along part of the east property line. The western edge of the property supports ground vegetation and a few trees. Since the total proposal includes the incorpora- tion of all recommendations set in pages 3 and 4 of the soils report; unstable earth conditions are not reasonably anticipated. While site preparation and building con- e 1/26/81 2717A NR 6 1 I I I I I struc ion will require soil movementiand topographic 1 changs to yield level building sites, impacts are iantic pated to be nominal since net soil movement on site 1 is re sonably expected to mostly preclude the need for any off-s ' fite movements. The finished grades will be adjusted to keep all movement of the earth on site. Some import of 1 struc ural fill may be necessary. It can be normally anticipated that some soil erosi n might result during site preparation for a site ofII this ype. Temporarypporary and permanent soil erosion and drainage control measures will be taken according to City 1 of Re ton standards. A Temporary Erosion Control Plan will 1[3e implemented during construction including the I place g of strawbale check/dams in drainage ways to reduce 1 sediments. Permanent measures include the tightlining of I all footing and roof-drains into a proper drainage cours . Since storm water runoff will be directed into a 1 new s stem to be constructed with the site, and since the site ' s not adjacent to nor will directly affect river streams, oceans, bays, inlets, or lakes, no significant impact is anticipated due to deposition or erosion of mater 'al from the site. 2. Air. The site and vicinity are adjacent to the Renton-Tukwila- 1 ent industrial area. Because of that the 1 site is in a secondary standard area' for Particulate Matter for purposes of the Clean Air Act, which under certain climatic conditions can be affected by high readi gs for suspended particulants. However, measure- ments reported by the Puget Sound AiIr Pollution Control I 1 1 II 1/26/:1 2717A NR 7 I I I 1 I I Authority in 1979 indicate that the area does not exceed existing standards for these pollutants. The total proposal is reasonably anticipated to not have a discern- able impact upon air quality because of the use of electric heat in the units and utilization of mud carryout cleanup to be required of contractors and watering of the site during construction. Construction activity is expected to cover about eighteen months total and will cause some temporary adverse impacts due to disruption of soils, and use of heavy equipment on site, but these possible impacts are anticipated to be minimal. The primary factor affecting air quality in the I project area is automobile traffic, as the site is approximately 0. 5 miles east of I-405. Air pollutants contained in vehicular exhaust emissions include carbon monoxide (CO) , hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogens. Total daily traffic volumes are expected to be about 1, 550 vehicle round trips per day for 280 units (See Traffic Study, Exhibit 6) . As vehicles become distributed on the local arterial street system, the increase will be less than 5% of the total volume of traffic on any given street. Vehicular emissions will increase proportional to increased traffic as a result of the proposal. However, concentrations are anticipated to remain far below any critical levels; because no single point on-site is anticipated to produce a concentration of vehicular traffic. Parking areas are spaced out. Air quality impacts from vehicular emissions are, reasonably antici- pated . to be minimal. As a recommendation of the traffic study the project sponsor will provide each homeowner 1/26/81 2717A NR 8 transit service information for the vicinity of the site. Encouragement of transit usage, is anticipated to aid in the overall impact air quality from private automobile usage. Some temporary odors from machinery and material application may result during site development. The climate and odor impacts are reasonably anticipated to be nominal due to the site' s relatively ' unobstructed exposure to prevailing winds. 3. Water. Currently the surface water runoff from the majority of the subject property sheet flows northerly across the property and is intercepted in a drainage ditch/swale adjacent to NE Fourth Street. A small portion of the southerly end of the property sheet flows south- westerly across the property where it is intercepted by NE Third Street. No significant off-site drainage discharges onto the site. The terrain off-site and directly north of NE Fourth Street ai1id south of NE Third Street slopes steeply to the north and south respectively. The terrain east of the subject property is undulating and relatively level. At the northeast corner of the project is an existing multi-family development called Vantage Point. The storm drainage from Vantage Point is collected via catch basins and underground pipe and discharged into an open ditch/swale adjacent to NE Fourth Street at the northeast corner of the subject property. Before being discharged from the site, the storm water is detained in i I 1/26/81 2717A NR 9 I i i I underground detention pipes and released at the site predevelopment rate of discharge per the City code. Site development and construction will change the absor tion rates. The construction of the proposed pro- ject would eliminate a majority of the existing natural surface and replace it with a high proportion of impervious surfaces (about 45%) . The introduction of impervious surfaces will increase the rate and quantity of storm water runoff from the site and will revise the flow pattern from one of sheet flow to one of concentrated gravity pipe flow. The storm drainage in the developed condition would exit the property in approximately the existing location. Temporary and permanent storm water runoff, from both impervious and pervious surfaces, will be controlled on the site per City Code and approved plans. Temporary erosion ponds will be utilized to reduce sediment loads as necessary. Natural drainage patterns will be altered from construction of streets and introduction of a storm sewer system, but this is not reasonably anticipated to have a disce nable impact on nearby areas, because under the Renton code the amount of post-development runoff can not exceed the pre-development rate. There exists a drainage ditch/swale directly adjacent to the southerly margin of NE Fourth Street which drains westerly and southwesterly following the alignment of NE Fourth Street. The drainage channel varies from a shallow ditch to a swale flowing along the edge of pavement which has been extended to the toe of the road excavation. 1/26/81 2717A NR 10 I Approximately 200 feet northeast of the inter- I section of Viewmont Avenue and Bronson Way (formerly NE Fourth Street) , the storm drainage discharges into a 12" diameter CMP culvert. The storm drainage continues down Bronson Way through a series of manholes via 12" diameter pipe until it intersects the storm drainage system in NE Third Street. From there the storm ;drainage is transferred to Sunset Blvd. E. via 18" diameter pipes and onto the Cedar River along Sunset Blvd. E. via 24" diameter pipe. Connection to this existing system is i available, at no anticipated increase in velocity. There may be a possible increase in the duration of flows but this is within the system capacity. Estimated storm water runoff for the site once completely developed is expected to be minimal because the drainage system is to be designed to handle the site runoff by receiving and routing and storing the water from additional impervious surfaces for release into the off-site system at a pre-development rate. Storm water from 4oth footing and roof drains will be tightlined into the storm drainage system. Soil and groundwater conditions were explored on-site by digging 13 backhoe dug test pits. No ground- water was observed in any of the soils study test pits and in view of the granular nature of all the soils and the absence of silt or clay imbedded in the soil, it is 1 doubtful whether even intermittent groundwater could exist in significant quantity. Therefore, little or no impact is anticipated on the alteration in direction, rate of flow, quality or quantity of groundwater. (Reference: 1/26/81 2717A NR 11 I I I I, 1 Surficial and Subsurficial Geotechnical Analysis, Homelraft Renton Site, Earth Sciences, December 1980, I Exhi it 5. )1 Surface water quality may be impacted during the construction phase, by potential erosion and siltation of 1 I expo ed soil surfaces from disruptions of the soils during grading. Surface water quality may be impacted during the I final project phase by pollutants associated with resi- denti 1 and muli-family developments such as suspended solids, herbicides, fertilizers, phosphates and petroleum based materials from asphalt roads and automobile crank- cases. Due to the residential use of the site the amount 1 and frequency o1 occurrence is not expected to be signi- ficant. All drainage from the subject property will pass I throu h an oil-water separator prior to being discharged from ,he site. Sediment and other suspended solids will I be collected in the sump of the catch basins. The impact of soluble pollutants originating from such things as ferti izers, automobile washing and vegetation spraying, can only be mitigated by prudent use and should have only a negligible effect to downstream water quality. q 4. Flora. I Vegetation on the project site is for the most part n n- existent due to previous on-site excavation and 1 I gravel extraction. A small strip of vegetation does exist along he site' s western boundary consisting of deciduous I trees, predominantly maple and alder. However, the vegetation is relatively sparse. d I I I 1/26/81 2717A NR 12 I d I 1 A landscaping plan is being ,developed for the project calling for the introduction of new species of flora in order to: o 'eplenish on-site flora previously removed. o 'educe erosion and water runoff. o inimize impacts of noise, light and glare. o Provide screening to minimize visual impacts on Burro nding properties. o rovide visual separation and a physical buffer between structures and on-site use activities. Existing flora will be replaced by landscaping which ill introduce new species of flora common to urban develo ment. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City. The following is a representative list of species to be introduced: Trees Evergreen:Do.1glas Fir Norway Spruce Scotch Pine Decidu us:Rhodendrons Oregon Grape Andorea Juniper Golden Mockorange Tamarix Juniper Gold Thread Cypress 5. Fauna. Some mirimal number of small animals and birds typica of a neglected pit area are present on the site. The nu ber and diversity are not known to be significant Iduetothepastuseofthesiteasaborrowpitand removal of flora. It appears that the wildlife habitat potential of the project site is very limited. As classified by King County (refer to the supplement to the King County Comprehensive Plan, March 1975) , the project site is within an urban/rural area. 1/26/81 2717A NR 13 1 1 I 1 Representative species found within this zone include the following which is presumed to apply to this site though site visits have not confirmed all these fauna are present on th site. Animals within an urban/rural area and which could be present on the site include such ground mammals as Douglas squirrel, northwest chipmunk, rabbit, raccoon; such game birds as California quail, mountain quail, ring-necked pheasant; such songbirds as robin, red-shafted flick r, jay, r d-breasted nuthatch, song sparrow, winter wren, hermit thrush, and Audubon warbler; and such preda ors as ha k species, domestic dogs and cats. Site preparation and development may remove habitat and will require some fauna relocation. Approval of this project will commit 8. 4 acres of land to urban devel pment, thereby diminishing the use of the site by j potential wildlife species. However the surrounding environment does not appear to make this relatively small 1 site a highly valuable fauna resource area. The intro uction of some species of flora to the project site may e hance the potential for breeding area and provide a buffe area which allows the movement and migration of smaller species of faunap chipmunks, birds, dogs .nd cats) due to the adjacent transmission corridor area. 6. Noise. No noise is presently generated on the site. Existing noise levels on the project site are typical of an urban/suburbkn environment. The primary source of noise within the immediate vicinityiof the site is vehicular traffic from NE Third Strdet and NE Fourth 1/26 81 2717A NR 14 1 Street. The Renton Airport which is located approximately one mile west of the site is another source of noise which has some impact upon the site and surrounding community. The anticipated noise impacts at the project site are as follows: 1) Short-term impacts from construction equipment during the building phase which are subject to control by applicable regulations. 2) Typical residential noise characteristics of multiple-family developments. External noise sources impacting the project site are as follows: 1) Long-term impact as traffic volume increases on local roadways. 2) Impacts from aircraft traffic at the Renton Airport. During construction noise will be generated typical of such development. Operations will be restric- ted to the hours between 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. , except on authorization by the City. Minmal impact is anticipated due to topographic and distance separation, and the incidence of only a temporary increase during site development. 7. Light and Glare. The surrounding residential, dwelling units and street lighting are the only source of lighting within the vicinity of the project site. Development of the multiple family residences will increase the amount of light emitted from the site. The potential sources will be interior lighting through 1/26/81 2717A NR 15 1 I 1 windows, exterior grounds lighting and automobile head- light glare. Supplemental vegetation will be introduced I' on-site to screen to the extent sensible from view dwelling unit lights and vehicular headlights. Street lighting will incorporate shields for the purpose of controlling light glare. 8. Land Use. The 8. 4 acre project site is located east of Renton Business district approximately 0. 5 miles east of 1 I-405 between NE Third Street and NE Fourth Street. The existing (unimproved) right-of-way for Edmonds Avenue NE serves as the east boundary of the site and the Puget Sound Power & Light Company transmission line right-of-way serves as the west boundary. Land use activities surrounding the project site inclu?e the Vantage Point Condominium development to the east, single-family residences to the north of NE Fourth Stree , the United First Methodist Church to the west as well as undeveloped land, and to the south of NE Third Stree undeveloped land, a gravel pit and scattered residences. The R-4 zoning which covers the site has been present since 1963. It has remained at that zoning Theundevelopedfor17pyears. proposed land use is residential which is similar with the multiple family to the east. Density of the proposal in terms of the type of structure and scale are anticipated 'to be in harmony with the neighborhood and is less than that permitted under zoning. The proposal increases housing opportunities in building types that are sought to be compatible with the 1 1/26/81 2717A NR 16 1 existi g neighborhood character. A description of building and unit composition are contained on page 2 of this Attachment to the Environmental Checklist. In January 1980, the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan was revised designating the project site as well as property to the east and west as High Density Residential. Consequently, the site is intended for residential uses allowing the maximum number of dwelling units, the maximum number of stories and the maximum of land coverageproportiong permitted in the City of Renton in accordance with the zoning classification of the site which is currently R-4 (apartment houses an multiple- family dwellings) . The proposal effectuates the zoning and comprehensive plan designations for the site. Under the Provisions of the ' existing R-4 classi- fication, the maximum potential number of dwelling units that could be constructed on the project site are 588 (70 du/acre x 8. 4 acres) . The project proposes to construct about 280 dwelling units or approximately 33. 3 dwelling units per acre. As a result of construction,, the status of the project site would change from its present undeveloped nature to that of high density multiple-family residen- tial. However, the development proposed would be consis- tent with local zoning and in conformance with the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 9. Natural Resources. The 8. 4 acre site has few trees and is not considered a timber resource. Soils on-site are not 1/26/81 2717A NiR 17 1_ 1 I 1 I I 1 conducive to agricultural production.) Gravel and sand exist on-site as the site formerly was used as a borrow pit. 1 Plans for development are expected to have minor or no impacts on existing natural resources. Principally, the impact associated with the proposed development is the I commi ment of 8.4 acres of undeveloped land for long-term 1 residential uses. However, such a commitment of land for I 11 this type of use is, consistent with the City' s plans, policies and regulations. Constriction and maintenance of the proposed project would consume natural resources in the forms of sand nd gravel, water, wood and metal products, electri- cal e ergy and fossil fuels, manpower and capital, as would new multiple family construction wherever it may occur The proposal would not result in the significant I I q deple ion of any one of these resources. 10. Risk of Upset. I While a risk of upset is possible, construction I activities will comply with all safety standards. No 1 hazardous activity will result on site during construction. 11. Population. I Consistent with population characteristics supplied by the City of Renton Planning Department, I multiple-family dwelling units exhibit on the average of I two persons per dwelling unit. Assuming the above characteristics, population increase of about 560 persons I is likely for the project. There exist several parcels in 1 the rea that are zoned for multiple family and to date rema_n undeveloped. The City of Renton has designated I I I 1/26/81 2717A NR 18 . I I I i I I I this a9ea as one suitable for greater densities. Because of that, this proposal is not reasonably anticipated to create a discernible impact in the growth of the immediate area. 12. Housing. The 1980 Federal Census estimates the population I of the City of Renton to be 29,885. Population projec- tions prepared by the Puget Sound Council of Governments estimate that between 1980 an 1990, the increase in the number of housing units will be approximately 3, 800. The proposal generates about 280 new multiple I family units. The need for affordable housing and a variety of alternative housing types is recognized throughout King County. The proposal will satisfy some of I i that demand. The existing site eliminates no existing 1 I units by demolitlion because of its undeveloped condition, and may possibly make available other rental units in the area by those that move into the development. 13. Transportation and Circulation. A preliminary analysis of transportation circu- lation conditions and impacts has been prepared by the TRANSPO Group. (See the attached copy, Exhibit 6. ) The analysis looks at the total 8. 4 acre development and its surroundings. An increased generation of about 1, 550 trips per day cin be expected for the addition of 280 units. Primary access will be from NE Fourth Street directly south if Edmonds Avenue NE, and at the western edge of the site. While the volumes anticipated in the TRANSPO Study represent an increase to existing traffic 1/26/81 2717A NiR 19 1 I I volumes, the impact on the level of service at any of the surrounding intersections will not be reduced. Demand for parking will be satisfied on the project site by use of planned on-site parking. There are 420 uncovered parking spaces which includes visitor spaces. Parking supplied meets the number of spaces ( 1. 5 per unit) required. The volumes expected from the project, of approximately 775 round trips per day, is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on the level of service of the existing transportation systems. As these volumes distribute onto the arterial ' system, the impact of volumes generated by this project will be less than 5% total volume travelling on any given street. Increased auto traffic using I-405 will add in a statistically insignificant way to traffic going in to downtown or to Belle ue. Two bus lines both on Bronson Way NE and NE Thfird Street (Routes 142 & 144) are available alterna- tive modes to the personal car. The frequency and destination of the routes are covered in the TRANSPO study. After 'reviewing the report, the applicant is inclu ing as part of its total proposal the following recommendations extracted from the TRANSPO Group Report subject to City concurrence. Agree not to protest a ULID for future improve- ments of Edmonds Avenue NE Maintain two entrances to provide for multiple access for residents and fo,r emergency vehicles. I I 1/26/81 2717A N'R 20 I i Design the internal road system with a loop so in the event of an emergency, vehicles have an alternative route if one route is blocked. To reduce automobile travel and encourage transit j. and carpooling, the project sponsor will distri- bute at time of sale information relative to transit routes and schedules as well as infor- mation relative to ridesharing. Improvement to NE Fourth will include the construction of drainage facilities and sidewalks on the south side adjacent to the property frontage. Prohibit parking and/or storage of recreational vehicles as part of the conditions, covenants and I restrictions of the proposal to mitigate poten- tial impacts relative to spillover parking on NE Fourth Street. Constriction of half street improvements adjacent to the property frontage for the proposed Edmonds Avenue NE between NE Third and NE Fourth. The study by TRANSPO addresses in detail the question of the need for improving Edmonds Avenue because of the traffic generated by the proposal. The alleged benefit desired from such an extension would be to reduce volumes at •the intersections of Jefferson NE/NE 3rd St. and Bronson Way NE/NE 3rd St. The study indicated that because these intersections operate under capacity there is no significant benefit to level of service as a result of such an improvement. In addition, the traffic generated as a result of the proposal can be accommodated i I I 1/26/81 2717A NR 21 within the existing street system without undue stress. Improvements could be made from the methods suggested in the TRANSPO study with regard to the AM and PM congestion around the intersection of I-5 and NE 3rd) could allow for greater east-west operating efficiency (see Exhibit 6) . Based on the analysis, it is concluded that constriction of Edmonds Avenue NE from NE Fourth to NE Third Street is not warranted at this time and is not advisable until east-west traffic circulation patterns can be modified to reduce anticipated congestion at key intersections. I Although the conclusions reached in the TRANSPO study indicate that Edmonds Avenue NE is not necessary as a cir ulation link to accommodate the anticipated traffic from he project, the applicant agrees to construct Edmonds as half street to serve the site. The pavement width is adequate to service anticipated traffic and construction of a full width road is not required by traffic generated by this proposal. The project is not anticipated to generate any significant traffic and circulation impact, and with the implementation of the recommendations the anticipated impact may possibly be reduced. 14. Public Services. The City of Renton Fire Department provides fire protection to t e project site. The closest station within the vicinity is located at NE Ninth Street and Harrington Avenue NE, approximately 3/4 of a mile from the I I 1/26/81 2717A NR 22 i I I project site. Water is available to the site providing adequa=e fire flow to meet the requirements of the project. Police protection is provided by the City of Renton. The proposed addition of 280 units or a popula- tion of about 560 may necessitate an additional officer given the 1. 7 officers per 1000 population (present) standard (Renton Police Department, telephone conversa- tion, 1/15/81) . However, police officer utilization may reduce this. Additionally, increased property taxes will I I mitigate any added costs. The site is situated within the Renton School District No. 403. Potential students generated by the project would attend the Highlands Elementary School, McKni ht Middle School and Hazen High School. Currently, these schools are experiencing a declining enrollment and as such have the capacity to meet the projected enroll- ment. (Renton School District, telephone conversation 1/5/81. ) No closures are anticipated for all three schoo s. Both passive and active recreation facilities are planned for the project. The recreational amenities are designed to fulfill the neds of the residents, which include a swimming pool, bath house with Jacuzzi, grass, tot lot, a sidewalk pathway system and picnic tables I interspersed through the central area. There is a nominal impact anticipated on surrounding parks due to the amount of recreational amenities and open space area to be provided on-site. Comments from the preliminary review of the ite by Mr. John Webley, Director of the Renton Park Department, arei contained in his letter, Exhibit 7-A. I I 1/26/81 2717A NR 23 I 1 I I Maintenance of public facilities such as water, sewer and off-site drainage facilities are proposed to be maintained by the City of Renton. What possible effect there may be to any other governmental body is undeter- mined. Street, parking areas, landscaping and on-site recreation amenities will be private and as such will be maintained by a homeowners association. 15. Energy. The recently completed Energy Management Plan for King County (November 1980) emphasized the critical issues of rapidly rising energy costs and scarcity of supplies for c ? nventional fuels facing the residents of the County. A large portion of the natural gas and petroleum originates from sources outside the Country, with control over the constancy of its availability and the stability of its price beyond local control. The recent attempt by Canad ' an sources of natural gas to raise prices up to 30% is indicative of this situation. Actual or threatened curtailment of these supplies has occurred °in the past and may occur in the near future. Approximately 80% of King County' s electricity is generated by hydropower. However , virtually all available major hydro sites that can be economically or environ- mentally developed have been utilized. Puget Power has stated that it will not have adequate firm supplies of hydro-electricity to meet its projected total load growth. In order to provide for this shortage, Puget has begun operation of oil and natural gas fired generating 1/26/81 2717A NR 24 I II plants and there have been substantial surcharges on its . rates to pay for these additional costs. I I Since the site is undeveloped, development will require provision of energy to the site facilities. Once construction is complete, the estimated connected load i I will e from 1800-2400 kilowatts per unit per month or a project total of about 504, 000, per month for all electri- cal units. The Puget Sound Power & Light Company indicated that adequate supply of electricity is available for the proposed development. (Telephone conversation 1/2/81. ) The Washington Natural Gas Company indicated that due to the absence of a distribution system within the vicinityof project site, naturalthe gas service would not be availablell. Development of this multiple family housing proposal can have the tendency to promote energy conser- vation through efficiency of shared wall construction, preservation of open space, utilization of close access to elI I mass transit, and provision ofon-site recreational amenities. Energy will be utilized during construction in I the form of equipment operation, manufactured materials and fossil fuels.11 The urban location of the site along with the compact design of the residential proposal both tend to minimize the total energy expenditure for con- struction. 16. Utilities. I ilPower. Natural gas is not available to the site. However, the site is served by the Puget Sound II I I 1/26/81 2717A NR 25 Power & Light Company. The primary electrical lines run along NE Third Street. Power would be distributed on-site by means of underground conduits. (PSP&L Co. , telephone conversation 1/2/81. ) Communication. The proposed development is within the service area of Pacific Northwest Bell. There are two conduitisystems which could service the site along NE Third Street and NE Fourth Street. Water. The site is within the service area of the C ' ty of Renron. A 16-inch water main exists along the east property line with the right-of-way of Edmonds Avenue NE A equate supply of water is available to meet domestic demands and fire flow requirements. (City of Renton, telephone conversation 10/16/80. ) As part of the total proposal, easements for resulting utility lines will be granted to the appropriate agencies. Surface water runoff will enter an on-site system for detention, yvhich will require Public Works approval. A preliminary Hydrology Report has been prepared by Stepan Associates (See Exhibit 8) . As a part of the proposal the applicant agrees to the following general recommendations: a. The temporary erosion/sedimentation control facilities will be constructed prior to any grading in accordance with an approved temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan. These facilities will be maintained until construction is completed. 1/26/81 2717A NR 26 I i 1 1 I 1 1 b. The size of the controlled outlet will be calculated for the developed site to provide a runoff rate at the 1 outlet that is equal to or less than the predevelop- ment rate. c. T e downstream drainage ditch should be adequately Icleanedand 'stabilized prior to any grading or bilding construction. This could be accomplished by backhoe preparation of the ditch, and then lining with gravel .rip-rap. d. D ' scharge from the siltation pond(s) will be directed t fabrichstrawbalesorfilterfhgais before being discharged from the proposed development. Solid waste in the project vicinity is collected by the City of Renton. Approval of the project will not result in the need for new systems or alteration to the existing system. However, extension of these utilities to service the s ' te will be required. This extension will be constructed in accordance with applicable standards and I requirements. 18. Aesthetics 1 There currently are no views from the site, due primarily from the heavy tree cover west of the Puget Power Transmission line on the western boundary. Upon clmpletion of construction, the aesthetics 1 of the development site will be altered from that of an undeveloped site to a multiple-family development with stru tures not exceeding three stories in height. 1 Landscaping will be' introduced on-site to improve the visual perception of the development both on and off-site. I 1 i 1/26/81 2717A NR 27 I The sparse, vegetative condition will be improved by the inclusion! of substantial landscaping on the site. The structures are to be designed in harmony with existing 1 archi ecture (using earth tones, texture, and wood finishes) , and with an effort to maintain a balance of scale and a sensitivity to landscaping such that the site will be both functional and attractive. A Homeowners Association will be established as part of the total proposal to control and maintain the appearance and maintenance of the development after the units are constructed and occupied. 19. Recreation. As identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan (1978) the project site is located within Neighborhood No. 9 , the Highlands and Windsor Neighborhood. The study has characterized this neighborhood asihaving a high population density. The area is projected to experience a slight decrease in population through 1980, but land availability will not increase. Population is younger than average for I Renton and family size is moderately larger. Two main occupations arejlaborer and student and average income is low. The residents participate in local recreation I opportunities and tend to look at the larger community wide picture when responding to recreation questions. They rate highly existing programs and facilities, but express a need or a neighborhood park within walking distance which will serve the entire family. There is a 1/26/81 2717A NR 28 r/ r 1 1 strongdesire for a multi-purpose center at Cedar River 1 Park plus strongldemand for expansion of programs and facilities. Within this neighborhood there exist one neigh- borhood park, Windsor Hills (4. 6 acres) , and one community park, Highlands (9. 4 acres) . Facilities included within these parks are aseball fields, tennis courts and multi-purpose courts, a community center (gymnasium) , recreation building , trails, picnicking areas an play- ground equipment1. The condition of these facilities is 1 listed as being good. 1 The 4. 61 acre Windsor Hills neighborhood park is situated imediately north of the project site across NE Fourth Street. No acquisition priority was established by the Comprehensive "Park & Recreation Plan for the Highlands and Windsor Neighborhood. Furthermore, the development 1 priority for additional facilities within this neighbor- hood as established as being low. The recommendations set forth in the plan is to continue to develop the exist ' ng Windsor Hills Park according to the expressed needs identified by the survey results. i Mr. John Webley, Director of Renton Park Depart- ment has preliminarily reviewed the proposed site plan. His comments are contained in a letter. (See Exhib- it 7-A. ) The rrcreational amenities to be provided by the applicant are aldequate and sufficient for the anticipated population to reside in the development. In thelCity of Renton' s standards for parks by size and characlteristics, the category of mini-parks or 1 1 1 1 1 1/26/81 2717A I1R 29 1 1 vest pocket parks were deleted as "Not Recommended. " From a municipal viewpoint this may be due primarily to the high costs involved in maintaining small scattered sites, for the low return in recreational opportunities possible on small parcels. Under private ownership, and maintenance by the homeowners, the perceived advantage of a mini-park would be the intimacy, security and convenience of having facilities so close. The recreation areas and facilities supplied in the proposal would serve as a mini-park to provide active and passive recreation to those residents, not at public expense. The National Recreation and Parks Association NRPA) sets standards for mini-parks as follows: 1) Containing between 2, 500 square feet to one acre of land, and 2) Serving a sub-neighborhood with a population of between 500 to 2, 500 residents. Although the facilities are to be integrated with the residential units, the area devoted to recreational uses would comprise about an acre site. Open space for free lay and a sidewalk pathway system, a meandering stream and picnic tables and barbecue grills interspersed through the central area supply the passive recreation. A swimming pool is included for active recreation, as well as recreation room and bath house, jacuzzi, a half basketball court, volleyball court on grass, tot lot. The inclusion of these features with the development is anticipated to mitigate the perceived recreational impacts. 1/26/81 2717A NR 30 I I 20. Archaeolo gical/Historical No known areas of archaeological or historical significance are known to exist on-site. In the event that any cultural resources are discovered, the state office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be notified. 1/26/81 2717A NR 31 li HOMECRAFT LAND AND DEVELOPMENT - RENTON LIST OF EXHIBITS ATT CHED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Site Plan (Including Landscape Plan) 2. Typical Building Elevations I 3. icinity Map 4. Aerial Photo 5. Soils Study 6. Traffic Study 7. Recreation Space Letter 8 Preliminary Hydrology Report 1 i E 1 . Ie.15,20 P.:MEr L3.' ' "--- ----rr-•--- •- • I yy 1 tr,150•7/..."c-o•-...1/.13-,cri NollE .-Z.!.cE2 i I 1110.1..SAL.-g7=7•albal,T1.. •se..Z. I 7•-.'air ikki,/,' c.d. r... s,...or...a-)wip...,,J1. InED rre,_a0. •CafIles./S Es..!-0/...14,1 W../ •MT:.• 6D.•e••r,.,.4,-. a...a.•.C.TS.aPs.T/a01.14 r---5.",••101 ,! t M 3 i Tr.' 1, N72 STaaE irc-1 " 0 47 i. ED N, . 2 . ... 3. , 2. EN " EiT"L4 3 - .. i .__,I 1!'.'.'''wI, r ?,..... .„, •1.7,1 • --.:.I: . / 1111 .t•±•••,§ prf....1",LL len . . . .0 ' 0 “...0NratS VC.,IVY, y.sys 17/lir _ 1. -. 1 7,-„7,0,- . - ..,... 0, unn•Ln C...4•taS Tient"' • Ir...y-12_.'7 4 NNII'L..._:'`-__ Cc -v."...,,....0c..• Nal...ELS C.N.IN•s3',INVIoNN 0 0%*ft"N 410 ..44. 1 i l•Ft.W,C.4.1,..IA 1 ttr-2 F1.1.71-171i4:,Cerill.: Te. .0••• .4 Sfast A9 'Va.-.1. T.; -''' ""--'"--!1 0 NON.C.EL:mral 0;i... A Ok- 1)1111144414N z APIA • o,- 0 li.°-".4..ILT.iIntt...tho t 1 tifti-•Ch..._Tria.N. t.haaLON S. t• WV, C.-•'.1 •HaLTOS•PaNsv WS an.r.-ufasi tt N. ... A ,io -- a ..--. .t:a 0441111k) "..1 022 ". ..f*, ••N ... g.?•:'?iTITEMESq 2,21•"32IIT c=3 •era". ItirCS:-6251°41INLIIIIIIii, ; I° .` _._-- 6:,ti,9 - 1.--i---114.-' 0,-i.„. --- .., a 4_ I: a L, •,,i 1 Ili N..,04..„. 7•Mir . o1-0010f, iii4morl SgllrWkgt"''. WV .. i...1,...... 1 - 4,..1vh,ripti4M-b,.._ 1 wr.--......._,S4 A Ilre At0.11110‘.... tr, rt.......N.,..7.44.„,4..b.... ... il Ai. . '2 0 • 70/). 6 al i•I - fiki.,1171.1. j.•-•0. -;:Aer ,n .4. 0 m...h.... 111,--... ,.., ' I WO_ 0 1_ .h. I WI 06‘.......„.....0 - ti -*': !4) Aar 41111il, I. le 1 N•ts.'' '..-'' i = f- lc it-7.- - Aj, - IT!. •...!?.0.111, ... 10. 11.... tri 4° r'ifr° • . cl,...MI4 1 •,.,•-•• i-, I " 0, ..X 7; td4L...• 1,N,.. I 100.-'-".". 0 : 4-1'11 \''•::.--•el:%4 4: -( °.. ''''‘‘.--"-- 7. tilito...,410;:yritV 7'. 4114 0" P. p .... tr A:4, e. ' so,•!... 0 e a: 4„. ii,. 0 . . ., .„, ......., ,.s,, •. _, _ . . 04,, •..,„.... I- 0 • "-1- I-1- rt• 1 ;AV 0.4•..:. oil1,.. is; . /° 4:1;?41./4 41.0...,, /IF IF -..... • D I0E-P.EP.-' r'''' - - •• 10r 111 ‘ I-' • 0, 1 A a‘1, to • 1...: • 0 . 4 0.14...4004,,,_ _ _k tratilior ..., . .1, . ES f C4,,e4, -:) ..• A -,,a;iijo.a / 0. ' -. il. _,,,2L. 41.. i •,-'41* L,1/00501.111i i P•itk.. p0.4a.71.-'&•`.....e..... •. ..''..). _AIIPM00b lab.. f.A.,,,'_.....61:,.// i/ ,-...S......i‘ it.N.i01.11'.&1011-0 IR! i f.A. AlC•Ith ill' 1 •-5- r.-•er... ..s._.... -12'0611, fle..dg'at .''• 1.....t.......'"'""6. 0 .0. 1. 000.01 la 7".... ..' .-- -.. Mill Ir JEW-.-.1 .. ......1 it_Ny4 L . \ z! . 1.4411111palpirfr 10,0...F.1:3100f:i 1..... 1..., 1 I --4 cs • I:s N. illk....11 , 1 CII i .. i,ii .Ak.....,......... t .(, Allek..7.71ra.., • re CV CI it •I . ! :,,7. 1.-11..zeo. :vp-i.41,10 .•mit,..1011.1 .1....„60,,airmi, .....r._ t,\,,,,, 1/ /1 17/ / / 7 L''-.. L"... I it- 1 ' ... i ..... 1/., 1 e ..! H"I j vt,•.1 I 1 ' .% 1. coinc Paslaa.........1,- L.-Fr...a.E., • ki 7 G I 1 ITEM ' KREPC;E I 50.11,..M.FMT PERCErIT i • r WID251.- 1.5 1. s 19.5 1 1. 40Littir4 •Ia......6sei 351 153.3.3 its 7.%%.',,illkir• • IMMO r.ASPOCIATTS.Ur.CITY OF RENTON Plitrik-t..Ot.- 4.11 MMMMMMMMMM Or rtrOLIC .60 Arr.re.-- 11 I /it 401.•• 1 6 1 ......:,:r.MO 41•/./1"M.. Se o5lozPTATECT't lelar,-.43... JIM THE TERRACE ud---f...LENTIL".MAW tal ILO i54aNT I -1.E511 3.-15,3 . 113F11=I5=21 - ' - I I I L_ILII._1........ F2--- . TOT"-PI•e".• el.1 • 3.7,909 _ _ -IMO - - - - - - - o •J LS t, 00 Li I I 1 1 7.:....‘a •-•.''. '17.- 1 a. ....... ..... I...........___r , . I.....•- I- 13J _ aI r --- a a — —_. f.,try. ter r_ Mil'—'.2;:111..r- 14,a a 1_lJ JWl III_ y1w ] C LJ IMr1=7 M ra'.^":- 7 . , - raw. tr-. ...1117—= IN 11: 1 Ilit= IM t.....P.:i. alt•tt. mug difil 1 - i It ;Nib BIB r• N,,,„...„ IWT Cur,_.,'.,.rr.i. 1 c- tH .,U.i , ., . l,r t O O I N• 1 PIGHT SIDE ELEVATION -.BLDG 4, LEFT SIDE '•ELEVATION-BLDG 4 tv L p Mj I lca r-- - Yew= Tv,t:y...• Note: The elevations are typical -and t,",•••••:mi"l'r"'..i may vary as a result of Building Permit review. FRONT ELEVATION BUILDING 4 [REAR THE SAME DelMonfti Dos il_ f,. 1- --\....------- -.-- IFACH PK ,1-,''.7'...,,...i. ;'.' .,;;;;:0;;-, ;,::,,,,,..1.51w..,,ILL:,-.:.• ....,' E=B Try g 4 65114:1%;„ C _ •A.':Sk. ''.1.6. [ 1 '..,',' tl . 100111 POINT ' 1 ', ; ",..-.*: ''..'. "• :'' AIVS. 1'41,11r.,=4,2 .i',,,,..44r:;.7 tx 2!1.4,1...„'''..,..:?;;;i1.7,..,,,,,,,i'i i'-:: :E.9.5i::pL:75.--;-:1;;;.; A-r.1-.7:714:::I'''l,iell 5,1:`,.t:',T , 1 ,,,...,, ‘..:,,,T . .... .T,;..,,,,..,. : ,; T, , , ' keimpuzi rilm32::.- 36:::: PC,: 4; 4;1::.: i.,,P,'...::;;,,,- 9.,,::'. 77.,,, i, v,: uw( T.:;::' 4,...; 75,-E,T,40-sT4 ..',..9,1ST 11, 3::•;;: 13..;..........11....C.1.1.if,i„:::,...,.A ..--\•• .... f..„.........L., 1 . %4 ',. I I •. Ir. 7, i -.• s 11 f. •1s,s KENNYDAL 4. ,I.- 4,,,4-,v•I'-7.".:.•L'.1. , I117 1 1:- ..• '•:-.ST) kVi.?if,...., Plit,i.•,:',„,•••1111301111111=:,,,,..4.. !: eili:'.:''4-. •,;,-.'' .11'''':?--:,4tkiitf 5'r" ".`•-•-•''''''.. • .":'-'. •; v,:..,,,,, , -., .:r af.:''.''i-,-;',44;y.,,' '44121'.':',-;,!.,1;--`;,' 1.--:--'jrg4';;..:- I 610''.IV DTH•P,4,'ST"2, '''.•z2i•I.••...4,•• d''''•t..1•114-1s.,:,;,•4•53r •-',g•••• g se.???...,,.. - ..P s",.4..e;"' ' , se , 1, :-.'."7:..•-....:,-;;....l• •'.-. -.',• -'••:"•::'•:;-4.:-•--.-;, •:,`;',...,".') ••,'.:. couatoc i ,,,,.; t., ,i4,..,..,,: .1-,. ,-.."...;•.,il•••••7:-.'•4';'-' - \`54,4,:,..g?.`2.i.r:*•••::10.,-!::::,,„..,.:-.-,Y1 vrt '-'TIC•,,ST,A ....,, f,, e,.„,,•,,,,-{, L,„„.„,: As.iir.,::„,.....:,:,.4.\,,•%*....i...,......•:,..-,,;;?-0' 9541.1 PL ••,, tg •••:,w,..1.....1;4.'-••• fgk,•ir .' .,-;‘,;Az' "i'-.7,fir.-• •R...gv.,•T --,-",' ,• .. ••-',,tE iiiiiiii281•11',:"PL,a 1. e• ...•• ••;•,....i.•......•::::: ,,,.. •,,-,,,,•:•,,,,-,,,,:••,,,,-,,,„:;.,..„.„.. -.. .- - ,,,A,.......„,,,-.. ---,„. z-,:,. r f'.r"?.‘•-•. . .....,"-A .,-- 4,,,,tsT,n.„.: - -,,, •" -.----...1.M-.9.1.P. b ., • . .1 _ .4.',. - , o 1, 1.9-S'!.','..'.•,..•-.".:•;-..-.:;'..;. .... V12 A.,Z,,...4ro..91.9.,'..,• NE zrrif-,-- -7H:--, - -7-,47-, -.-. ..,44,77'.,•,;T•7741".2. , 4- •-'4E-T..."';,x1f.-. Tror,T'77= :.? :70•4 "; ni"`"iiirikli9*.ii.F.'....W.' 6 ., t 'P.;:`:'''''7'4.;:l'-'.1'.:''''';:"'' "'M'''-,t•=';ieilsiii" ;`-"• ''••,',;•-'' '1'•••••.',XWr'''F.:':,...rF &zi.,,,,,,;,...... ? gixaY 63Tka. ,Az... 7.,,,, -TN'- FL Lsic,...,', „,. Ail; '.1,,,,•,•6'1',,....'i,''.,..1,''4.1i.,e E•••it xs .,',,,•:' A••, • . . , ' '. ..'2.•,• .••-.', ;;•';"".•...'•:'.. I ' ;„,,,„;,.:4-0,,p., ,r:.,i1 -,i; ,,,,,':1 ' r.-:;I.'•-•.. sT'•!,.. ‹'A r-' .., k.... „.,- --- ;se iolsi, .'ine 24TH Sii'• s. •.: .,:,IfrI,.ct'jI I•:!--5' i,:•',. ••0;,...4'.'.. '4, WE l'ir.'•;:••.-.T•ii,,, '.:. H:,-.•":,,, ii,,,,,,, \.. 'Ili, 1 sw it5vi„;*;,,..1,'Prser° on e.;-. ......,‘•I ..,.: • cv,,v4,,,i.!IS .S, ii..;z4A.,,,,r,:,:, ;ti-.•, l'.5., •ti•23RD n'•,sr:I .4.1'''SE 107RD ST P.T.7,94 •••) I'''.;;'W a vx,,$,,,,,, ..,,•,,,,‘,..-_,,,S-h.I. n if.'t o• „.•: .. .. , .,,,,,,,, s ,,..., , e,..,_„„,..,,,z,_,› sT 4.,; gt. \ 1,,1.. g sE(-64TH l• :V 1,4t6'i?,g• 1,r . 4:.=,,..,.,...s?Ti•" ..4 - 1 1••• > i.* • • I;.• r: •,•'•*.'.),'"..'•'•''.•...;"' I. ... r 1,Al.1,••• E D ,Itt S's••'''S ' •••• • ''4. . •A , -,- ..r- ' -.S. SE 1 • r• '• '::'''''•r.' ' •••‘'' •''' •:''-'4'•:" ''''' ''': I ''. " li-1'.''' NE' '''''''UNE''',1 I•20Tlif ST. •, amac ''.'•'q . .•0,, 4 4'„ .i L 1 gi.., ,,,L ,, 1;1,J,, :,:-:.''.' ;•,,,,,:,,,:,'. ' '• '.' 2"H.,, r'-•-, Ne,.ss'<• ••';-- I ,1 `:' :'.:0,,.1> 'a -n,•-•,;.q:',,Vc,` ,41,z•*1'1.!;-•.11..':`!..:.''.: 4', '0,, - NI.Ci •..!'-;t:'-'• ..iv., .:1 ..,..)±...: 1- 5E 1.- STN '"" '4' . 7-',,:-,''' .'.4 1:1'''''i•''''''';::;'.;;':1•';'.?I''''''•*::';:4-i'• •••;;''j'''' '[/1.•:-..--:-;:11; "7 I'l 1; ."'k''','','w'.i.,•i'' iAV.-„1.,i'.,..,7,,,,,,,grf3,„.,,..„ c,- :, -,, .,,,•iiE „ie.,. -,rto'4? " ' -..:. -.---f: ,. '' ''''''-'::•'7''''''-'''::'("''"'7:•,'''..: ::':••'-''''''c':':':::'1''' ''''':'' i`.... 4,, ',.'''-':1 - • Elul:.,-.i•V c-''' 7.. i;ti::,.1,,,,,17--,-•••7! -rr. ,.:.•77,-•77.7,•71-7-::!--"•-•7" - - .,•'.. ' tiR.:;.,,,,:t. -.....„ 6:,,7..,,,,,...„,,,,A ., ,,-: 4.1,,,,,.I, .,.' ' 4.,1,... .1. ::' •6 3•' ',..- 1 1..V•-•'• 2..141..1 1.1-';',` :sikr•S.. ^.. 1,".3-",.:"..,t.k.,,,,,,.4-..V:••••••'•••!:•'..,;'7•,,•-•."-IwAsuil: a;14, ",')• -'''E• 7;1', T:123,...,,..,,;„;„,-,i,EACH. '0',.. 1,/,. -,.. t.:, ..,.i.N'r-, ,,,,,o;,,.. , “,,,,,,,,,, ,.. ',VE.I •STe .-..1)t ' P..., ' • ..';',.. .'..ti 1,,,,,• , , ›., ,:',,,re,,S',,:'I, 'V ej 4'... j.It,"'43. C. '9.1•,..,i':-.1.' ;,1',.t•'.,.4'.,/•,-ii..irL.P., . ,ii.RN 145., J tr.i:'.• ii,',....--2''i: 4'..% ,•,,,it,444g „..,.....,.. „, tirii,..a,.;:. .wi if ..-'::.. ula::,-;,. ...,-vh:f S.p '" .•,,,•;4e'',,it.,,,p Z i;S4 4ilt 140,im r,2TH: c'' s'. r-: ' .1 '' :. ',':'.1'',:',..&;,,-, r.--,,:-.'-',.','‘!,-I' ,.,,e,'!:,`..-APAA'4:,..,.,, . ",•'''.'- --' ' 'E•, •-..v.- 3F---I'M ''''• - l'g:ciff411•''''''''''''".0 I 1';••,:::•;'• •,•"1,1V'''';''':::•'':: :'.''''''',‘•' ')t;', 7•:,11rj•IgPtY•-• NE'llYHI./T.- J-2!'-':7i.',,,t1:, .6••f,'')..,,e-.- -i.';;,'•f 4ii`4' re,:7` ' ''''''i';' ii',',i'''3't.C,',' ;5•,'1 t S.AV S 13- 1137n MN,,,, '-• gam& ,, f ,•:.,.....,.)..i,, :.t.,.,,- 1,,0„.4 ,.,, ,,ts4/01'“ AO'.' .kII4THToST4pptiprank , .,, ..,.....,.-. ...,-.--,-, 110•04,,,,i7av,•,„-f.,,' ,.."., ,I. 1r.,,„.‘tcp:Nsi:,,,,..... . ''.i:.. m...fr r.. mrimai•L...;,.. '•••ttici." A ,:,,,,*,,:,., e:., S' s 115TH e-,rill , ,A„4.'1/ riimmil i ' ,-,• , .,.,„_„,„„,„.,1,.-4,,,!,,,,k,,,-„0,04,/ ,-fliz ,,, o,,,,,i.,.„,.- „ii,,,,-4 ,,. , —,...'s• o'.`',..NE orki 1• 1,Iii: l'>4 iiii I. ' ."'13"fl-IN WalliiiW...r1M1131 1 .1- •• "11-,'',,,iiriNP 1:1';',trArr'+-'' A•'*L • • ',":1`,,,,•'V ti .,%•L- ,).. W.,e,4 1 t, ''14o:4,1,P,A,r,,,,,,3k; ov...„. ,;J,.•g'6,,,,4, 4.4..;,,,,,,, m EiNimt,.;.:\tvr4..."42 `94.1=1;11-FAtitili'.1.. 1.,,,,,q . EMT. .4 Nag 6113311 zi'Ll`••''.'”1„,,,,,il't \.4,,tsg,Km,,o,'4.5y g,.,p•,,,p,,,,,:i:, ,,,T,'.. lit -..#„_-.4: ...4 .,,v.,.-4,-; ...,;:•-'..... 3.1.. .,,.....,..'-'•-i'''',IIMIgi. sl•..,,,,,I,,,,.,1i.jil nin; 0,.• 0.11445'„. .. _ 0"... s yera. 1 1 TH . sn'.. '',,,I.: '. 1. :_,,,?*- 4.2,411.4`g:.:•: ..1A4.::..v: . '.. T.r1r. 7.. FRrvti .--11n11211.1u511a11n1211 ' .1. i. I, sne4_ , r:,, f; im•;. e.,,1,,3,9. - , t- g, —. .., s 7•7=34-•,-,,'", 7" r"- M,. M..rj i‘' 4s:.,1' 1,3','' g„;'"'V?it‘v7r.' ET'S' T.P'0T', 1," 4d,,.•••it,'" S,,',T, 3t'1'..'§,'4T,-..',,„-'4„, I,, t;,,',,-,,, m,,,,,! K,, p.,/+'=,,.-.•: 4.,• t- AF.-•4,• V.•,:",,',s.4•: 5•,; ,,7i.',;i:".',0I...4'.11.",%;i' 7" o' T,, 7,,,g, ri,..,,,,•,`,,-,,,,i._:?•,,- a PIIIIV- - s mum-. 14114,1•0 ',it,' .',,,,,,,,,..1.4 ',,te,e40.!i 5't: ip111- ';'4',.'..--v.' 11-,q-cim-faclk,' -7-1,.&Elv---,.vti,,-,,,..1.I,g' *.4•.;' '.,•!..1 %Will Sit,;:.1224D R s S i pi;W 4 4'il t4i,t',.,•lit Ctl,..,!i °I,41,1"';-,. s" L,vb1'PS* lwi1I'1i iali' 3,* i•- snz1. z. 4-- J'A.. ri51--:. 1.12(926 94-.. 4• T. q74n.- 5A5, T.f1eri22irs,7. 33.; i......"•,. I' P s4, TL 1...... 4.' 5. i,• 1.' E 7.',. 0. 4:,. t,':,, 1?.,i.'.,.-..''',., 4 i, 4. 5,.. 4a:.. f: Y4'-:, 0'.'.; 10p" 1;':'.'• 0,,,,','-,,.,. 4,- 041.'y0''$'4''''....'..'• i i'lW• 4.'qi• 4,''.'.,' 1,,.'..11,.,,'';''./ i/ 1' i'1110! 7g"l. Q- 0Et... 7-•-' m 1" k, 1.: i,,,. nr,,;'4i,.:, j 1,} 1'.- S:,:', r,.. 0;:!" iI,•,'N•,' s '',.. l'i,•• o.'„ e'0' w••..,./,,' ' 4''1..... v• 4..' 4;' 4'::•.-.,. 1f. 4 4.• 4',. 1e...- 1-.. j••: P.. g..,,.• A i/ t„' 4,,..• I P1,.1-,•,, t- m'u e,,.67, 1:"7,,,i'' f=iii'c' S„?. 7.' 1',. H• 7‘, ii. n,- l- l1e.;i"' 1.-. 7,4X''-.f' 4Y.,( 1, 1' 4f-y t A' 2-,,41.140.'.,•4, 5,, 2..4,.. 1 1-,- M„. 4, t,' 4,!, 1!•), 6''• L.• t!,', ir•, 3*'11;,t21., i:,,, D.".';,' I,),.!" S.,.. 1' nI,,.4.,',; 6P',.,„',0, tq. i. 1..'0. i-, 1.• 11'.. e1 1,,.-<7, it4. 5-,_._' I: s ie NE 1 i ' ,v4 I / Subject Site tatr H - ' ' V o-E 4Th r _ Y;t1:4• -r;If4 i.'4'.',-..,,,..„ Fillli m i'',:- ;T ir..,,,r,,,L -,..,.p,o;.,,,,, .,,,4,-,,,,x,.=!:,.r..4.,.1 4.,'04-,4•04,f;:3);,,I,4,...00), ,,,e44.; ;si 7:ffifilvfrJ,,,,a..";'I7-. 's,i,,t1viff,Ig• `1', '„,,-,.' .....• , Nit7,,y W-I4 ''''''''''':;;-4 Ori'fVz•''''','...„1/41. 'jg ,-t-eiric--ii]OritA,i,';WiYi . 1,ppit 44 ii; . -,-!-,I,f.., ,ik-;,..„,..r(.•:i.'av,••••-•.Ly, .44`;,4'.' .....,,.7.•.,i;,:•., ,..? ,,,,,,,,,..v, -.., . lg-,,11..i ,zi.,„Ke4:-,;-,,,,,,L.-, • ,„._,.wk-4.,,,p,,,,,„,,,--R1'.-1;,.,:, 1.410..izL;,--f,,,,,0,,,m:,-,,,,,Ift,i,i,e,,,,i, . I, j4 ,4,r,,,,,,o,'•••:,0 ,::::..timiliFkilif.;"'e ," ,to,,r,Bit;.F.45 Eby,, tz,,,,.,1ser,-`-;,,i` ---;;IY4i*:-.' 1, 4T,.9".ical'"'"•'• ''.."••••''!"'",,,,.'••nitV•igigitrh LtE-- ci., NI.....,,,:. - A 1'Ilu.. .",..Ighi.111.4' '4444$1.:ill:44-avhil*'44:1.rif .-S.45tiii:-.Pl'• i41 1e a4'L',0* 5.T C;• ••i ra Mj rLeit,W., 'cif.iiii,Q,Ci•‘4 4, r! , 4., i ,vb(A.P. -11,1 -1,,A4 s.''', ,A. '',1-,.wi4VP24,1',;,,,-, il.4. , .4141 t•••• `'W"'•"' "' , ,' -`,'"CIS' • ,'..,• ..4 '.,..r. I 44.4,„;.•.''',",••••..„'.1%.Sp,,,,.:„.4,..,:gns,,T., ,r,„..,41;" 6.,414.0 c'..',...f,',,4,16.T.;,,k. 1 S I 4 r ft TIN . TC 3,,g2„,„,,S1•1TIITA 1 ,,.. ''• 401V' 7.„).'e I 'ert.:"..,',-.64f4;45r,ggt,gtz47i171;4.Meit,41"..iltir‘a.4t1;*,PT714'""""''',11,Til'34"1.•-• 4, 1 c`;', . 1.,5 VIOTM.!,stil.A.;11.C7CL,t1Nki§ kill,--.'*,sikW .!i3i',... .N. N, -...i'L'ifikil,VICV-gargYAN4.:g:rce..,./Vi'.1g1A4libt:;,Wli,VO4,,t,',4,0',i'.' Ipirlrorii r,T irnig y ,4.1'ENTO#14.i:.1,70,, .t, 113.,..)?{..",.1.,—',.,, ' 1,11, 5,'i,,;* '.....';:; © '-'4.4,:k:".0'i:'?'.:tli,'717,,,,kqN `',,^44;;Sg`'l'''', ',''...'-'44WAr.i.U''‘,';7;/'/.- . .• I 1.-- -..-...L•''' k -Pt,,411,601: 2 .-,9!41:4 ''.-'-'"'. "L'. 0 - '" itto"'• ,in:th.:dif04."' - i VV-1.4e`t .i'''.'`•'•P.f.-001i'tlii-'?:4,ili;,`,.'40t1`.iii;:.;''''''''i'iq,',:r4,'•14‘:Ft'e-',T•i.,/,'.'> .Orr1'.r:':•:4' 6:4'74 *Rgh• .,-l'.':'''''110'•'-"EMEgElliirIR'j'Y. 7.-..„'''•- rtic.2-1.tL i '.•': :‘'•.-4.-44'.`'s;;!'‘‘',Li44:4') ,.1-.i.,4'iirri!,,I.Az...::-."tt'Llt,'',7,M .: V-." , ,co ..,#.•,..":-.•',7,__...:,•,..,,....,,,_ ".,n k...../ ., , 9- -.,,,- ••Ir'4,-;' . '7,4',.•TIT,,,,,ri.i-,;?..n.,-..-,T,4.,.,,,I,,-01,-,7,e,t,',41..",,-;„,,,,,4,1-,,,,:g;,,,,,-4,,,l.,,.,„4.,,,,,,,,i1.;,,,41,-.- .. ,r7-43 7 tr'sq.,;-;"I'.,Ii';•i tIPTPI:-0 '''','", i4mui.'"" V,,,,..',,n,'-' 11!".'"r . ' Oe..0,.,•:-•, .,mom , -1-0;i:',,1•',-,:i%F•vojkl,...F.',..V,,,,,,y%:Ir.,,n,,..,,,,,b!•il.,114•Iiki.,e,p,,--FleillgON .••7.:74‘. '''''''''''--4'' ,:''' ''': ii:,''4;'C' ..,''''. .sw.--, -.7.,15.tillisplitt-.---it's .,',, 'it7,4. .,,,,--..--,-,:::::,., ,,,\c,`=/ .1•4.e _.z.e.,,,,,I,,.vvit,, J-.4-314:,,ittiw,-,4e,i-Avog,n,.,:,.J,,,,i,u,„::„..''. .,,.., 40' ,„ b.. ,", .:.1,,,:,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,, g,,,,,,, ,T,,,,,,t,,,, .:,41,1 ,..54 ' , '.'.41+:4,„1,.'i?i,„*P0.-,, .i. :.. 'i;-',t. 4k;-1 I.,).Q,4'3:,,''5,-47,,i0L. .03'4,:N,,111q.V.fri, ,:,....'sol.M5t,.:0)t',O.P.I.EL - • . .4. ,,t,,,'(.09,,,,,,,,,,4,,,, ,,,7,,,•40-,111:§: El '• ,, •a0,1,4,,,,,•,?..:,•;,,iyt,„.',.:.,,,,E,.., T,31.1.::: < •,-.•t 4, 0••••,-.,,,,,,,,TL,.. A.;••••::::-?(,tii:fiti,:egp:1:...!:;-,T:.•••:...:.1,il iy,;";,,,.., ,: ,..194,. ••'•,-8,..Li,67,, -.0t1,.'k• •'• 1'.•ii...Y.'!••,?•'''''' 'i. ..td011ARIA';,T1 a I 1 i'&•!:!"-t;EARLI. TQN.3-i147,:N.'.y,Iiri 4%.(0,,,,,;..'' ,T, '.6 1..,„ ,...4 p . rp.::.:101,41,i--, ';‘,. •'''.''':••-•,:...-•,-,•,, ":''''- ...<7. 11A,Stiliiiiiir,.:4;i ifl...::'•:;:::::.••;:,•:•.......:.;.7'.-"'-........"..:.:417:1 41 41),l'.':,Y-`,;,•1:;.;4 l'i,:,,i::„,,,. .-•.4 '. .441;;i4;5132,,, :r".1v,,-.,,:4 4,,X lee',i'.1-,...,4'f",..;i.,'..‘,,,'', ._'.4';',4'-';',-'4',..,,,,"1",kz,-,,' ,rSfr.:7.4-'- ,.261,'' A 5`! '.'., F t!i. I':i.;,' i,'V.I.,1311:::'1'f'•':•i'l'-'-'.4',.:• ••.-,•47,',',..,"riigly.','.2.,,,a-r-,.-1.11.k..W.,. " ',".;;:'...:::'.:...,.:•.•:'`..,•:',..'.;!q ._,t1Iri'igleUVA'; '?"„i5t ,',,,• `_.,,,'''''''',..:.,:i,d.,''''.',:•'",• ..,P,4,701P4Li.,":1?/i 7'7.4 if't,3'14, ,', ,,.1... ii %,i:',i.-441,11.4-.F•r'*Y4,:v;' ,.:,,.4:1:?,',.i.:; i6ics'isiff';',.1-i--,‘-‘,.•-,?!,'.:,;•....,..,...:...,..:-.;-.:..:Hi:,':.',.., .....7.-,:c7.1i...iiil •-,..fA,,,r-c'ttIaill'64r•-"''''•44T4'••• •r'ii''•S'• ••trti,, L'''. 1'''8 ST •'•• • ,,';';4 -I 7„TH,,„., .,, , •L•tvi,,..-.'1,.,t.. 65',..;;„.;,:i-'•-••.,:,-,i ,.,IT4yFai•:.;,4:(5)ter),9.4i,... •':'•:•:•:•.13 '•••••VE tpIrdvits"P',.*A.s.'•`.,,...-1. ,. 49 10.,:-.1,3,ii ..,.., itrau..., ,:..1,.. ..4g...14.:.---. .-,--5 = I.:,-I'lLi-.:::,',174:-.:7,..4kot 17.4...-1- •,4. ,. 5.1A.,1.1r r ,, ,,., a., L t, ,A1,2_, L_,,___ II 1• 1 Vicinity Map I 1 1 1 1 1., Exhibit 3 . 11 11 1 1! L lio.' r . .•. 1;` d-.• ;,: ;,..,, 4 $ 4 t * IP` Pk. V'' t PPS•, I ry• • Y.? + 5 /\ y;/.. t L ... i• ''' s, s• trt:','• ..• I It, 3 ' • ' . 3 PI , 4.' 4414*.:" , ,„ 0. 5: 1, 14. v- ''': •,\ '„ 443% . ''''•"‘ A y' 1', AM Iv l\ s •<,^ 7 G; 1 11: * s; E • 1 1 t A j 1 dr. froo0, r 4 1, t it. r....... 1 S..'', '- I^ I .,' 4z.'. 44,4... ..:,. V ' r ' er k,, 3,, IP 1. 1, 7 4 . AL, tlf t 1%) 0, N.; , . 4 / I i, t. i Kj:, j` it t! t t r. i,- i . P i. 1 I i\ w/' • if , J I A A n- Fr` P 1' Yt, rr t. I r• trSI i 9.- ie r: a r 1414::\ (. ' .. 14).' ' t t r a T( • t r4, A. 5 SQ` p, 1Ici; 610. '\ i. Cam ti Alb w y. .. r' t 1 ti• 5 I i 1 p' t + a • , Ili, b Cr , 1 .: ( Or- - 111, itt, H,• .' 00,:. ' • ; '', X.. 0 t7.i", I eiiiiite. 14 1 . 41411t141; rh. r" t, r - i :\ 15. ram• yri . i OP le... 1, 4,,.> iVi • k r ) r 1 4611). t ll r ' ia- • • ' SY +• t rr . t?_ •° r rPIN P. AID a ., Irl f N 1 ' Tr .> h1' ' f .. 0. 7C1r j e i r', mi.. F.A. ,, 1 1 t a? I ' ' i . 1' I I..- 0.- .,\\*, 1\* el 11 it: 4 4, ,. II. ,... p I ' 4". r. M- 41: t-'• r * 1 1 Z Yip ?, J, 1 •,,_ f 4• • t r 1 SOILS INVESTIGATION n 1 RENTON CONDOMINIUM SITE for HOMECRAFT3 , 1 I I I I 1 1 by EARTH SCIENCES I _ I i Exhibit 5 . li go 311:II:IES EARTH SCIENCES . 'ER !'ON BOX 126 HOBART,WASHINGTON 98025 ffif TEL: AREA 206-682-6942 Januar 8, 1981 Mr. Steve R. Clark, Planning Director Stepan & Associates, Inc. 930 South 336th Street, Suite A Federal Way, Washington 98003 Re: Homecraft 8.4 acre Renton site p Dear Mr. Clark: During the past month, you have solicited and negotiated approval of a proposal of technical services which I wrote for the Renton 8.4 acre Homecraft Land Development, Inc. condominium site. The specific area of serJice covered by the proposal includes soil exploration and the development of conclusions and recommendations for use in site planning and foundation design. The property is bounded on the west by power transmission lines and on the other sides by N.E. 3rd Street, N.E. 4th Streetj and unimproved Edmonds Avenue N.E. The site configuration and tentative building locations are shown on page 5 which I prepared from partia site plan provided by you. Most of the site was formerly a borrow pit and along all but the western edge, is cleared of vegetation. Terrain is relatively flat except fora I' ridge IS much as 20 feet high which runs along part of the west property line and a smaller ridge along part of the east property line. The westernedgeofthepropertysupportsgroundvegetationand .a few trees; evidently,9 P P Y PP 9 this area was spard from mining, possibly to avoid removing lateral support along the property line. b, II The buildings would be -of multiple story, wood frame construction, pre- sumably with slab on grade. In order to fully develop the available area, some o the westernmost buildings will be dug into the ridge there and the ground floor 'Drifts will include structural concrete walls along the west side. Although the grading plan is not finalized, it appears that some of the south end units may be founded on engineered fill.; such fill would be compacted under engineer inspection and would be certified as suitable for foundation support. As I explained earlier, a risk which is common to developing borrow pits its the po sible presence of major areas of fill which could seriously restrict constriction or which ,could require extensive site preparation. One of tI'e purpos s of my investigation was to evaluate that risk. The developer has'; also e pressed concern over slope stability in light of the grading which mill be req ired. Also, because the project will be VA financed, the soil investi- gation must satisfy that agency. The scope of work which I have completed 1 Mr. Steve R. C1 Page 2 January 8, 1981 and which is summarized herein is fairly standard in the engineering com- munit for projects of this type and I have submitted similar reports for; VA projects in the past. Subsurface Conditions II Soil and groundwater conditions were explored by digging 13 backhoe dug test 1 pits at locations which are shown on page 5. These were dug under my super- visio and were backfilled after examining and recording the conditions at each location. Logs describing the conditions in each test pit are summarized[ on 1 pages 6 and 7. Generally similar conditions were observed across most of the site. Perhaps the most importan observation was that there does not appear to be any major areas of existing fill . Within the area roughly bracketed by pits 3, 5, 6 and 8, piles of recent loose fill have been dumped. The total quantity of this fill does riot appear to exceed a few hundred yards, and it could be redistributed to exteri1or or landscape areas where it would not restrict development. Excjluding duff nd topsoil , all soil types noted were dominantly granular. Within the few yards, the most common types are clean sand and slightly silty (sand. In some locations gravel- and mixture or highly silty sand were found. All of the m jor soil types are dense and well drained. No gr undwater was observed in any of the test pits and, in view of the giranular natur of all the soils and the absence of a silt or clay matrix, it is doubtful whether even intermittent groundwater could exist in significant quantity,, even following periods of high precipitation. Conclusions Subswfface conditions, are almost ideally suited for development as your client proposes. The natural soils have good strength and slope stability character- istic up to 35° to 40° inclination. The greatest limitation will occur near the west property line where the soil will ravel and slough to its angle lof natural repose as excavation proceeds into the toe of the embankment. Develop- s ment gill amount to an improvement of this area, part of which is now unVege- tated and in a state of continuing gradual erosion and raveling. After back- fill as been placed behind retaining walls there, any remaining unvegeta'ted slope area could be recontoured to a more stable configuration and seeded. Considering the horizontal and vertical dimensions shown on the preliminary site plan, it appears that the buildings will be set back sufficiently far from the top of the slope and from the property line that no special construction procedures need_ be followed to keep the effects of excavation confined to the property. If the developer wishes to construct any of the units on fill , the on- site materials are relatively easy to compact and it might be possible to accomplish the earthwork even during winter months. The problems of I excavation are further simplified because vegetation and topsoil were removed from most of the site in association with mining. is I t I' Mr. Steve R. Clark h I. Page three January 8,. 1981 f' Recommendations 1 As is alwalys true in excavating for foundations,_good judgment and common I' sense are necessary in locating suitable bearing soil . It is possible that localized areas of fill or otherwise' unsuitable or questionable I, materials will be uncovered during construction which might require engineer inspection, deeper-than-planned excavation or other deviation from plan) For the most part, your grading plan will accurately show which units are to be founded on natural soil and which will be supported on fill . For those b ildings which are on undisturbed native soil , the . h footings could be designed to bear at pressures up to 4 ksf. Footings which are poured on compacted fill should be limited to 2 ksf. Minimum footing dimensions and depths of burial would be dictated by local building codes. Wherever adjacent finished grade slopes at 20° or. greater, I recommend that four feet be used instead of the 18 inches II burial depth which code allows. All structural fills should be built up from engineered and approved surfaces. The fill should be laid in individually compacted lifts to 1 at least 25 per cent bf maximum density as defined by the five-layer proctor method. A sl1ghtly less stringent density would be acceptable for areas of exterior improvements such as parking lots and sidewalks. Strict adherence to t ese specifications is essential to building quality. I therefore urge that all excavation be under my continuing inspection. The imporltance of inspection to quality and to the VA was addressed in my November 7 proposal in which I also stated the cost for that service. All existing fill should be removed and selectively incorporated into the engineered fills or wasted. Finished cut slopes should be no steeper than 12:1 (H.to V) . Fill slopes would be stable with respect to sliding at that same angle, however, it does not appear that fills will rise much above adjacent grades. All of the major soil types are highly erosive. This susceptibility is partiall offset by the permeability which allows most precipitation to soak in, so long as it is not permitted to channel and flow onto bared surfaces from outside the area of excavation. Considering the present unvegetated, high angle slopes along the west side, I doubt if development will amo nt to much change until after construction at which time, erosion and its -ffects will be reduced to near zero. As soon as grading is complete, I recommend that the slopes be reseeded and that ditches be provided where necessary to keep runoff off of the slopes. II i I Mr. Steve R. Clark Page four January 8, 1981 I Any of the naturalhn-site materials would be suitable for use as backfill behind retaining walls. Where the backslope behind those walls does not exceed 15°, I recommend that the walls be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 psf. For steeper backslopes, the lateral pressure on the wall will increase sharply. I advise against constructing rockeries over six feet high and only if the rockeries do nl t retain fill . Please let me know if you have any questions and notify me several days prior to the startiof earthwork so that I can schedule inspection time. , Yours very truly, . EARTH SCIENCES i l Jame-N. Eaton JNE/jed 01-100 3 copies submitted 1 L I ate _ —_. s i n I j i i I iI v, I 1. -. -HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. c).l. RENTON CONDOMINIUM SITE 12./. 40 to y; NORTH akSCALE. 1%100'c4S‘ .4 sliQC111 I 6 4C r.'3 I11 I 116 111 AVENUE SE i TEST PIT LOGS fl 0' - Brown gravelly well-graded sand (dense) 11 .5' •- Completed, no groundwater encountered f2 0' '- , Duff and topsoil with roots (soft) 0.8' - Brown slightly silty F-M sand with occasional roots (loose to medium dense) 3.4' - Brown F-M sand (dense) 10.9' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 13 0' - Brown gravelly well-graded sand (dense) 6.1 ' - Brown F-M sand (dense) 8.3' - Brown gravelly well-graded sand (dense) 11.4' - Completed, no groundwater encountered f4 0' - Duff and topsoil with roots (soft) 0.8' - Brovilin silty. F-M sand with occasional roots (loose to Tedium dense) 2.6' - Brown silty F-M sand (dense) 6.2' - Brown silty F-M sandy hardpan (very dense) 7.5' - Completed, no groundwater encountered f5 0' - Brown F-M sand with trace of silt (dense) 11 .3' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 416 0' - Brown F-M sand with trace of silt (dense) 11.6' - Completed, no groundwater encountered f7 0' - Duff and topsoil with roots (soft) 0.9' - Brown silty F-M sand with occasional roots (loose to medium dense) 4.5' - Brown well-graded sandy gravel (dense) 7.0' - Brown to gray F-M sand (dense) 8.2' Brown to gray silty F-M sand (dense) 10.4' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 8 0' - Brown F-M sand (dense)10.3' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 9 0' - Brown well-graded sand with fine gravel (dense)9.7' - Completed, no groundwater encountered, depthlimitedbycaving. 10 _ 0' - Brown fine sand with silt (dense)12.8' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 11 0 - Brown fine sand 10.5' - Completed, no groundwater encounteredeed 12 0' - Variable silt, sand and gravel fill0.6' - Brown fine sand with silt (dense)10.2' - Completed, no groundwater encountered 13 0' - Duff and topsoil with roots0.9' - Well-graded sand (dense)9.8' - Completed, no groundwater encountered depth limitedbycaving. CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION SITE APPROVAL FOR OFFICE USE ONLY File No. SA- 0/6",7/ Filing Date Z `P/ Application Fe $ /1;2" G Receipt No . Environmental Review Fee $ O1 • APPLICANT TO CIJMPLETE ITEMS' 1 THROUGH 6 : 1. Name HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Phone 575-4662 Address 320 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Wa. 98188 2 . Property location Between N.E. 3rd Street & N.E. 4th Street and west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) SEE ATTACHED L GAL DESCRIPTION I I II 4. Number of acres or square feet 8.4 Acres Present zoning R-4 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? Homecraft' Land Development Company proposes to develop the property as multiple-family residential . Spicifirally 14 buildings are proposed for a total of 280 dwelling units, 420 parking spaces, landscaping and recreational facilities. 6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application : A. Site ¶nd access plan (include setbacks , Scale existing structures , easements , and other factors limiting development) 1" = 10 ' or, 20' B. Parking, landscaping and screening plan 1" = 10 ' C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning on adjacent parcels) 1" = 200 ' tb 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) 7. LAND USE lEARING EXAMINER ACTION: Date Approved I ate Denied ate Appea ed Appeal Acton Remarks Planning D.epit. Rev. 1-7, 7 i ..„ .., _,..., _ ., _ . : . ... , . , . , . . 4:-,, ,.,-; :::.',--.,.:-..::. :::',.,±,:-.1,:'-':.:-.Tt.,---;,-.,., '-....- -„;--,--...:-.../.;.---,,;::-.-..-,.../.•------...-..%-...! 2 RENT NO.CONDOMINIUM PROJE CT I THE TERRACE t: LEGAL DESCRIPTION is THAT PORTION' OF THE'.,SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8,, L• TOWNSHIP.23 NORTH, RANGE-5'.EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF - 1,:. THE, NORTHEAST QUARTEROF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP .23 NORTH, ' 7:, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. ,• IN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 174 "'S.E.• 128TH STREET", EAST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT—OF—WAY DEEDED TO PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 2500771., AND NORTH OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE MORE NORTHERLY OF THE STRIPS OF LAND DEEDED TO CITY OF RENTON .FOR STREET BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 568419,8. SITUATED. IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON.. CONTAINING 8.4059 ACRES OF, LAND, MORE OR LESS. I Y._ 2581 RCH: U .S:" Home. orporation` H. Homecr'aft''Land Developments,, Inc. . i,; I. ir: a.' 1 G- ii_ K Y t . i: - t ;• 4an r r+ p y' h4' ey l,tr x„ y i( a. LC _ P _ x iv., p . im2_: ' _,•, •,: 1 AFFIDAVIT C. j P E II biv,SlorJ ESrbEJli_ d , I} hYl4E Coj1 7-+'1TIOrJ being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this )" day of fig .94y 19 /1 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Ii9NT'vi Name,- f Notary Public) Signat of 0 er 677 s7 Pa)\thE, f/ tEN AC Address) ' - Address) i I 11Ut)1L4 , kJ) . gele6 City) State) S7,S Telephone) 1 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) , 1 I i CERTIFICATION This is' to certify thlt the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has beein found tolbe thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application . Date Received 19 By: I 1 i Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 I i FII.E TITLE l rl+ yt f y'1dnrRe yy.K •f+• OP e t f+ e Li I t' M1 PM I I I