Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-2024 - HEX Decision - Renton Transit - LUA-24-0002331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 1 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: South Renton Transit Center Master Plan, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit. Lot Line Adjustment and Bicycle and Driveway Modifications PR21-000095 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary Sound Transit requests approval of Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Lot Line Adjustment and a bicycle parking and driveway modification to construct the South Renton Transit Center (SRTC) located at 750 Rainier Ave S. The applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. Exhibits Exhibits 1-42 as identified in the in the staff prepared document entitled “Exhibits” were admitted into the record during the October 15, 2024 hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 Exhibit 43 Applicant expert resumes Exhibit 44 Project History Exhibit 45 Notice of Application Exhibit 46 Affidavit of public sign Exhibit 47 Title Report Exhibit 48 Sound Transit Resolution R2021-05 Exhibit 49 Background on Parking Garage FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Gary Yao, Sound Transit, 401 S Jackson St, Seattle, WA 98104. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11:00 am on October 15, 2024. Substantive: 3. Project and Site Description. Sound Transit requests approval of Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Lot Line Adjustment and a bicycle parking and driveway modification to construct the South Renton Transit Center (SRTC) located at 750 Rainier Ave S. The subject property is approximately 8.3 acres and is mostly flat with impervious surfaces. Initially developed as an auto dealership and service garage, the businesses that were previously on the site have been relocated. Sound Transit has partnered with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to implement new bus rapid transit (BRT) service along I-405. As part of the I-405 BRT program, Sound Transit is proposing to construct BRT facilities in Renton, Burien, Tukwila, Bellevue, Kirkland, Bothell, and Lynnwood. The transit center would include stops for Sound Transit and King County Metro (KCM) routes, bus operator facilities, transit shelter canopy, eight (8) bus bays, 13-bus layover spaces with a gantry for bus charging, 158-stall surface parking lot for transit center users, and bicycle racks/lockers. Vehicle access would be from Rainier Avenue S and Lake Avenue S. Environmental review was completed by Sound Transit, as its own lead agency completed environmental review and issued a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Non- Significance on September 30, 2020. In 2021, the Applicant received a demolition permit, a critical areas exemption (for work within a Seismic Hazard Area), and a critical areas approval (for work within a Wellhead Protection Area) for the demolition and removal of the four buildings that were onsite. Additional work would include roadway improvements on Rainier Avenue S, Hardie Avenue SW, S Grady Way, and Lake Avenue S (APN 1923059032) to facilitate bus and pedestrian ingress and egress to the site, landscaping, utility improvements, and construction of a stormwater conveyance and treatment system. Grading would include approximately 12,906 cubic yards of cut and approximately 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 3 3 14,150 cubic yards of fill from an approved source. One of the two modification requests is composed of two modifications to driveway standards. RMC 4-4-080(I)(3)(c) limits driveway width to 30 feet. The Applicant requests an increase of less than four feet to this maximum width. RMC 4-4-080(I)(4)(b) limits the number of driveways to the site to 2.5 based upon a standard of no more than one driveway per 165 feet of street frontage. The Applicant requests 3.0 driveways. The other modification is to bicycle parking standards. RMC 4-4-080(F)(11)(b)(v) requires that bike parking be located within 50 feet from any entrance to an enclosed building onsite. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to allow for the transit bays and core transit facilities to be located on one (1) parcel, two (2) other parcels would each include a surface parking lot, and the fourth parcel would include the bioretention facility proposed along S Grady Way. 4. Surrounding Uses. Surrounding land uses are primarily composed of auto dealerships, some transitional housing and a retail office. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. A State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-significance (DNS) was issued on September 30, 2020 and a subsequent DNS Addendum was also issued (Exhibit 29 and 30). Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Compatibility, Structure Placement, Overconcentration and Scale. As conditioned, the structure placement and scale are not expected to create undue adverse impact on the adjacent uses and is designed to protect privacy and reduce noise for on- and off-site occupants and to maintain compatibility with existing development and surrounding uses. Surrounding uses are fully compatible in size and scale. The South Renton Park and Ride is to the east of the project site, which integrates well with the project. The staff report aerial photograph shows the projects site bounded primarily by parking or car lots or major arterials except for a couple commercial buildings on the north side. Commercial uses and buildings of similar scale are almost exclusively located in the vicinity of the project, except for what appears to be some single family residential property a few blocks to the northeast, north of SW 7th St. There are no sensitive receptors such as residential homes, churches, schools, or recreational areas located immediately adjacent to the site. The proposal is also ideally compatible in function and use. The proposal is a key element of the City’s 2021 Rainier/Grady Junction TOD Subarea Plan and the City’s 2021-2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TIP #20-45, BRT Improvements would ensure speed and reliability of the BRT system into and out of the SRTC. The Subarea Plan aims to provide “[…] a vision and strategies to guide future growth and achieve a holistic, people- oriented neighborhood around Sound Transit's planned BRT line and transit center at the intersection of Rainier Ave S and S Grady Way.” The Subarea Plan strategies create a framework to facilitate mixed-use development, maximize multimodal transportation options, improve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 4 4 pedestrian connectivity, and integrate the subarea with adjacent areas by establishing a distinct neighborhood from Downtown but that is consistent with the goals of the City Center Community Plan. The Subarea Plan also identifies key opportunities associated with the proposal and increased levels of activity in the area that include establishment and support of a thriving business district, creation of multimodal, mixed-use corridor streets, and strengthening of the area’s role as a regional jobs center. Sound Transit’s proposal and BRT projects are an essential part of the Subarea Plan in increasing multi-modal transportation, increasing activity in the area of Rainier/Grady junction, and increasing the connectivity of the Rainier/Grady junction and downtown Renton area. The proposal also does not serve as a detrimental overconcentration of use. Within the City of Renton, there is only one existing transit center, located approximately one mile away from this project, which is insufficient to serve the needs for future residents. The City of Renton 2014 Comprehensive Plan provides that existing transportation facilities are reaching the end of their design life and not meeting demand for alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. The proposal would be unique to the area and would connect to the South Renton park-and-ride immediately to the east and to key bus corridors in the City Center area. The proposal addresses the gaps (and lack of concentration) of public transportation in the area. B. Views/Shoreline Access. No significant obstruction of existing views of natural features are anticipated, including view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. The proposed structures associated with the proposal would be single story structures and are small in scale and not expected to adversely impact views. C. Noise, light and glare. The proposal will not create any significant noise, light or glare impacts. The architectural elevations (Exhibit 10) include lighting details. Luminaires will provide lighting throughout the site with 25-foot (25’) mounting heights, which will be installed according to guidelines in RMC 4-4-075. There would be a slight increase in visible artificial lighting where lights would be used to safely illuminate the walkways and parking areas; the transit center island; and the potentially illuminated BRT-branded pylon. Lights would also be used to illuminate the site following Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design standards to help create a safer environment. This increased lighting would occur in low levels of natural light and in the evening and night but according to the staff report would not be expected to noticeably increase lighting levels in the surrounding area. These lighting levels would comply with the requirements of Sound Transit’s Design Criteria Manual, which includes a requirement to eliminate light trespass onto nearby windows and adjacent properties. In addition, the project would comply with Sound Transit’s Design Criteria Manual requirement to provide street and highway lighting that conforms to the criteria and standards of the city. According to the staff report, it is not anticipated that the proposal would result in excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and street. The Applicant contends that potential noise impacts from the proposed transit center have been evaluated and would be adequately mitigated. There are no sensitive noise receptors near the site. As previously noted, surrounding uses are primarily large parking or car lots with just a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 5 5 couple commercial buildings in close proximity. Prior to construction, the contractor would develop a Noise Control Plan demonstrating how the local noise limits can be achieved. Construction equipment would generate noise during the day and night. None of the noises generated on the completed facility would exceed the City of Renton’s maximum permissible sound level for the site’s zoning or that of nearby receiving sites. The project would adhere to maximum environmental noise level regulations in RMC 8-7-2, which adopts WAC 173-60- 020, 173-60-040, 173-60-050, and 173-60-090. If construction noise is anticipated to exceed the maximum environmental noise levels per the WAC 173-60, Sound Transit would apply for a noise variance per RMC 8-7-8. During operations, typical noise from buses entering and leaving the transit center or traveling in the bus-only lanes would include noise from tires, propulsion motors, and other auxiliary equipment on the vehicles, which is predicted to be a 24-hour day/night level (Ldn) of 57 dBA at 1 S Grady Way, the nearest noise-sensitive receiver. This is well below the existing measured noise level of an Ldn of 72 dBA and would not exceed the Federal Transportation Administration Ldn noise impact criteria (66 dBA for a moderate impact and 72 dBA for a severe impact). Roadway improvements at the SRTC would not increase capacity or substantially change the vertical or horizontal roadway alignment. The improvements would result in minimal to no change to overall traffic volumes on the roadway; therefore, no change to the overall traffic noise levels is expected. D. Screening. As conditioned, unattractive site features will be adequately screened from view and separated from other uses. A screening detail (Exhibit 13) was submitted with the application materials. Screening would be provided for all surface-mounted equipment. The equipment yard would be screened with metal fencing, perforated metal over metal fencing, a metal canopy, and columns. In addition, landscaping is proposed between the equipment yard and the shared-use path on S Grady Way, further screening the equipment yard from view. While no rooftop equipment is currently proposed for the site, the charging gantry, located at the bus layover charging yard would have elevated equipment for charging electric buses. The charging gantry would be wrapped on both sides of the horizontal truss with a pattern design feature to screen the equipment from view. The columns of the charging gantry would also be wrapped. Sound Transit, KCM, and the city are in coordination on the design of the gantry wrap. A condition of approval requires that the design of the gantry wrap be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a building permit. The proposal doesn’t include any the proposal doesn’t include any loading or delivery areas so no screening or separation is necessary for those areas. E. Fencing and Retaining Walls. Proposed fencing and retaining walls will not create any significant impacts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 6 6 As shown on the submitted Site Plan (Exhibit 2), a low retaining wall is proposed along the north property line, adjacent to the transit center loop. The maximum visible extent of the retaining wall from the property to the north would be approximately 3.3 feet (3.3’). An eight-foot (8’) high fence is proposed on top of the retaining wall and would exceed the 50% transparency requirement. As design progresses, it is anticipated that all retaining wall and fencing standards would be met, however if an element of these standards cannot be met, a modification would be required. F. Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any natural features and will protect the natural landscape. A conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 3) was submitted with the project application materials. The project’s landscaping plan shows the retention of existing street trees along Rainier Ave S. Tree removals were selected based on tree health and conflicts with transit center feature and frontage improvement construction. Currently, most of the site is paved as part of its former use as an auto dealer and repair shop. The project will increase the amount of landscaping on the site. There are no existing critical areas that require preservation on the project site. G. Landscaping. Aesthetic, noise, light and privacy impacts will be minimized by existing and proposed landscaping. A Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 3) was submitted with the land use application materials. The submitted conceptual landscape plan includes the minimum required 10-foot (10’) landscaping strips on all sides of the site abutting a public street. Street frontage landscaping would include a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The Conceptual Landscape Plan, Ex. 3, includes landscaping within the proposed surface parking lot. The proposed parking lot would include a total of 158 parking spaces, requiring 35 square feet per parking space (or a total of 5,530 square feet of landscaping). The project proposes to allocate approximately 8,873 square feet of interior parking landscaping. All interior parking lot landscaped areas exceed the required dimensions. No parking space would be further than 50 feet (50’) from a landscaped area within the proposed parking lot. The project proposal includes three (3) meandering bioretention facilities. Landscaping is proposed surrounding the perimeter of these facilities. The vegetation within the bioretention facilities, and the facilities themselves, would comply with the current City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. H. Critical Areas. There are no existing critical areas that require preservation on the project site. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The proposal will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. The Applicant has submitted a preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 9) with the land use application that identifies improvements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 7 7 that the Applicant will install to connect to existing City of Renton water and sewer lines. The proposal will be subject to system development charges to cover pro-rata impacts to the City’s water and sewer system. B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Renton Regional Fire Authority has determined that the preliminary fire flow demand for the proposed development is 1,500 gpm for the new buildings and development including the use of an automatic fire sprinkler system. The water main improvements will be required to provide domestic and fire protection service to the development in compliance with adopted City codes and regulations. C. Drainage. Adequate drainage facilities are proposed. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 25), which proposes a drainage system that staff has found as conditioned to comply with the 2022 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM) and other City stormwater standards. Conformance to the RSWDM and associated standards establishes adequate provision for drainage. The TIR analyzes existing conditions and proposed surface water collection and distribution. Based on the City of Renton’s flow control map, the site falls under Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (matching Existing Site Conditions) and is located within the Black River drainage basin. The development is subject to a Full Drainage Review in accordance with the 2022 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). All nine (9) core requirements and the six (6) special requirements have been discussed in the Technical Information Report. The detention, water quality and conveyance shall be designed in accordance with the RSWDM that is current at the time of the civil construction permit application. The Applicant has proposed to connect to the City of Renton’s storm drainage system located in four (4) distinct locations matching the existing threshold discharge areas in Rainier Ave S, S Grady Way, Lake Ave S and Hardie Ave S. The project is not proposing any drainage diversions. Due to the project site’s location within the peak rate flow control matching existing conditions basin and having an existing impervious coverage of nearly 100%, a formal detention system would not be triggered. During the civil construction permit process, the final plans will be reviewed in full detail to ensure that the flow control standards are being met as outlined in the 2022 RSWDM. The Applicant is proposing to use the modular wetlands, biofiltration swales and Filterra units in order for the project to meet the enhanced water quality requirements. The facilities are located throughout the site and within Rainier Ave S and Lake Ave S to meet Core Requirement #8. The development is subject to a surface water system development charge (SDC) fees. Fees will be charged based on the rate at the time of construction permit issuance. The 2024 SDC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 8 8 fee is $0.92 per square foot of new impervious surface plus administrative costs, but not less than $2,300. D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parks and open space. Overall, City standards do not require any specific amounts of open space. There is existing visually prominent artwork on the corner of Rainier Ave S and S Grady Way that will be preserved. Sound Transit is also providing a scenic shared-use path with landscaping, plaza pathways, seat walls, lighting, and a meandering bioretention facility that will mimic a stream. E. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities. Access to the parking lot will be from a side street (Lake Ave S) and through existing driveways on Rainier Ave S. No new access routes will be created on arterials. The Applicant contends that the proposed driveways would meet the safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability goals of the code. All driveways would have marked crosswalks and the driveways onto Rainier Ave S at Hardie Ave SW would have signalization making it safer than a standard driveway for both pedestrians and motorists, and also improving the baseline condition at the intersection. The staff report finds that the proposed pedestrian and vehicular access provide a safe and efficient system for pedestrians and vehicles. As shown on the submitted site plan (Exhibit 2), pedestrian walkways and landscaping are both proposed throughout the site. Access to the bus bays is emphasized by the pedestrian access, with access from Lake Ave S and Rainier Ave S located at the northeast and southeast corners of the site respectively. Pedestrians on S Grady Way may access the site through two (2) plaza pathways from the proposed shared-use path or at the southeast corner via a proposed walkway adjacent to Lake Ave S, or they may walk north along the improved sidewalk on Rainier Ave S to the aforementioned northwest entrance. The proposed buildings can then be accessed via Rainier Ave S entrance or via the bus bays for pedestrians coming from Lake Ave S or S Grady Way. The Applicant’s traffic studies have found that the proposal will not reduce intersection level of service standards. The traffic studies are composed of an Interim Parking Traffic Analysis Summary Memo dated May, 2022 (Exhibit 21), a Traffic Analysis for Transit Access to South Renton Transit Center dated September, 2022 (Exhibit 22), and an Additional Transportation Analysis Memorandum dated June, 2024 (Exhibit 23) were submitted with the formal application materials. Based on the calculations provided, weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 221 new vehicle trips, with 53 vehicles leaving and 168 vehicles entering the site in the interim scenario and 380 new vehicle trips, with 75 vehicles leaving and 305 vehicles entering in the full build out scenario. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 234 new vehicle trips, with 62 vehicles entering and 172 vehicles exiting the site in the interim scenario and 404 new vehicle trips, with 92 vehicles entering and 312 vehicles exiting the site in the full build out scenario. As detailed in the report the proposed project is not expected to lower the levels of service of the surrounding intersections included in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 9 9 traffic study and only increased by a maximum of 15 seconds in the five (5) study intersections. F. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transit and bicycle facilities. The proposal is of course a transit facility and will significantly add to the functionality and convenience of transit service to City guests and residents. On the north property line, a twelve-foot (12’) wide multi-use path is proposed that would provide pedestrian connectivity from Lake Ave S to Rainier Ave S. The City’s Public Works Department has identified this proposed multi-use path as a missing link for a bicycle infrastructure connection. In order for this path to serve as a bicycle infrastructure connection, the width of the path would need to be widened from twelve feet (12’) to fourteen feet (14’). A condition of approval requires that the twelve-foot (12’) wide multi-use path proposed along the north property line be widened to fourteen feet (14’). In order to accommodate this additional two feet (2’), it would be acceptable to reduce the proposed eight-foot (8’) landscape strip along the south side of the path to six feet (6’). Revised plans showing the widened multi-use path shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Utility Construction Permit review. The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the number of required off-street vehicle parking spaces. The proposal includes bicycle parking that exceeds 10% of the provided number of vehicle parking stalls. The proposal includes 158 total parking spaces, ten percent (10%) of those spaces would total 16 spaces. The proposal includes bicycle parking for up to 36 bicycles, which includes seven (7) secure bicycle racks (two bicycles each) and 11 lockers (two bicycles each), which exceeds the ten percent (10%) parking stall standard. Bicycle parking would not be located within 50 feet (50’) of an entrance to an enclosed building as required by City standard because the proposed core facilities and security buildings are not for public use. A modification pursuant to RMC 4- 9-250 has been requested to waive this requirement (Exhibit 32) and is approved by this decision. G. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking. The City’s development standards do not require a specific number of parking spaces for transit centers, however, as part of the proposed project a parking lot would be provided. The proposed parking lot on the site would provide 158 parking spaces (6 Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] stalls; 5 reserved stalls; 1 electric vehicle (EV) charging stall, and 146 carpool stalls) for the proposed transit center (Exhibit 2). T3 initially included a parking garage at this location, but Sound Transit Board Resolution 2021-05 (commonly known as Realignment) indefinitely delayed the parking garage in response to budget shortfalls. However, a future phase could include a parking garage and/or transit-oriented development (TOD) over the temporary surface parking lot. Currently, Sound Transit staff does not have the authority to apply for a parking garage entitlement or to surplus land for TOD. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 10 10 Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies master site plans and hearing examiner conditional use applications as Type III applications, administrative site plan applications as Type II applications and modifications as Type I applications. RMC 4- 8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure.” Consequently, the consolidated master site plan, hearing examiner site plan, shoreline substantial development permit and street modification applications are subject to Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), Type III review is subject to hearing and final decision by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan/Design District Designations. The subject property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and is in Urban Design District D, 3. Review Criteria/Modification and Lot Line Adjustment Approval. Site plan, hearing examiner conditional use, lot line adjustment and bicycle/driveway modifications are required of the proposal. It’s unclear why master plan approval is necessary. The lot line adjustment and modifications are approved as discussed below. The proposals under review include a master plan application. The staff report doesn’t identify why master plan review is required and there is nothing in the record that suggests such review is necessary. For CA development RMC 4-9-200(B)(1) only requires master plan review for sites over 2.5 acres slated for residential development or phased review. The proposal doesn’t involve either feature. Type II Site plan review is required for the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2) requires site plan review for al development within the CA zone. None of the RMC 4-9-200(C)(2) exemptions apply. RMC 4-9-200(D)(2) identifies the criteria for when site plan review is subject to hearing examiner review, changing its classification from a Type II site plan to a Type III site plan. RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(b) requires Type III review for large scale projects. The proposal doesn’t qualify as large scale under those parameters so no hearing is required for that reason. RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(a) requires Type III review when the Environmental Review Committee determined that there are significant unresolved concerns raised by the proposal. The staff report doesn’t address this criterion. However, since the staff report doesn’t label the site plan as a “hearing examiner site plan,” the Environmental Review Committee presumably did not find any unresolved concerns. A conditional use permit is required because RMC 4-2-060 requires such a permit for transit centers in the CA zone. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 11 11 All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Modification standards are governed by RMC 4-9-250.D. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 21 and 22 of the staff report are adopted by reference and it is concluded that the proposal meets the criteria for the street modification identified in Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 3. The driveway and bicycle parking modifications identified in FOF No. 3 is approved on that basis. Lot line adjustments are governed by RMC 4-7-060B. Finding No. 24 of the staff report assesses compliance with RMC 4-7-060B and is adopted by this reference. The lot line adjustment is approved on that basis. Master Plan and Hearing Examiner Site Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail: a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria. b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3- 2012) 4. The proposal involves combined site plan and master plan review. As noted in Conclusion of Law No. 3, there is no apparent reason why master plan review is required of the Applicant. However, as noted in the criterion quoted above, the same criterion that apply to master plan review also apply to site plan review, although just at a more generalized level. In this regard an Applicant that establishes conformance to site plan review establishes conformance to master plan review if the proposal is the same for both. Master plan review might not be required for the proposal, but since the Applicant meets the site plan criteria as outlined below, the same proposal also meets the standards for master plan approval. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 12 12 i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in Finding No. 161 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in Finding No. 17 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “D” and consistent with Design District “D” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 18 of the staff report. No planned action ordinance or development agreement applies. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(A), circulation by 1 References to findings in the staff report are designed by “Finding No. _____.” References to findings from this recommendation are “FOF No. _____.” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 13 13 FOF 6(E), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(D), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(G) and lighting by FOF 5(C). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(A). Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(G) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above. Natural features are adequately protected as outlined in FOF No. 5(F) and (H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 14 14 8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(E) and the driveway modification requests, the proposal minimizes driveway access to the extent reasonably feasible for a transit center. The proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(E). No loading or delivery area is proposed. The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(F). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in FOF 6(D). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 10. The criterion is met. The proposed structure would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier as determined in FOF 5B. The public access requirement is not applicable to the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 11. The criterion is met. The proposal adequately protects natural systems for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5(F) and (H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 13. Phasing is not proposed. CONDITIONAL USE The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: RMC 4-9-030(D)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 15 15 14. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards as determined in COL No. 5. RMC 4-9-030(D)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 15. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal as conditioned is compatible with surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure, will not create significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties and does not create a detrimental overconcentration of use. For these reasons the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. RMC 4-9-030(D)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 16. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(D)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(D)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 18. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6G, the site is served by adequate parking. RMC 4-9-030(D)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 19. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities. RMC 4-9-030(D)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 20. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal as conditioned will not result in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts. RMC 4-9-030(D)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 16 16 21. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5G, the project will comply with the City’s landscaping requirements.. DECISION For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the Applicant’s applications for master plan review, site plan review, conditional use permit and driveway and bicycle parking modifications are met by the proposal and the applications are approved subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The twelve-foot (12’) wide multi-use path proposed along the north property line shall be widened to fourteen feet (14’). In order to accommodate this additional two feet (2’), it would be acceptable to reduce the proposed eight-foot (8’) landscape strip along the south side of the path to six feet (6’). Revised plans showing the widened multi-use path shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Utility Construction Permit review. 2. Payment for any tree credits shall be received prior to the issuance of the Civil Construction Permit. 3. The design of the gantry wrap shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design of the charging gantry wrap will screen from public view the equipment within it, and will be cohesive with the overall site design. 4. Details for the proposed benches shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. The design of the benches shall be made of durable and vandal- and weather- resistant materials that do not block pedestrian access, and will be cohesive with the overall site design. 5. A materials board shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Building Permit application. The materials chosen for the core buildings and bus island canopies will be cohesive with the overall project design. 6. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted Geotechnical Report, prepared by WSP, dated March 21, 2022 or future addenda. 7. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction plans and the building permit plans to verify compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer shall provide his/her seal on the following plans that are based on geotechnical engineering recommendations: structural engineering drawings and typical section drawings which include the pavement sections and excavation requirements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 17 17 Decision issued October 29, 2024. Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the consolidated application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 12 Appendix A October 15, 2024 Hearing Transcript Renton Transit Center -- PR21-000095 Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available at the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:17): Alright. Yeah, for some reason we're getting a little bit of an echo, but I think we can work with that. Okay. Alright. For the record, it's October 15th, 2024, 11:00 AM I'm Phil, a hearing examiner for the City of Renton, holding a hearing this morning on an application from Sound Transit for the South Renton Transit Center. The permits involved, applications involved are for master plan approval, site plan approval, conditional use permit, lot line adjustment, the bicycle parking modification and driveway modification. So a few things to consider here and the hearing format is we'll have a presentation from staff and who's our lead staff person today for the city of Brenton? Is that you? Planner Ding: (01:04): Jill? Jill Ding. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:05): Okay. Jill Ding will give us an overview of the project when she's done. We'll move on to applicant comments and after that then we'll move on to public comments. The purpose of the hearing today, anyone who wishes to participate today, I'll have an opportunity to do so. When we get to that portion of the hearing, I'll explain how you can make yourself heard. Once we've gotten all those comments, we'll go back to Ms. Sting to answer any questions that were raised during public comment and or the applicant as well as that's her opportunity to complete the record with any other information she finds necessary for a good and thorough review of the review criteria. Once Mrs Ding is done, we'll move on to applicant's. They get final word and I get 10 business days to issue a final decision. And Mr. Ros, I guess as usual you have a copy of the exhibit list. Maybe you want to post those right now so we can go over the documents that are going to be considered. Speaker 4 (01:59): I do, yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:00): Alright. Speaker 5 (02:06): Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 12 Okay, Examiner Olbrechts: (02:07): There we go. Okay, so Speaker 5 (02:10): Let me show you the first page here. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:12): This is Speaker 5 (02:12): What we currently have. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:14): Yeah, a lot of work went into this one. As you can see, we have a total of how many exhibits, Ms. Cisneros, along with the staff PowerPoint and everything, 39 documents in total, which includes traffic, drainage, grading reports, architectural elevations and that kind of thing. At this point, just want to ask, and Mrs. SROs is kind of going through, scrolling through the list on the screen. If anyone needs to see any of those documents or has any concerns, objections with their entry in the record, now's the time to let us know. Just click on the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen, not seeing any takers. So I will go ahead then and admit exhibits one through 39 and Mr. Ros, that doesn't include the rent and core maps and all that, right? So we got a Speaker 5 (02:57): Little bit more. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:58): It's not okay, here's Speaker 5 (02:58): The next page that we would like to introduce into. But today, Examiner Olbrechts: (03:01): Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. So we also have 40 would be the staff PowerPoint, the City of Renton maps at the city's website, which are kind of aerial photographs, critical area maps, that kind of thing of the project site. And then finally Google Earth gives us another aerial viewpoint of the project. Any objections over 40 through 42. Again click on the virtual hand, seeing no objections, those are admitted as well. So, alright, Ms. Sting, let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Speaker 5 (03:30): I do. Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 12 Examiner Olbrechts: (03:30): Oh, great. Go ahead Planner Ding: (03:34): All, let me share my screen so you can see the PowerPoint. Are you seeing the PowerPoint Speaker 5 (04:01): Correctly or is it, there's notes a little different. Examiner Olbrechts: (04:04): Yeah, there's notes. Speaker 5 (04:05): Yeah. Planner Ding: (04:06): Okay. It's always a little tricky, isn't it? Is it under display settings? Is this right? I think so, yes. Okay, Examiner Olbrechts: (04:16): There we go. Planner Ding: (04:17): There we go. Okay, good. Thank you. I always need a little bit of a refresher on how to do this at these hearings. So good morning, my name is Jill Ding. I am a senior planner here with the city of Renton. I am here to present the staff recommendation for the South Renton Transit Center and Roadway Improvement Project. Just to start out with a brief description of the proposed project, the applicant sound transit is requesting master plan review, site plan review, a hearing examiner, conditional use permit, lot line adjustment, bicycle parking modification, and driveway modification for the construction of the South Renton Transit Center. You can see a vicinity map identified where the site is located. It's at the northeast intersection of Southwest Grady Way and Rainier Avenue South. It is located within our commercial arterial or ca zone. There are high seismic hazard areas mapped on the site and it is also mapped within a downtown well head protection area zone two. The site is mostly flat and is comprised of impervious surfaces. (05:49): Okay, and to continue my description, sound transit has partnered with the Washington State Department of Transportation, implement a new bus Rapid Transit Service along I 4 0 5. The transit center would include stops for sound transit and King County metro routes, bus operator facilities, transit, shelter, canopy eight bus space, 13 bus layover spaces with a gantry for bus charging 158 surface parking stall for transit center users and bicycle racks and lockers. So as far as the analysis staff has reviewed the proposed project and has routed it to other pertinent departments for compliance with city adopted codes and regulations, we found that the proposal is consistent with the relevant comprehensive plan, land use and transportation element policies. The proposal is compliant with all relevant zoning and urban design regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with. The proposal is compliant with the critical areas regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with. Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 12 The proposal is compliant with the conditional use permit criteria if all conditions of approval are complied with. The proposal is compliant with the master plan and site plan review criteria if all conditions of approval are complied with, the proposal is compliant with the bicycle parking and driveway modification criteria if all conditions of approval are complied with and the proposal is compliant with the lot line adjustment principles of acceptability if all conditions of approval are complied with. (07:50): We also, as I noted, routed it to other departments for review. Police and fire prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. Water and sewer service is provided by the city of Renton. Water and sewer improvements will be required within and around the project site. A drainage report prepared by Osborne Consulting Inc. Was submitted with the application materials. The proposed project would provide modular wetlands, biofiltration, s swales and TER units to meet water quality requirements. And the proposed project would be required to comply with the city of Renton surface water design manual. (08:38): So with that staff is recommending approval of the South Renton Transit Center and Roadway Improvement Project. The file number is LUA 24 dash 2 33 as depicted in exhibit number two and we have recommended seven conditions of approval after the issuance of the staff recommendation, the applicant and the city met and came to an agreement on some revised wording on a few of the conditions. So I have got that information next. So we've got some post amendments here that we have come to an agreement on for conditions 3, 4, 5 and 7, 3, 4 and five. The condition language recommended by staff remains the same but there is a sentence that is added. I've underlined that. So that is the change to those conditions. So for conditional number three, which regarding the design of the gantry wrap, we are recommending adding the design of the charging gantry wrap. We'll screen from public view the equipment within it and will be cohesive with the overall site design condition. (10:07): Number four, we recommend adding the design of the benches shall be made of durable and vandal and weather resistant materials that do not block pedestrian access and will be cohesive with the overall site design condition. Number five, we recommend adding the materials chosen for the core buildings and bus island canopies will be cohesive with the overall site design and condition. Number seven, we are recommending that this condition be reworded. The applicant had some concerns about having their geotechnical engineer sign a sealed letter that they had reviewed the plans. They're instead requesting that the geotechnical engineer stamp the applicable plans to verify that they have reviewed the plans and that they are in compliance with the recommendations of their report. So we're recommending that condition seven Now read the applicant's geotechnical engineer shall review the project's building and civil permit plans to verify compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer shall provide his first seal on the following plans that are based on geotechnical engineering recommendations, structural engineering drawings and typical section drawings which include the pavement sections and excavation requirements. That concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions? Examiner Olbrechts: (11:45): No. Well, just a real quick one, I took a quick look at the traffic report and it looks like part of the traffic analysis was dependent upon a couple of road projects. I'm just kind curious what the status of the road projects is. Are those that have been funded and pretty much guaranteed to move forward or where are they at? Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 12 Planner Ding: (12:03): So we have a development engineer, Mike cipo should be on the should present and kids should be able to answer that question for you, Mike. Examiner Olbrechts: (12:13): Okay. Mr. spo, let me swear you in real quick once you get on, do you swear or prefer to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Speaker 6 (12:22): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (12:22): Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 6 (12:25): Yes. So the biggest portion of the traffic changes, there's one portion of the project that is going to do some improvements along state Route 1 67 at the Butterfly interchange with I 4 0 5. And that is actually a portion of this project which will be under the purview of lost stock. The other project in question is the King County Eyeline Project, which will be installing new bus travel lanes on the north side of Grady Way. And so that project is anticipated to actually begin construction before this project is. Examiner Olbrechts: (13:02): Okay. Great. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate it. Yes. Alright, let's move on to applicant's and Applicant's don't want to say anything, you don't have to, but now's your chance. Speaker 7 (13:13): Yes, we'll say something. Examiner Olbrechts: (13:14): Okay. Sounds good. And are you Mr. Alek, is that correct? Speaker 7 (13:18): Mr. Alek Examiner Olbrechts: (13:19): Alch. Okay. Let swear you in. Mr. Alek, do you raise your right hand? Do you swear Affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth this proceeding? Speaker 7 (13:25): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (13:26): Okay, great. Go ahead. Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 12 Speaker 7 (13:28): Awesome. Nice to meet you Mr. Rex. Hearing Examiner, I have myself today, Joey Halek, senior project manager at Sam Transit. And just to kind of give you an intro in my role in the project, I've been leading this project for the past two and a half years through the final design effort to get us to where we are today overseeing the design and future construction of the project. I also have with me here, Gary Yow. He is not on camera right now, but give him a second to put his camera on. Okay. Everybody Examiner Olbrechts: (14:05): There. It's Speaker 7 (14:07): Gary Yaow here. He is a senior current planner at Sound Transit. I've been working hand in hand with Gary as he is the land use expert on the project, understanding all of the land use project. And then I wanted to go through and talk to you about a few brief comments regarding four particular items we had. I'll state them off one by one and if you have no preference on how I address them, I'll just go through 'em each one by one. Examiner Olbrechts: (14:33): Sure. The Speaker 7 (14:34): First one. Sure. First one is that we have sound transit staff on the call as well as sound transit consultants, the ones who are behind the actual design of the project doing the important and very work that we appreciate. We also have the SAM Transit consult staff, the resumes, and we would be submitting that as an exhibit, additional exhibit to the record with that exhibit and future additional exhibits that I'll go over shortly. If you have a preference on how you would like to perceive those, whether it's via email, either during this hearing, during this public hearing or after, please let us know. Examiner Olbrechts: (15:12): Yeah, well yeah, I think in terms of getting them admitted, I'll just wait until you're done with your presentation and then we'll just try to get 'em all admitted at the same time and then you can email them to me afterwards. That'll probably Speaker 7 (15:22): Work Examiner Olbrechts: (15:23): Fine. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 7 (15:24): Sounds good. Awesome. The second item that we're going to talk about, I'm going to talk about is the project background, which will also be an additional exhibit that we're going to submit to the record. That one just outlines the overall history of the project and coordination and collaboration we've been doing with the city of Renton. The third item is some clarifications and comments on the city's draft staff report and the recommendations as outlined in this presentation. And the final one, as I addressed Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 12 earlier, is providing additional exhibits as submitting those to the record, which we'll do at the end of my spiel I'll informally note. So if you have no preference on how you want to receive that information, I'll go ahead and start one by one from when I list it off. Examiner Olbrechts: (16:16): Okay, Speaker 7 (16:17): Cool. Awesome. Gary, did you want to pull up the resumes exhibit? Awesome, thank you Gary. So this is one of the additional exhibits that we'll be submitting to the record. It just outlines the sound transit consultant staff, the resumes just to outline the experience and credentials that they have on the project as the design consultant team. And if there are any questions that examiner you may have, we have the consultant staff here available to answer any questions. Examiner Olbrechts: (17:07): Okay. Speaker 7 (17:09): That's the first item. Gary, you can go ahead and proceed to the second item, which is the project background. So this is another additional exhibit we'd like to submit to the record. This exhibit, what it's outlining is the over the years, the history of the project from its inception in 2016 all the way until today, 2024. Just briefly as summarizing and outlining the extremely hard work that Sam Transit and the City of Renton have done together to work on this project and get to this point today just to provide additional context and clarity behind all of the work that went into the project. (17:46): The third item that I addressed was the clarifications and notes on the conditions, recommended conditions of approval that Jill had outlined as well as the staff report, all of the conditions of approval, we agreed with the city's modifications and changes to the language that Jill had noted in her presentation. So sound transit agrees to those in the draft staff report that the city put together on page 34 of the staff report. There is a note that the city staff report discusses a vegetated green wall on both facades of the four building facilities at site. I do want to add a clarification that there will actually be a vegetated green wall only on the Western facade or the west side of the building. So both sides of the building will not have a vegetated green wall, just the west side of the building. That is one clarification to the staff report that wanted to make. Moving on. One other clarification that I'm going to pass over to Gary ow here to make, I will let Gary talk about that. It looks like he's on Jeremy's computer. Thank Speaker 2 (19:05): You Mr. Sir. Examiner Olbrechts: (19:06): Okay. Mr. Y you swear in, just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Oh, you're muted, Mr. Mr. Y. There we go. Speaker 2 (19:20): I do, yes. Thank you. Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 12 Examiner Olbrechts: (19:22): We are getting an echo from you for Summ reason. I don't know if you've got multiple connections to this hearing Navy or something Speaker 2 (19:30): You wouldn't mind muting your screen. That'd be great. Thank you. Examiner Olbrechts: (19:32): Oh, there you go. Okay. Speaker 2 (19:34): Apologize for the technical difficulties this morning Mr. Examiner Olbrechts: (19:39): Alright. Speaker 2 (19:39): Okay, Examiner Olbrechts: (19:40): Just Speaker 2 (19:40): One quick note from me On the city staff report on page 56, city staff notes that our increase in traffic will be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. And I just wanted to note just a very small but important correction to that statement as part of the revised code of Washington RCW 82.0 2.090 subsection one, regional transit authorities. Our facilities are actually not considered development activity that is subject to impact fees. And in addition to that, RCW 36.7 a 0.070 subsections six C, also exempts transportation facilities and services of statewide significance as defined in 47.0 6.140 from concurrency requirements. So we just wanted to note that it's information we had shared with city staff a very long time ago. So just wanted to note that correction from our end of things. Examiner Olbrechts: (21:14): That's Speaker 2 (21:14): It for me. Examiner Olbrechts: (21:14): Perfect. Alright. Thank you sir. Alright, Mr. Alek, anybody else? Speaker 7 (21:22): Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 12 No one else. Just myself and Gary at the moment. But I will go into the final item, which we kind of talked about earlier was additional exhibits that we have that we want to submit to the record as well. And this will be a tag team effort between Gary and myself. I'll have Gary talk about the first two exhibits that he's going to pull up on his screen. The first one is going to be the notice of application slash notice of public hearing, and the second one is going to be the affidavit of installation of the public information sign. And when Gary has that up and ready to show on his screen, he'll walk through those two and then I'll walk through the final for you, which I will provide more detail on once Gary has concluded. Speaker 4 (22:03): Okay, Speaker 2 (22:10): Sounds good. Thanks very much. First exhibit that I wanted to add to the record please. And I'm hearing some echo here. Join us. Let's try that. Let's see here. You have your speaker meeting. Let's try this now. Still getting some over here. Well let's try this and please let me know if you are having issues hearing me. Examiner Olbrechts: (22:46): No, it's not too bad right now. Speaker 2 (22:49): Okay. I apologize again for the technical difficulties here. First two exhibits are pretty straightforward. They are just simply the notice of application and the notice of public hearing that the city issued and we just wanted to make sure that that is part of the public hearing record. The second exhibit here is an affidavit of installation of our public information sign at the project site. And those are the only two additional exhibits that I would like to speak to. And at this time I'll turn it back over to Mr. El Check here to complete the remaining exhibits that sound transit would like to admit into the public hearing. Thank you. Thanks Gary. Speaker 7 (23:51): Nick, apologies for the audio challenges we are having and thank you for your patience here, examiner with us on this. The next exhibit that Sound transit would like to submit to the record is the attachment nine, which is the title report that sound transit submitted as part of the conditional use permanent application. The title report just at providing any background on easements located on the site, as well as also supporting the Law on adjustment application that sound transit has submitted. The next exhibit, which Gary is going to pull up is an exhibit outlining the sound transit board resolution. Oh no, that is the wrong one that Gary has, which is fine. I can speak. Okay, thank you Gary. This one is the resolution number R 2021 dash oh five, which is a board resolution sound transit board passed in 2021, which outlines the deferral of the permanent parking improvements as part of the sound transit board's realignment action that was taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, aligning the deferral of the parking improvements such as the potential future parking garage at the site. (25:02): Which leads into the final exhibit that we would like to submit to the record, which is a background on the parking garage and transit oriented development, also known as the TOD acronym. You see there, Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 12 this is just providing more background that there is the indefinite delay of the potential future parking garage and the transit oriented development. That parking garage of course being deferred as part of the board realignment action in 2021. And the TODA potential future project that has not yet been approved by the Sound Transit Board. The service parking lot that you saw in Jill's exhibit she provided of the site plan in her presentation with the two boxes that outline that parking lot. That would be the location, the potential future location where the garage and transit oriented development site would be. So this exhibit here provides more background on those delayed, indefinite delayed projects and the potential future plans for 'em. With that, that is all the additional exhibits we have to submit to the record to of course being the resumes and the project background that we talked about earlier. Examiner Olbrechts: (26:12): Okay. Mr. Cisneros, I think we're on exhibit exhibit 43 at this point. Is that the next exhibit number? Speaker 5 (26:20): Yes. I'm also making a note of all the ones he's mentioned and adding them to the list for you. I'll send the list over to you. Examiner Olbrechts: (26:25): Okay. Actually I have a list already. I'm going to share my screen. Speaker 5 (26:29): Okay, good. Examiner Olbrechts: (26:29): Where I put that. There it is. Speaker 5 (26:32): Yeah, so exhibit 43 would be the next number. Examiner Olbrechts: (26:34): Okay. Alright, so Mr, I'll check just to make sure we're on the same page here. I have 43 of the resumes and how many individuals was that? I didn't see, there weren't lot on there I don't think. Speaker 7 (26:46): Yeah, we'll find that out for you. It would be, that would be eight in divisions. Examiner Olbrechts: (27:03): Oh, okay. Great. Alright, and then the next one is the project background, then I think 45 conditions of approval revisions. Did you have an actual document for that or, I don't recall that you flashed anything on the screen for that one or Speaker 7 (27:15): Oh no, my apologies. That is not an actual document. That was just sound transit agreeing with Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 12 Examiner Olbrechts: (27:20): The city Speaker 7 (27:23): Revisions and modifications to the conditions of approval. Examiner Olbrechts: (27:25): I'll take that out there then. Speaker 7 (27:27): Apologies for Examiner Olbrechts: (27:27): That. No, that's my error. Okay, so then the notice of application you had up, I think the notice of public hearing then 47 Speaker 5 (27:36): And I believe the notice of application has the public hearing with it, so I think it's a one. Examiner Olbrechts: (27:41): Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, he did present it that way. Okay, let me get that. Like that. Speaker 7 (27:45): No worries. Examiner Olbrechts: (27:46): That's Speaker 7 (27:46): Correct. Examiner Olbrechts: (27:47): Yeah. Alright then 46 will be the affidavit of public information 47, the title report 48 is the resolution sound transit. And then 49 is the background. Is that an accurate list? Speaker 7 (28:03): That is, yes, Examiner Olbrechts: (28:03): That's correct. Speaker 7 (28:04): Thank you for clarifying that. Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 12 Examiner Olbrechts: (28:05): Alright, so at this point just ask if any objections to proposed exhibits 43 through 49. If you do object like before, just click on the virtual, the bottom of your screen, or if you need to have the document's emailed to you or to have an opportunity to look it over, let us know. Not seeing any takers. So we'll go ahead and admit exhibits 43 through, lemme see. I just put that down through 49. Alright, Mr. I check anything else? Speaker 7 (28:31): No, that concludes our statement. Thank you so much for your time and for listening to us and yeah, say thank Examiner Olbrechts: (28:38): You. Sounds good. Great. Appreciate your comments. Let's move on to public comments at this point and if you want to participate, just raise your virtual hand and I see that we've got somebody who wants to say something looks like that's odd for some reason I have my virtual hand is up but I didn't click on it. Yeah. Alright. Anyone else want to speak? Just click your virtual hand, no takers. Yeah, it looks like a really big applicant team is just watching us today, so. Alright, Ms. Dig, any final comments? Planner Ding: (29:12): I do not have any final comments. Examiner Olbrechts: (29:13): Okay, well I guess then I can go ahead and close the hearing. I think this gets the prize for the biggest applicant team. Actually. We've got a really, obviously it's took a lot of work to put this together and it's going to be a great benefit to the rent and community and I'll be happy to approve that and get that approval out within the next couple of weeks. So it looks like everybody did a really good job and really informative materials and that makes my job a lot easier too. So we'll get that approval out and we're adjourned for this morning. Have a great day.