Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2025 - Final - Renton LWWF ResponseKARL G. ANUTA LAW OFFICE OF KARL G. ANUTA, P.C. 735 SW FIRST AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR TRIAL ATTORNEY PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 E-MAIL LICENSED IN (503) 827-0320 KGA@LOKGA.NET OREGON & WASHINGTON FACSIMILE (503) 386-2168 COREY@LOKGA.NET May 21, 2025 VIA EMAIL Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner City of Renton C/O Cindy Moya City Clerk Specialist, Renton WA Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 cityclerk@rentonwa.gov RE: Appeal of Administrative Decision Approving Building Permit B24004855 Dear Examiner Olbrechts: This letter is Appellant Lake Washington Working Families’ (LWWF) response to the May 14, 2025 letter from Applicant WinCo’s attorneys. You requested that we provide this response. Although the WinCo arguments are made in letter format, the substance of the Applicant’s letter is a request to have Appellant’s case dismissed before a Hearing on the merits of the appeal. In other words, the letter is equivalent to a CR 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Standard Of Review A CR 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss can only be granted when a plaintiff cannot prove that any set of facts would justify success. Trujillo v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 183 Wn.2d 820, 830 (2015). A plaintiff’s factual allegations are to be presumed true and any LWWF Response Page 1 of 14 reasonable inferences are to be drawn from those factual allegations in the plaintiff’s favor. Id. A court “may even consider hypothetical facts to determine if dismissal is proper.” Id. Appellant LWWF Has Standing LWWF satisfies all the elements required to establish standing. As a result, this appeal process should continue. First, LWWF constitutes a “person” who could potentially have standing under the Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”). Second LWWF has one or more members who are aggrieved or adversely affected by the challenged decision. Under the RMC, in order to have standing to appeal, a ‘person’ “must be aggrieved or affected by the decision pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060.” RMC 4-8- 110(C)(1). Thus, the first question is whether LWWF is a “person,” as defined in the RMC. WinCo argues that LWWF is not a person who could have standing. In doing so, WinCo either misunderstands the requirements before this tribunal, or simply aspires for requirements that do not exist. The Code is clear, and it is exceptionally broad. It allows an appeal by “any person, individual, public or private corporation, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, municipality, government agency, political subdivision, public officer, owner, lessee, tenant, other legal entity, or any other entity whatsoever or any combination of such, jointly, or severally.” RMC 4-11-160(FF) (emphasis added). LWWF is clearly an entity – it is a coalition of local King County residents.1 LWWF is also an association and as such is a “person” under the RMC. Association is not itself a defined term within the RMC. However, consulting a dictionary shows that an 1 See, Exhibit #1, LWWF Mission Statement. LWWF Response Page 2 of 14 association is a “group of people who work together in an organization for a particular purpose.” Association, Cambridge English Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/association (last Consulted May 19, 2025).2 As a coalition of local residents, LWWF is absolutely a group of people working together in an organization for a particular purpose to, amongst other things, reduce pollution, such as air pollution from increased traffic or increased 6PPD Quinone (“6PPD-Q”) from additional tire usage, as well as ensure sustainable urban planning.3 Thus, LWWF is clearly a “person” capable of attaining standing. WinCo’s argument that LWWF is not a legally registered entity, and therefore cannot be a person, plainly misreads the definition of “person” in the RMC. Even if LWWF were not an association, the definition of “person” specifically includes both “other legal entity” as well as “any other entity whatsoever.” RMC 4-11-160(FF). Since LWWF is not engaging in commercial business activities, there is no need for it to be a registered corporation or to have an assumed business name.4 WinCo’s argument attempts to insert such requirements into the RMC, where they do not exist.5 Furthermore, WinCo’s interpretation would render the “any other entity whatsoever” language of the RMC meaningless. As a coalition of King County residents, including one or more members who reside in the City of Renton where the 2 See also, Association, Merriam-Webster English Dictionary, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/association, Last consulted May 19, 2025 (“association” means “an organization of persons having a common interest.”) 3 See also, Exhibit #1. 4 See e.g. RCW 19.80.010 5 In reviewing a statute (or the City Code) the Courts (or Hearings Examiner) “…must not add words where the legislature [or City Council] has chosen not to include them.” Rest. Dev., Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc., 150 Wn.2d 674, 682 (2003). Similarly, the Hearings Examiner “…must also construe statutory language in a manner that gives “‘all the language used’” effect, without rendering any portion of the statute [or Code] “‘meaningless or superfluous.’” Davis v. Dep’t of Licensing, 137 Wn.2d 957, 963 (1999) (quoting Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham, 128 Wn.2d 537, 546 (1996)). LWWF Response Page 3 of 14 proposed project is located,6 LWWF certainly fits into the broad a catch-all “any other entity whatsoever” provision of the RMC. Additionally, the RMC specifically permits the participation of “informal organizations” in proceedings before Hearing Examiners. See e.g. RMC 4-8- 100(G)(3)(g)(ii). Here, LWWF is at the very least an informal organization, and if the definition of person was limited to legal entities, as alleged by the applicant, it would be entirely inconsistent other sections of the RMC, and therefore cannot be valid. Thus, LWWF is an entity that can attain standing under the RMC. The next question then, is whether LWWF has standing. Such analysis “is not intended to be a high bar.” Wash. State Hous. Fin. Comm’n v. Nat’l Homebuyers Fund, Inc., 193 Wn.2d 704, 712 (2019). In an administrative challenge under the RMC, standing is established by showing that the appellant is “aggrieved or adversely affected by the decision pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060.” That test has four parts: 1) the land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice the person; 2) that person’s asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was required to consider when it made the land use decision; 3) a judgment in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to the person caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision; and 4) the petitioner has exhausted his or her administrative remedies to the extent required by law. RCW 36.70C.060 The first element, sometimes known as the “prejudice element,” is established 6 See Exhibit #2, Declaration of LWWF member Daisy Hannelore. LWWF Response Page 4 of 14 upon a showing that LWWF (or one or more of its members) 7 would suffer an injury-in- fact as a result of the land use decision. Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325, 341 (2011). Washington courts have held that a showing that the impacts of traffic, such as increased emergency response times, that will negatively affect a member of an appellant group is sufficient to establish an injury-in-fact. See e.g. Suquamish Tribe v. Kitsap County, 92 Wn. App 816, 831 (1998) (finding that the prejudice element was met when evidence was produced showing that increased traffic as a result of neighboring projects would impact members of the Tribe). Similarly, increased pollution levels have been held to be a basis for showing adverse impacts sufficient to demonstrate standing. Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App 290, 300 (1997) (finding that evidence that the group’s chairman’s property will be impacted by the project satisfied the prejudice element.) Furthermore, “a party need not show a particular level of injury in order to establish standing.” Suquamish Tribe, 92 Wn. App, at 831 (emphasis added). Here, it is clear that there is an injury-in-fact to LWWF, because a member of LWWF will be injured.8 That member, Ms. Hannelore, lives in Renton.9 She also works in Renton, and regularly uses the roads and streets in the project area.10 She also enjoys seeing and walking along nearby streams that flow through Coulon Beach Park, into Lake Washington, which is close to the project area.11 These various parts of Ms. Hannelore’s life will be negatively affected by the new traffic, noise, and pollution 7 An organization, such as LWWF, that is bringing a claim for the sake of its members must establish that one or more of its members would sustain an injury-in-fact in order to satisfy this requirement. Save a Valuable Env’t (save) v. Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 867 (1978). 8 Exhibit #2, Declaration of LWWF member Daisy Hannelore. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. LWWF Response Page 5 of 14 stemming from the project – at a location that has been empty and therefore not generating traffic or pollution for a number of years. Thus, the first factor is established. The second factor, that the “person’s asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was required to consider when it made the land use decision” is often referred to as the “zone of interest test.” Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 937 (2002). The test focuses on whether the law under which the challenge is brought was intended to protect the interests of the appellant. See Chelan County, 146 Wn.2d at 937. For instance, in Anderson v. Pierce County, the Court found that a challenge brought under SEPA was within that statute’s zone of interest because the injury in that case was the negative environmental impacts as a result of the project, and SEPA is specifically intended to manage environmental impacts. Anderson, 86 Wn. App at 300. Here, the challenge is brought under the Renton Municipal Code, and the protected interest is the health and enjoyment of Renton residents (which include LWWF members such as Ms. Hannelore). Protecting its own residents is absolutely within the zone of interest of the RMC, and as such the second prong of the standing analysis is satisfied. The third element, that a favorable judgment would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice is also met here. If this appeal is successful, a Site Plan Review would be necessitated for the proposed project. Such a process would allow for much broader public input into the permitting decision. Such a process would also potentially result in requirements for mitigation of impacts on traffic, and/or air & water pollution, or other changes, which would benefit LWWF’s members. The final element to establish standing is whether or not the appellant has exhausted their administrative remedies. This is by far the simplest analysis, as it is a LWWF Response Page 6 of 14 plain yes or no question. Here, LWWF commented during the permit processing, and LWWF has no other administrative remedies – other than this administrative appeal. Clearly then, the fourth and final element is also established, and LWWF has standing to bring this administrative challenge. Appellant Concedes There Is No SEPA Jurisdiction Appellant strongly believes that SEPA review is necessary in this case, and that it is a disservice to the citizens of Renton for environmental impacts to go unreviewed under SEPA. However, upon further analysis it appears that the RMC does not actually provide a Hearing Examiner jurisdiction to review SEPA determinations. As such, the improper SEPA determination by the City cannot be overturned by a Hearings Examiner. Site Plan Review Is Required For This Application Under RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a), Site Plan Review is required for "all development" in the UC-2 zone that this project is located in. RMC 4-11-040(U) defines “development” to include "conversion,” "structural alteration," and “construction” and “enlargement” of “any structure.” As outlined in the Appeal, this project is a conversion, from an empty structure that was formerly an electronics store,12 into a WinCo grocery store, which fits the criteria in the Code to be a development. The project involves a structural alteration of the existing building, involving over 500 micropiles to be installed and connected to bedrock.13 12 See, e.g., Excerpt of Exhibit #3, WinCo 177 Pre-Application Submittal.pdf (April 29, 2024 Letter from Scott Mizee of Tait Associates to Clark Close, City of Renton Planning Dept.), p. 1. 13 See Excerpt of Exhibit #4, CA-WinCo 177 Renton Micropile Submittal Calcs_20240905_v1.pdf (September 4, 2024 Submission from Keller North America to Susan Dillingham of Tait Associates). LWWF Response Page 7 of 14 Those alterations were specified by a structural engineer, to support the interior slab and perimeter wall footings, and are necessary due to the instability of the underlying soil, which is at risk of liquefaction during an earthquake.14 Retrofitting of the entire foundation as specified by a structural engineer seems to squarely fit the definition of “structural alteration” specified in the RMC. Since it involves the conversion of the property as well as structural alterations, the project is a “development” as defined in RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a). In addition, concrete will be poured, continuous with the building foundation, to form a new compactor area, with grade beams poured to support new screening walls for the area.15 This is an enlargement of the building – as the original plans submitted by WinCo acknowledged.16 The original proposal was for a 176 square foot expansion.17 The current plans show the new compactor area to now be approximately 1000 square feet.18 Simply removing the words “New compactor area” from the drawings does not change the fact that there will be a new concrete slab that expands or adds to the building footprint.19 For that reason, also, this project meets the criteria for a “development” that must have Site Plan Review under this provision. Alternatively, even if this project were not an expansion or structural alteration, it 14 Id. at pp. 1-2. 15 See Excerpt of Exhibit #5, P_Architectural Plans_20240923_v1.pdf. 16 See Excerpt of Exhibit #3, Pre-Application Submittal pp. 2-3 (“New compactor area 176 S.F.”) and Exhibit #6 Working Site_2024.08.08 (“New compactor area 176 S.F.”), 17 Id. 18 See Excerpt of Exhibit #5. 19 Both the original proposal and the current proposal show the new compactor area to be outside of, but immediately next to, the building footprint. City Staff correctly recognized in their Pre-App Meeting Summary that this expansion triggered SEPA and Site Plan Review. See, Excerpt of Exhibit #7, p.2. LWWF Response Page 8 of 14 involves the “construction” of a “structure,” and therefore is “development” and requires Site Plan Review. As noted, the proposed project will result in the addition of a trash compactor area, which involves a new concrete slab and a pair of walls.20 That is constitutes a “structure,” as defined in the RMC. The RMC definition of “structure” is: “that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner.” RMC 4-11-190(BBBBB)(emphasis added). A pair of walls, build on and protecting a large concrete slab, is clearly a “piece of work artificially built up.” The RMC requirement for Site Plan Review does not limit that review to development of existing structures. It simply says “all development in the […] UC-2 […] zone…” RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a) (emphasis added). “Development” is, amongst other things, “the construction…of any structure.” Given that the new trash compactor slab and walls are a structure, that is being newly constructed, and this project site is within a UC-2 zone, the project plainly constitutes development within the UC-2 zone, and as such requires Site Plan Review. WinCo argues that under RMC 4-9-200(C)(2)(b), projects that are exempt from SEPA review are also exempt from Site Plan Review.21 While this is generally true, there are specific exceptions for large-scale projects. RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(b)(v) provides one of those exceptions. It includes when “[t]he proposed project is more than three hundred (300) parking stalls." WinCo, in its argument, quotes email correspondence from the City asserting 20 See Excerpt of Exhibit #5, P_Architectural Plans_20240923_v1.pdf. 21 See May 14, 2025 letter from CSD Attorneys at Law (“CSD Letter”) to Jill Ding, City of Renton Planning Dept., p. 3. LWWF Response Page 9 of 14 that construction of over 300 parking spaces is what triggers the applicability of this Code section.22 However, there is no “construction” language in this Code section. WinCo (and the City should it take the same position), are asking the Hearings Examiner to insert a word into the Code that does not exist there. The City certainly could have adopted a Code that applied only when a project involved “construction” of more than 300 parking spaces. But that is not what the current Code says. The Hearings Examiner is required to interpret the actual Code, and in doing so the Examiner “…must not add words where the [City] has chosen not to include them.” Rest. Dev., Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc., 150 Wn.2d at 682. Moreover, the WinCo proposed interpretation actually makes no sense from a policy standpoint. The reason for Site Plan Review is to assess potential impacts of a project. See, RMC 4-9-200(A)(2)(b). This parcel has not been used as a parking lot or hosted an active retail operation since the Fry’s store closed over four years ago. Thus, the project is equivalent to a new development, as far as its impacts on the City and its residents are concerned. This project is going to involve roughly 650 parking spaces.23 Furthermore, this project will involve upgrades to the parking lot generally, as well as the removal of over 50 parking spaces.24 The project also involves closing an access/exit point that currently exists in the parking by the new compactor area.25 Since the project involves 22 CSD Letter at pp. 3-4. 23 See e.g., Excerpt of Exhibit #7, PRE-APP_Meeting Summary, p. 1. 24 Id. 25 See, Excerpt of Exhibit #6, Working Site doc, and Excerpt of Exhibit #8, P_Landscape_Construction_Plans (showing a bush and other landscaping in the area where the curb cut is and access/exit point used to be). LWWF Response Page 10 of 14 considerably more than the “three hundred (300) parking stalls” that is specified in the Code, and it includes alterations to both the lot generally, and the number of stalls specifically, this project should trigger Site Plan Review. WinCo argues that absurd results would ensue if that exception were applied to every building with over 300 existing parking spaces, because it would require Site Plan Review for mere tenant improvements.26 This is an inapt and overly broad reading of the RMC. The exception at issue applies only to those projects that would otherwise be subject to Site Plan Review, not to every tenant improvement. As outlined, this project goes well beyond simple tenant improvement. It involves structural alterations, conversion of use, enlargement of the building footprint and/or construction of a new structure next to the existing building. Any one, much less all, of those trigger Site Plan Review. Existing businesses doing some interior or exterior remodeling would not be subject to Site Plan Review under any of the large-scale project exceptions to RMC 4-9- 200(C)(2)(b), because they do not require Site Plan Review to begin with. Site Plan Review is, however, necessary in this case so that the impacts of the large-scale changes to the site - after over four years of dormancy - can be evaluated. The neighbors and other residents of Renton deserve to be fully informed, and for their voices to be heard on the changes this project will bring to their City. Site Plan Review is required under the RMC for this project, and is necessary because the proposal represents a wholesale revision of the use of the property. Relying on conditions and assumptions at time the Fry’s store was permitted over 20 26 CSD Letter at pp. 3-4. LWWF Response Page 11 of 14 years ago is not adequate to serve the interests of City residents in 2025. Re-developing a site that has been dormant for over four years as a large grocery store will result in new impacts on traffic, noise, air and water quality, and livability. Those impacts need to be quantified and thoroughly evaluated, so those impacts can be mitigated or avoided. The changes to traffic conditions will almost certainly affect mobility. They may also affect emergency response times. There will be changes in noise and significantly increased emissions (both air and water pollution) from increased truck and auto traffic at this currently vacant site. There is a 2022 Traffic Impact Assessment, but it was conducted for a proposed apartment complex - an entirely different use. The superficial projections from that study that WinCo is using in its application are inadequate to assess the 2025 impacts on nearby roads and intersections. A full Traffic Impact Assessment is needed to evaluate this new development. While this is a very developed area, just across I-405 there are residential neighborhoods. There is also a Lake Washington Beach Park (Coulon) very nearby. Development on this site will increase impacts on those nearby houses and potentially the Park via air pollution, water quality impacts,27 noise, and greenhouse gas emissions. These need to be identified, and measures imposed to limit, eliminate, and mitigate for them required of the developer. The only reasonable way to accomplish this (short of SEPA review, which the City has chosen not to engage in) is through Site Plan Review. Reliance on stormwater treatment approved 20 years ago will be inadequate to 27 It is now well known that virtually all tires produce 6PPD Quinone (“6PPD-Q”). See e.g.: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/6ppd-quinone That pollutant is toxic to salmonids. The stormwater runoff from this site containing 6PPD-Q could potentially make it way into nearby streams, or even Lake Washington which is quite near this site. LWWF Response Page 12 of 14 protect surface water resources in the area and in Lake Washington. Site Plan Review should be applied to ensure that there is adequate treatment on-site to prevent excessive pollution from this site in the form of metals, petroleum products, and other pollutants (including sediments and 6PPD-Q). There is an acute lack of greenspace in this part of Renton. Site Plan Review should address measures that the applicant could take to help address this problem in the community it wishes to become a part of. For all these reasons, Site Plan Review makes sense. Clearly, because this project meets the triggers for both Site Plan Review, and the exception for more than 300 parking stalls, Site Plan Review is legally required for this project. This Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed Due To Alleged Errors By City It does not appear that WinCo is arguing that purported failure to give notice by the City is a ground for dismissal. It is important to note that even if that were the argument being made by WinCo, it would need to be rejected. If the City failed to give proper notice, that might hypothetically give rise to a claim for damages or a due process claim against the City (if any actual harm stemmed from what the City apparently did not do). However, that lack of notice by the City could not reasonably be a basis for Appellant to suffer dismissal of an otherwise valid appeal. The City’s compliance (or lack of compliance) with notice requirements is an act (or failure to act) that is entirely outside of Appellant’s control. Dismissal under such circumstances would be unfair, and it would set a very dangerous precedent. A City could then fail to notify a party simply because it concludes that a timely appeal is undesirable, and thereby prevent that appeal from going forward. Imagine if WinCo had filed an appeal here, and the City failed to give notice to LWWF – despite LWWF having submitted timely comments on the project during the LWWF Response Page 13 of 14 administrative review period. Would WinCo find it acceptable to have its appeal dismissed, due to the failure of the City to give notice to LWWF? Of course not. WinCo’s allegations about possible notice errors are not relevant to the issues presented by this appeal. They should be disregarded by the Hearings Examiner when considering this appeal.28 Conclusion For the reasons outlined, Appellant LWWF has standing, and Site Plan Review is in fact required for this project. LWWF asks that the Hearings Examiner proceed with the Hearing on the merits of the appeal. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Karl G. Anuta Karl G. Anuta Enclosure cc:Client Patrice Kent, City Atty – via PKent@rentonwa.gov Timothy Schermetzler – via tschermetzler@csdlaw.com Megan Holmes – via mholmes@csdlaw.com 28 If, due to lack of notice, WinCo needs more time to get ready for the scheduled Hearing, LWWF is open to discussing that and we presume that counsel for the City is as well. LWWF Response Page 14 of 14 LakeWashingtonWorkingFamilies@gmail.com Who we are: Lake Washington Working Families is a coalition of King County residents, working families, environmental advocates, labor unions, and local merchants united in opposition to unchecked urban sprawl and overdevelopment. We are deeply concerned about the harmful impacts of irresponsible growth—ranging from environmental destruction and increased pollution to worsening traffic congestion and threats to union jobs and fair working hours. Together, we champion sustainable development policies that prioritize community well-being, environmental stewardship, and economic fairness. Our neighborhoods deserve smart, responsible planning—because our families, workers, and future generations depend on it. Mission statement: Lake Washington Working Families stands united in protecting our communities, environment, and livelihoods from reckless overdevelopment and urban sprawl. We advocate for responsible growth that preserves natural spaces, reduces pollution, safeguards union jobs and fair working hours, and ensures sustainable infrastructure that keeps traffic manageable for working families. Together, we fight for policies that put people and the planet first—because our future depends on smart planning, not unchecked expansion. Our policy goals include: •Preserving Green Spaces: Supporting legislation that prevents unnecessary destruction of parks, forests, and wetlands. •Reducing Pollution: Advocating for stricter environmental regulations on new developments to mitigate air and water pollution. •Defending Union Jobs & Fair Labor Standards: Ensuring that development projects prioritize union labor, fair wages, and reasonable work hours. •Sustainable Urban Planning: Encouraging smart growth strategies that prevent congestion, improve public transit, and protect communities from overdevelopment. •Community-First Decision Making: Pushing for transparent and inclusive processes where residents—not developers—shape the future of our neighborhoods. •Together, we fight for policies that put people and the planet first—because our future depends on smart planning, not unchecked expansion. LWWF Exhibit #1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In the matter of the administrative appeal of: LAKE WASHINGTON WORKING FAMILIES Of an approved building permit for 800 Garden Ave N, Renton Washington for a new store location for Wince Foods ) ) NO. ) ) DECLARATION OF DAISY ) HANNELORE) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 23 1.My name is \J Q \ 5 \/ \�o t'\V\ e, \of'€.., 24 25 26 27 2.I am one of the members of Lake Washington Working Families (L'N\NF). 3.L'N\NF has, throughout the commenting and appeals process, been representing my interests. 28 Page 11 - DECLARATION OF DAISY HANNELORE Law Office Of Karl G. Anuta Attorney at Law 735 S. W. First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 P: (503) 827-0320 LWWF Exhibit #2 ---·-. 1 4.I live in the City of Renton. I do not live that far from the project site, 800 Garden 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ave N, Renton Washington. I understand that if this project is approved, this location will ultimately house a new WinCo. 5.My work is also in Renton. I regularly use the roads and streets in the area near the proposed project. 6.The proposed project will potentially affect me and others who live in my City, and not in a positive way. There will likely be traffic impacts from a store this size, going in where there hasn't been a functional business for some time. There will also be an increase in noise over current conditions, and there are likely to be other quality of life impacts -such as increased air pollution, and increased potentially harmful or fish toxic stormwater runoff to nearby wetlands or streams, or perhaps even to Lake Washington due to increase vehicle use from what is now a vacant parking lot and empty building. 7.I would like to keep the air in Renton as clean as possible. I enjoy seeing and walking along the wetland, streams and lakes in Renton -including the stream that runs into Lake Washington at Coulon Beach Park which is not very far away from the proposed project site. 8.As I understand it, Site Plan Review would require more detailed analysis of at least some, if not all, of the potential impacts of the proposed project. As I understand it, review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) would similarly provide more analysis of the likely impacts on me a_nd my City ofi Renton neighbors. 24 9.LVVWF has raised concerns that Site Plan Review and SEPA analysis should be 25 applied to this project, but as I understand it the City has refused to do that. If one or 26 27 28 Page I 2 - DECLARATION OF DAISY HANNELORE Law Office Of Karl G. Anuta Attorney at Law 735 S. W. First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 P: (503) 827-0320 LWWF Exhibit #2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 more of those errors are not corrected, both LWWF's organizational interests and my own personal interests will be harmed or prejudiced. 10.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed at: Set\'\ ..J:\C 1 \\j� Dated: ,'V\ H \ q-r -'1 �� � � Page I 3 - DECLARATION OF DAISY HANNELORE Law Office Of Karl G. Anuta Attorney t L w 735 S W Ftrst Avenue Portl nd, Oregon 97204 P (503) 827-0320 LWWF Exhibit #2 707 N. 27TH Street, Boise, ID 83702 p:208/319/0748 Development Narrative Letter DATE: April 29, 2024 TO: Clark Close, Current Planning Manager City of Renton Community & Economic Development, Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: WinCo Foods No. 177 Pre-Application Meeting for Land Use Application 800 Garden Ave N Renton, WA Owner/Applicant: WinCo Foods 650 N. Armstrong Place Boise, ID 83704 208.377.0110 Ronald Schrieber ronald.schrieber@wincofoods.com Representative: Tait & Associates 707 North 27th Street Boise, ID 83702 208.319.0748 Scott Mizée smizee@tait.com Attached are the Vicinity Map, Site Plan, Preliminary Elevations and Trip Generation Memo for the proposed project. Below you will find the Project Narrative. a. The proposed project would include a WinCo Foods store located at 800 Garden Ave N in the vacant former Fry’s Electronics building located within “The Landing” in Renton. The Parcel Number is 0823059217. The existing building is 151,840 square feet and sits on a 501,611 square foot or 11.52 acre site according to King County Assessors report. b. The site is in the Urban Center – 2, UC – 2, and is classified as Retail/Big Box per King County Assessor records. On the city’s Comprehensive Plan, it is in a designated Commercial Mixed Use, CMU, zone. Adjacent properties to the west are Urban Center – 1, UC – 1. Adjacent properties to the North are UC – 2. To the east is a railroad spur line. Beyond the railroad is Industrial Heavy, IH. Adjacent properties to the south across North 8th Street are Industrial Heavy, IH. LWWF Exhibit #3, Page 1 of 3 13 11 4 92 4 4 COMPACT 928888 12 8072 35 STALLS LEFT SIDE OF AISLE COMPACT 6 COMPACT 15 COMPACT 17 COMPACT 14 COMPACT 5 12 7 PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) GA R D E N A V E . N . GARDEN AVE. N. N. 8TH ST. N. 8TH ST. CARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS EXISTING LIGHT POLE, (TYP.) EXISTING LIGHT POLE, (TYP.) EXISTING LIGHT POLE, (TYP.) NEW COMPACTOR AREA EXISTING SCREEN WALL BUILDING AREA 152,016 S.F. (EXISTING BUILDING AREA 151,840 S.F., NEW COMPACTOR AREA 176 S.F.) (SINGLE STORY, 47' IN HEIGHT) (MERCANTILE USE) EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE ON CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, (TYP.) 13 11 4 4 4 12 14 COMPACT 5 12 7 5 ADA STALLS 9 ADA STALLS PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) EXISTING LIGHT POLE, (TYP.) NEW COMPACTOR AREA EXISTING SCREEN WALL BUILDING AREA 152,016 S.F. (EXISTING BUILDING AREA 151,840 S.F., NEW COMPACTOR AREA 176 S.F.) (SINGLE STORY, 47' IN HEIGHT) (MERCANTILE USE) EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE ON CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, (TYP.) MATCH LINEMATCH LINE 2 7 8 F E E T 545 FEET 168 FEE T 294 FEET 36 FEET 35 3 F E E T 397 FEET 91 3 F E E T # CARTS DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET 70 7 N . 2 7 t h S t . B o i s e , I D 8 3 7 0 2 p: 2 0 8 / 3 4 5 / 2 4 2 f a x : 2 0 8 / 3 4 5 / 3 7 5 7 ww w . t a i t . c o m Si n c e 1 9 6 4 Sa c r a m e n t o Sa n F r a n c i s c o On t a r i o Lo s A n g e l e s No r t h D a k o t a Se a t t l e De n v e r Da l l a s Bo i s e TH E S E D R A W I N G S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S A R E IN S T R U M E N T S O F S E R V I C E F O R T H E P R O J E C T F O R W H I C H TH E Y A R E M A D E A N D S H A L L R E M A I N T H E P R O P E R T Y O F TH E A R C H I T E C T R E G A R D L E S S I F T H E P R O J E C T I S CO M P L E T E D . T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S SH A L L N O T B E R E P R O D U C E D O R U S E D B Y A N Y O N E F O R OT H E R P R O J E C T S O R A D D I T I O N S T O T H I S P R O J E C T WI T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F T A I T A N D AS S O C I A T E S . C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N 04/29/2024 4/ 2 9 / 2 0 2 4 3 : 4 9 : 0 0 P M WI N C O F O O D S N O . 1 7 7 OVERALL SITE PLAN 80 0 G A R D E N A V E . RE N T O N , W A S H I N G T O N C-11" = 40'-0" OVERALL SITE PLAN OWNER: WINCO FOODS, LLC 650 N. ARMSTRONG PLACE BOISE, ID 83704 FAX: 208-337-0474 CONTACT: RONALD R. SCHRIEBER II E-MAIL: ronald.schrieber@wincofoods.com CIVIL: JSA CIVIL 111 TUMWATER BLVD SE, SUITE C210 TUMWATER, WA 98512 PHONE: 360-296-6346 CONTACT: BRANDON JOHNSON EMAIL: brandon.johnson@jsa-civil.com ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: DC ENGINEERING 440 E. CORPORATE DR. STE. 103 MERIDIAN, ID 83642 PHONE: 208-288-2181 FAX: 208-288-2182 CONTACT: BILL CRABB EMAIL: bcrabb@dcengineering.net CONTACT INFORMATION C-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN C-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-3 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-4 COLOR ELEVATIONS DRAWING INDEX NUMBER PARKING SPACES LEGEND CART CORRAL CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS LANDSCAPE AREA BICYCLE PARKING PROPERTY/PARCEL LINE VICINITY MAP PROPERTY LOCATION ARCHITECT: TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 707 NORTH 27TH STREET BOISE, ID 83702 PHONE: 208-319-0748 CONTACT: SCOTT MIZEE E-MAIL: smizee@tait.com AGENT OF OWNER: TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 707 NORTH 27TH STREET BOISE, ID 83702 PHONE: 208-319-0748 CONTACT: SCOTT MIZEE E-MAIL: smizee@tait.com ZONING: UC-2 (URBAN CENTER) EXISTING OCCUPANCY: MERCHANTILE PROPOSED OCCUPANCY: MERCHANTILE EXISTING BUILDING TYPE: V-N FULLY SPRINKLERED SITE DATA RIGHTLEFT FRONT REAR NORTH PLAN NORTH PLAN ACCORDING TO RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE 4-4-080 SUBSECTION F10E UC – 2 REQUIRES 2.5 SPACES PER 1000 SQUARE FEET. THEREFORE 381 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED. THE MAXIMUM IS 5 SPACES PER 1000 OR 760 SPACES. 13 ACCESSIBLE SPACES ARE REQUIRED AND 14 ARE PROVIDED. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED PARKING IS WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS ZONE. PARKING STALLS REQUIRED: 2.5 SPACES/1,000 S.F. (2.5 x 152.016) = 381 (380.04 ROUNDED UP) PARKING STALLS PROVIDED: 650 4.27 SPACES/1,000 S.F. (4.27 x 152.016) = 650 (649.10 ROUNDED UP) COMPACT STALLS: 179 STALLS (27.54% OF TOTAL) PARKING STALL SIZE: 9'-0" x 19'-0" COMPACT PARKING STALL SIZE: 9'-0" x 16'-0" SITE DATA BUILDING HEIGHT: MAX ALLOWABLE BUIDING HEIGHT: 10 STORIES ALONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ARTERIALS. 6 STORIES ALONG RESIDENTIAL / MINOR COLLECTORS. EXISITNG BUILDING HEIGHT:42'-0" TOTAL LOT AREA:11.52 ACRES (501,611 S.F.) EXISTING BUILDING AREA: 151,840 S.F. ADDITION BUILDING AREA: 176 S.F. TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 152,016 S.F. (30.31 % OF TOTAL LOT AREA) LANDSCAPING AREA: 43,246.38 S.F. (8.62 % OF TOTAL LOT AREA) BUILDING SETBACKS: (EXISTING) PER TABLE 4-2-120A TABLE IN THE RMC, ALL SETBACKS FOR A UC -2 ZONED AREA • FRONT: 15’ - 20’ • REAR AND SIDE: NONE UNLESS ABUTTING RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA. ADA STALLS REQUIRED: 13 (2% OF TOTAL PROVIDED) ADA STALLS PROVIDED: 14 (14 VAN ACCESSIBLE) BICYCLE SPACES REQUIRED: 21 (SHORT TERM) 5% OF PARKING: 650 x .05 = 32.5 BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED: 36 LOADING SPACES: 3 EXISTING PROVIDED LENGTH: 75' WIDTH: 9' CLEARANCE HEIGHT: 14' SCALE: 1" = 200'-0" EXISTING TREES LWWF Exhibit #3, Page 2 of 3 13 11 4 4 4 5 12 7 5 ADA STALLS 9 ADA STALLS PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) GARDEN AVE. N. N. 8TH ST. NEW COMPACTOR AREA EXISTING SCREEN WALL BUILDING AREA 152,016 S.F. (EXISTING BUILDING AREA 151,840 S.F., NEW COMPACTOR AREA 176 S.F.) (SINGLE STORY, 47' IN HEIGHT) (MERCANTILE USE) EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE ON CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, (TYP.) MATCH LINEMATCH LINE 42' - 0 5/8" 34' - 7 3/4" 40' - 1 1/8" EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE ON CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, (TYP.) MONUMENT SIGN PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) 40' - 0 5/8" TRUCK DOCK LOADING AREA GENERATOR ENCLOSURE 41' - 1" 37' - 6 1/4" 53' - 0 5/8" 37' - 6 7/8" # CARTS DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET 70 7 N . 2 7 t h S t . B o i s e , I D 8 3 7 0 2 p: 2 0 8 / 3 4 5 / 2 4 2 f a x : 2 0 8 / 3 4 5 / 3 7 5 7 ww w . t a i t . c o m Si n c e 1 9 6 4 Sa c r a m e n t o Sa n F r a n c i s c o On t a r i o Lo s A n g e l e s No r t h D a k o t a Se a t t l e De n v e r Da l l a s Bo i s e TH E S E D R A W I N G S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S A R E IN S T R U M E N T S O F S E R V I C E F O R T H E P R O J E C T F O R W H I C H TH E Y A R E M A D E A N D S H A L L R E M A I N T H E P R O P E R T Y O F TH E A R C H I T E C T R E G A R D L E S S I F T H E P R O J E C T I S CO M P L E T E D . T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S SH A L L N O T B E R E P R O D U C E D O R U S E D B Y A N Y O N E F O R OT H E R P R O J E C T S O R A D D I T I O N S T O T H I S P R O J E C T WI T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F T A I T A N D AS S O C I A T E S . C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N 04/29/2024 4/ 2 9 / 2 0 2 4 3 : 4 8 : 2 2 P M WI N C O F O O D S N O . 1 7 7 ENLARGED SITE PLAN 80 0 G A R D E N A V E . RE N T O N , W A S H I N G T O N C-21" = 20'-0" ENLARGED SITE PLAN RIGHTLEFT FRONT REAR NORTH PLAN NUMBER PARKING SPACES LEGEND CART CORRAL CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS LANDSCAPE AREA BICYCLE PARKING PROPERTY/PARCEL LINE EXISTING TREES LWWF Exhibit #3, Page 3 of 3 1870 Cordell Court #201 El Cajon, California 92020 Phone: (619) 956-0850 Fax: (619) 956-0863 Winco #177 Building Slab and Foundation Retrofit Micropile Design Renton, Washington September 5, 2024 Description Section Shop Drawings 1 Interior Slab Micropile Design (50 kips + Downdrag) 2 Interior Micropile Casing Design 3 Interior Slab Connection Design 4 Interior Lateral Pile Analysis 5 Exterior Slab Micropile Design (50 kips + Downdrag) 6 Exterior Micropile Casing Design 7 Exterior Slab Connection Design 8 Exterior Lateral Pile Analysis 9 Geotechnical Pile Capacity and Load Derivation 10 Geotechnical Report Excerpts 11 Additional CPT Logs by Keller 12 Soil Corrosion and FHWA Excerpt on Corrosion Protection 13 LWWF Exhibit #4 Page 1 of 3 1870 Cordell Court, #201 El Cajon, California 92020 Phone: (619) 956-0850 September 4, 2024 TAIT & Associates, Inc. 707 N. 27th St. Boise, ID 83702 Attention: Susan Dillingham Subject: WinCo #177 Renton, Washington Building Slab and Foundation Retrofit Micropile Design Ms. Dillingham: Attached herewith is the proposed micropile design for the above referenced project. 394 micropiles will be installed to support a proposed interior slab and 107 micropiles will be installed along the outside of the structure to provide additional support for the perimeter wall footings. It is Keller’s understanding that the micropiles are part of a larger refurbishment project that will convert an existing Fry’s Electronics store into an operational WinCo Foods grocery store. The existing structure is a concrete tilt-up with a structural floor slab and steel columns. The structure is supported on auger cast piles. In conjunction with Keller’s analysis of the site data obtained independently, the design is also based on a review of geotechnical engineering report, WinCo Renton, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated April 16, 2024. Pertinent sections and boring logs from the report are included in this submittal. Structural loads were provided by the project structural engineer, Structural Edge Engineering via email. The design loads are as follows: Interior Piles (LRFD) • Gravity = 50 kips • Seismic Lateral = 2.8 kips • Downdrag = 124 kips (due to Creep) Exterior Piles (LRFD) • Gravity = 50 kips • Moment = 100 kip-feet (due to 2 foot column line offset) • Seismic Lateral = 8.5 kips • Downdrag = 156 kips (due to Creep) LWWF Exhibit #4 Page 2 of 3 The micropiles consist of a continuous 150 ksi steel bar centered in a partially cased shaft. The reinforcing center bar will extend full depth through the casing and into the lower alluvium. Casing was used to due to soil layers with a high potential for liquefaction between and 10 and 60 feet below the ground surface. Liquefaction at this site was evaluated using Keller’s proprietary CPT-based KLIQ software. Both CPT-1 and CPT-2 were reviewed and evaluated for liquefaction potential. Details of the individual calculations can be found in Section 10. Downdrag loads were evaluated by Keller for both long-term creep deformation and post-liquefaction settlement. Note that we conservatively assumed that the downdrag force fully develops in soil layers subjected to creep deformation or liquefaction, and thus it was assumed to be equal to the total shaft resistance mobilized above creep/liquefaction depth. The higher value between creep deformation-induced downdrag and post-liquefaction-induced downdrag was then used as the design load value in our calculations. The geotechnical capacity of micropiles was computed in general accordance with the LCPC method proposed by Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982)1 using cone resistance (qc). Details of bearing capacity and downdrag calculations (for CPT-1) are presented in Section 10. Please note CPT-1 governs the design. Interior and exterior micropiles will extend 24 feet and 22 feet into the lower alluvium respectively. Interior piles consist of a 7.625 inch diameter single casing extending 60 feet through the fill, upper alluvium, and peat. The casing will terminate into the lower alluvium. The exterior piles will be identical to the interior piles. However, a 9.625 inch diameter exterior casing in addition to the smaller interior casing will extend 30 foot down from the top of the pile. Total pile lengths are 84 and 83 feet. The shaft is backfilled with a 28-day compressive strength 5,000 psi grout. A preliminary and post-production testing program will be performed to confirm design assumptions and verify the quality of the installation. A lateral pile analysis was performed to determine an adequate casing diameter, thickness and depth to ensure structural integrity of the micropiles is maintained during a potential seismic event. 1 Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L. (1982). “Pile bearing capacity prediction by means of static penetrometer cpt.” Proceedings of the 2nd European symposium on penetration testing, 493–500. LWWF Exhibit #4 Page 3 of 3 The micropiles are designed in general accordance with the Federal Highway Administration procedures detailed in the Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines Implementation Manual, (FHWA NHI-05-039, December 2005), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2020) and IBC 2021. Keller North America trusts this submittal is satisfactory. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office. Respectfully, Keller North America David Nevius, PE Saeed Yazdani, PhD, PE Senior Design Engineer Design Engineer Michael M. Empizo Senior Design Engineer LWWF Exhibit #4 1 1 10 10 11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"10' - 0" 3 3 2 2 3 3 5 5 6 6 G G J 7.5 7.5 F F 7 7 H H 4 4 8 8 9 9 E E 1 A6.4 _____ MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MA T C H L I N E 11' - 0 7/8"10' - 6 1/4" 11 ' - 4 3 / 8 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 5' - 9 1 / 8 " 10' - 9 1/4"9' - 1"10' - 2"8' - 9"9' - 1 1/8"10' - 7"10' - 7 5/8"8' - 11 3/8"9' - 0"10' - 2 1/2"11' - 10"9' - 9 1/2"9' - 11"12' - 11"12' - 8 1/8"12' - 6"12' - 6"12' - 6"12' - 8 3/8"12' - 6"10' - 0"11' - 0 5/8"8' - 11 3/8"10' - 0"3' - 1 5/8"6' - 10 3/8"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"11' - 7 1/8" 8' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 11 ' - 8 3 / 8 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 8' - 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 1 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " TYP. 3 A A 1 1 10 10 JJ H H B BLDG. KEYPLAN A ARCH. PROJECT NO. DRAWN CHECKED SUBMITTAL DATES OTB DATE REVISIONS SHEET TITLE SHEET 84K CR58 70 7 N . 2 7 t h S t . B o i s e , I D 8 3 7 0 2 p: 2 0 8 / 3 4 5 / 2 4 2 8 f a x : 2 0 8 / 3 4 5 / 3 7 5 7 ww w . t a i t . c o m Si n c e 1 9 6 4 Sa c r a m e n t o Sa n F r a n c i s c o On t a r i o Lo s A n g e l e s No r t h D a k o t a Se a t t l e De n v e r Da l l a s Bo i s e TH E S E D R A W I N G S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S A R E IN S T R U M E N T S O F S E R V I C E F O R T H E P R O J E C T F O R W H I C H TH E Y A R E M A D E A N D S H A L L R E M A I N T H E P R O P E R T Y O F TH E A R C H I T E C T R E G A R D L E S S I F T H E P R O J E C T I S CO M P L E T E D . T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S SH A L L N O T B E R E P R O D U C E D O R U S E D B Y A N Y O N E F O R OT H E R P R O J E C T S O R A D D I T I O N S T O T H I S P R O J E C T WI T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F T A I T A N D AS S O C I A T E S . C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 CITY 09/16/2024 9/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 4 1 2 : 2 6 : 3 3 P M WI N C O F O O D S N O . 1 7 7 WIN177 SAS SD CONTROL JOINT PLAN 80 0 G A R D E N A V E . RE N T O N , W A S H I N G T O N A1.3B 3/32" = 1'-0" CONTROL JOINT PLAN NORTH GENERAL NOTESGENERAL NOTES 1. INSTALL SEALANT AS SPECIFIED AT ALL INTERIOR CONTROL JOINTS, RE: SPEC. SECTION 079200. SEALANT FOR BURNISHED GRAY CONCRETE IS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 033543. 2. WHERE A CONSTRUCTION JOINT IS USED ON EXTERIOR SLABS, INSTALL PREFORMED ISOLATION JOINTS AND SELF LEVELING SEALANT AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 079200. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW LOCATIONS OF CONSTRUCTION & CONTROL JOINTS AND SUBMIT ANY DESIRED REVISIONS TO THIS PLAN TO THE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO POURING ANY SLAB ON GRADE. KEYED NOTESKEYED NOTES 1. CONSTRUCTION JOINT INDICATED BY FORMS SHALL BE SHAPED & SET TO ALLOW TROWEL TO EXTEND OVER TOP OF FORM WORK, RE: A1.1-14, A1.2-4 & S1 2. INTERIOR CONTROL JOINT INDICATED BY RE: A1.2-4 3. EXTERIOR CONTROL JOINT INDICATED BY LAYOUT AS SHOWN, RE: G.N. NO. 2 & A1.2-12 4. FREEZER THERMAL BREAK INDICATED BY RE: A1.1-3 7. TRANSITION OF AC PAVING TO CONCRETE 8. SAW CUT FOR LOSS PREVENTION CART CONTAINMENT CABLING, RE: LPCC-1 & 2 0 () 0 i:, I C>------i -f--------------+-- - ---1$-- --------+--t---------- I I I I . C>-- C>------ ( ) I I I I ---l ----r -------t ----i ---- I I I I I 1 " 1 1 1 1 I ) ( \ ( ) I I ( ) ' / ' / - ---+ ----1 - --- 0 ' 0 I~ ----~ :fr----, ----- ii I ::i ~---~1 iii r---~:1: ,,i, I 0 -t- I 1 ( ) - I I -- -,_,,__ - +-- I --t-- I 1 I '1 \ / 0 0 0 • I I • --+-----+------- I ------t - I 1 ( ) --+----+- ------- ------ 0 f ,, I ---- ------ D ,, m!!,,_ __ _,_ __ __, H:t:: 1--~ REGISTERED ARCHTTFCT n~niel \.V.1yne, Hinson STAIT OF W.'\SHJNGTON LWWFWExhibitWU5 SD SD H2 DN 13 11 4 92 4 4 COMPACT 928832 12 8072 35 STALLS LEFT SIDE OF AISLE COMPACT 6 COMPACT 15 COMPACT 17 COMPACT 14 COMPACT 5 12 7 PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) GA R D E N A V E . N . GARDEN AVE. N. N. 8TH ST. N. 8TH ST. CARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTSCARTS CARTSCARTSCARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS NEW LIGHT POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE, (TYP.) EXISTING LIGHT POLE, (TYP.) EXISTING SCREEN WALL BUILDING AREA 152,016 S.F. (EXISTING BUILDING AREA 151,840 S.F., NEW COMPACTOR AREA 176 S.F.) (SINGLE STORY, 47' IN HEIGHT) (MERCANTILE USE) EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE ON CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, (TYP.) 13 11 4 4 4 12 14 COMPACT 5 12 7 9 ADA STALLS PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE, (TYP.) EXISTING LIGHT POLE, (TYP.) NEW COMPACTOR AREA EXISTING SCREEN WALL BUILDING AREA 152,016 S.F. (EXISTING BUILDING AREA 151,840 S.F., NEW COMPACTOR AREA 176 S.F.) (SINGLE STORY, 47' IN HEIGHT) (MERCANTILE USE) EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE ON CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, (TYP.) MATCH LINEMATCH LINE 2 7 8 F E E T 545 FEET 168 FEE T 294 FEET 36 FEET 35 3 F E E T 397 FEET 91 3 F E E T NO PA R K I N G NO PA R K I N G NO PA R K I N G NEW PEDESTRIAN SEATING NEW PLANTER NEW PLANTER NEW PEDESTRIAN SEATING NO PA R K I N G LANDSCAPING INFILL 21 8 STALLS RIGHT SIDE OF AISLE COMPACT 16 STALLS LEFT SIDE OF AISLE COMPACT 30 15 STALLS RIGHT SIDE OF AISLE COMPACT NEW LIGHT POLE NO PA R K I N G # CARTS DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET 70 7 N . 2 7 t h S t . B o i s e , I D 8 3 7 0 2 p: 2 0 8 / 3 4 5 / 2 4 2 f a x : 2 0 8 / 3 4 5 / 3 7 5 7 ww w . t a i t . c o m Si n c e 1 9 6 4 Sa c r a m e n t o Sa n F r a n c i s c o On t a r i o Lo s A n g e l e s No r t h D a k o t a Se a t t l e De n v e r Da l l a s Bo i s e TH E S E D R A W I N G S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S A R E IN S T R U M E N T S O F S E R V I C E F O R T H E P R O J E C T F O R W H I C H TH E Y A R E M A D E A N D S H A L L R E M A I N T H E P R O P E R T Y O F TH E A R C H I T E C T R E G A R D L E S S I F T H E P R O J E C T I S CO M P L E T E D . T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S SH A L L N O T B E R E P R O D U C E D O R U S E D B Y A N Y O N E F O R OT H E R P R O J E C T S O R A D D I T I O N S T O T H I S P R O J E C T WI T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F T A I T A N D AS S O C I A T E S . C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N 04/29/2024 8/ 8 / 2 0 2 4 1 1 : 3 0 : 1 0 A M WI N C O F O O D S N O . 1 7 7 OVERALL SITE PLAN 80 0 G A R D E N A V E . RE N T O N , W A S H I N G T O N C-11" = 40'-0" OVERALL SITE PLAN OWNER: WINCO FOODS, LLC 650 N. ARMSTRONG PLACE BOISE, ID 83704 FAX: 208-337-0474 CONTACT: RONALD R. SCHRIEBER II E-MAIL: ronald.schrieber@wincofoods.com CIVIL: JSA CIVIL 111 TUMWATER BLVD SE, SUITE C210 TUMWATER, WA 98512 PHONE: 360-296-6346 CONTACT: BRANDON JOHNSON EMAIL: brandon.johnson@jsa-civil.com ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: DC ENGINEERING 440 E. CORPORATE DR. STE. 103 MERIDIAN, ID 83642 PHONE: 208-288-2181 FAX: 208-288-2182 CONTACT: BILL CRABB EMAIL: bcrabb@dcengineering.net CONTACT INFORMATION C-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN C-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-3 ENLARGED SITE PLAN C-4 COLOR ELEVATIONS DRAWING INDEX NUMBER PARKING SPACES LEGEND CART CORRAL CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS LANDSCAPE AREA BICYCLE PARKING PROPERTY/PARCEL LINE VICINITY MAP PROPERTY LOCATION ARCHITECT: TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 707 NORTH 27TH STREET BOISE, ID 83702 PHONE: 208-319-0748 CONTACT: SCOTT MIZEE E-MAIL: smizee@tait.com AGENT OF OWNER: TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 707 NORTH 27TH STREET BOISE, ID 83702 PHONE: 208-319-0748 CONTACT: SCOTT MIZEE E-MAIL: smizee@tait.com ZONING: UC-2 (URBAN CENTER) EXISTING OCCUPANCY: MERCHANTILE PROPOSED OCCUPANCY: MERCHANTILE EXISTING BUILDING TYPE: V-N FULLY SPRINKLERED SITE DATA RIGHTLEFT FRONT REAR NORTH PLAN NORTH PLAN PARKING DATA BUILDING HEIGHT: MAX ALLOWABLE BUIDING HEIGHT: 10 STORIES ALONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ARTERIALS. 6 STORIES ALONG RESIDENTIAL / MINOR COLLECTORS. EXISITNG BUILDING HEIGHT:42'-0" TOTAL LOT AREA:11.52 ACRES (501,611 S.F.) EXISTING BUILDING AREA: 151,840 S.F. ADDITION BUILDING AREA: 176 S.F. TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 152,016 S.F. (30.31 % OF TOTAL LOT AREA) LANDSCAPING AREA: 43,246.38 S.F. (8.62 % OF TOTAL LOT AREA) BUILDING SETBACKS: (EXISTING) PER TABLE 4-2-120A TABLE IN THE RMC, ALL SETBACKS FOR A UC -2 ZONED AREA • FRONT: 15’ - 20’ • REAR AND SIDE: NONE UNLESS ABUTTING RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA. SCALE: 1" = 200'-0" EXISTING TREES LWWFaExhibitac6 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 23, 2024 TO: Pre-Application File No. PRE24-000139 FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: WinCo Foods No. 177 – 800 Garden Ave N, Renton, WA 98057 Parcel No. 0823059217 General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision- makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Development Engineering Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton. Project Proposal: The project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of N 8th St and Garden Ave N at 800 Garden Ave N (parcel no. 0823059217). The project site totals approximately 501,611 square feet (11.5 acres) in area and is zoned Urban Center-2 (UC-2). The proposal includes the reuse of an existing non-conforming 151,840 square foot building. WinCo Foods would occupy 104,337 square feet of the 151,840 square foot existing building and the remaining portion would be demised off to allow access to the existing truck dock. A small 176 square foot addition is proposed on the west side of the building for access to a new compactor dock. The new total building area would be 152,016 square feet. The existing surface parking lot currently includes 708 parking spaces. The proposal includes the removal of 24 spaces for the new compactor deck on the west side and the removal of 34 spaces for cart corals. A total of 650 parking spaces would remain. Access would remain via the existing curb cut off N 8th St and the three (3) existing curb cuts off Garden Ave N. The site is mapped with a high seismic hazard area. Current Use: Currently the site is occupied with an existing 151,840 square foot thirty-two foot (32’) tall vacant non-conforming building, which is proposed to remain. 1. Zoning /Land Use Designation, and Overlays: The project site is located within the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) land use designation, the Urban Center-2 (UC-2) zoning designation, and Urban Design District C. Retail sales is a permitted use within the UC-2 zone, provided all of the following conditions are met: LWWF Exhibit #7, Page 1 of 2 14. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, and Environmental (SEPA) Review. All land use permits would be processed within an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. The 2024 application fees are as follows: Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review is $4,270, and SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is $1,800. The fee for any Code Modifications are $290 each. A 5% technology fee would also be assessed at the time of land use application. All fees are subject to change. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal can be found on the City’s Permit Center website (www.Rentonwa.gov). The City now requires electronic plan submittal for all applications. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction and building permits may be required. 15. Waivers of Submittal Requirements: The submittal checklist is not an exhaustive list of submittal requirements and may be modified in cases where additional information is required to complete the review of an application. In addition, non-applicable submittal requirements may be waived. The applicant should contact the assigned Project Manager if there are any questions regarding submittal requirements. 16. Public Information Sign: Public Information Signs are required for all Type II and Type III Land Use Permits as classified by RMC 4-8-080. Public Information Signs are intended to inform the public of potential land development, specific permits/actions being considered by the City, and to facilitate timely and effective public participation in the review process. The applicant must follow the specifications provided in the public information sign handout. The applicant is solely responsible for the construction, installation, maintenance, removal, and any costs associated with the sign. 17. Public Meeting: Please note a neighborhood meeting, according to RMC 4-8-090, is required for: a. Preliminary plat applications; b. Planned urban development applications; and c. Projects estimated by the City to have a monetary value equal to or greater than ten million dollars ($10,000,000), unless waived by the Administrator. The intent of this meeting is to facilitate an informal discussion between the project developer and the neighbors regarding the project. The neighborhood meeting shall occur after a pre- application meeting and before submittal of applicable permit applications. The public meeting shall be held within Renton city limits, at a location no further than two (2) miles from the project site. 18. Public Outreach Sign: Preliminary plats, planned urban development applications, and projects estimated by the City to have a monetary value equal to or greater than ten million dollars ($10,000,000), unless waived by the Administrator require the applicant to install a public outreach sign. Public outreach signs are intended to supplement information provided by public information signs by allowing an applicant to develop a personalized promotional message for the proposed development. The sign is also intended to provide the public with a better sense of proposed development by displaying a colored rendering of the project and other required or discretionary information that lends greater understanding of the project. LWWF Exhibit #7, Page 2 of 2 S1260_WNC 177_LS-01_OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLANLWWF Exhibit #8 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 Page LAW OFFICE OF KARL G. ANUTA, P.C. TRIAL ATTORNEY 735 S. W . First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Phone 503.827.0320 | Fax 503.386.2168 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true copy of the foregoing LWWF Response on: Timothy D. Schermetzler Tschermetzler@csdlaw.com Megan Holmes Mholmes@csdlaw.com Shannon Duhon Sduhon@csdlaw.com Joan Becker Jbecker@csdlaw.com Patrice Kent Pkent@rentonwa.gov by the following indicated method or m ethods: G by mailing full, true, and correct copies thereof in sealed, f irst-class postage-prepaid envelopes, addressed to the attorney s as shown above, the last-known office addresses of the attorneys, and deposited with the United States Postal Serv ice at Portland, Oreg on, on the date set forth below. G by causing full, true, and correct copies thereof to be hand-delivered to the attorneys in person or at the attorney s' last-known office addresses listed above on the date set f orth below. O by emailing a full, true, and correct copies thereof to the attorney at the email address shown above. O I hereby declare that the abov e is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that this docum ent is made for use as evidence in court and is subject to penalty of perjury. DATED: May 21, 2025 __/s/Karl G. Anuta __________________ KARL G. ANUTA, W SB # 21346 Attorney for Plaintiff 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE