HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-30-2026 - HEX Decision - LUA-25-000343 - Renton High School1
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
PUD AND CU - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Renton High School Replacement and
Site Expansion
Preliminary and Final Planned Unit
Development and Conditional Use
LUA25-000343, PUD, CU-H, LC
))))
)
))))
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The Applicant is requesting Preliminary and Final Planned Urban Development (PUD) and conditional
use permit (CUP) approvals to reconstruct and expand the Renton High School campus at 400 S 2nd
St. The proposal is approved subject to conditions.
TESTIMONY
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing
testimony. No members of the public testified. The transcript is provided for informational purposes
only as Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-36 listed on the City’s exhibit list presented at the January 13, 2026 hearing were admitted
into the record during the hearing. The Applicant’s PowerPoint presentation at the hearing was
admitted as Exhibit 37.
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
PUD AND CU - 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Brianne Tomlin, Renton School District, 7812 S 124th St, Seattle, WA 98178.
2. Hearing. A hybrid virtual and in-person hearing was held at 11:00 am on January 13, 2026 in
the Council Chambers of Renton City Hall and via Zoom.
3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting Preliminary and Final PUD and CUP
approvals to reconstruct and expand the Renton High School campus at 400 S 2nd St. The PUD is
requested to waive numerous development standards as outlined in the table below. The CUP is
required for the proposed school use.
The site is approximately 35.2 acres and is developed with the original 1931 school building, an annex
classroom building, gymnasium, Ikea Center for the Performing Arts (IPAC), sports fields, and
associated surface parking. The site also includes the former Renton High School vocational training
building which currently serves as the Renton School District central warehouse. There are no natural
features at the project site such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical
area wildlife habitats. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5, any trees removed will be done consistently
with the City’s tree retention standards.
The Applicant proposes to expand the site through the on-going acquisition of approximately 42 single-
family and commercial properties on the block bounded by Logan Ave S, S Tobin St, Shattuck Ave S,
and Airport Way, as well as two (2) properties off of Lake Ave S. The 42 properties total approximately
ten (10) acres in area.
The Applicant proposes to preserve and renovate approximately 93,500 square feet of existing buildings
(the original 1931 building and IPAC), demolish the remaining structures, and construct a new 310,000
square foot three-story classroom building and three (3) small accessory buildings totaling 6,270 square
feet. Upon completion, the campus will total approximately 409,770 square feet of building area, include
476 parking spaces, and a new bus load/unload zone along Logan Ave S. Vehicular access is proposed
via two (2) driveways on S 2nd St, one (1) driveway on Lake Ave S, and gated/event access at Logan
Ave S and S Tobin St, with pedestrian circulation improved through frontage improvements and off-site
intersection upgrades. The project also includes athletic field lighting poles up to 77 feet (77’) in height.
Construction of the new campus will be phased with work beginning in summer 2026 with parking and
frontage improvements, followed by construction of the new high school starting September 2026. The
new building is expected to open in fall 2028. Demolition of existing buildings and completion of
athletic fields, parking, and frontage improvements will occur in 2028–2029, with final site work
continuing through September 2030.
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
PUD AND CU - 3
The PUD process is used to waive development standards in exchange for superior project design and
public benefit. The waivers sought by the Applicant are as follows:
RMC Code Citation Required Standard Modification
RMC 4-2-100 Zoning
Standards Tables
There are three (3) separate
tables dealing with the
various zones (R-8, CA, and
CD) which contain the
minimum and, in some
cases, maximum
requirements of the zone.
The application of a single
zoning classification (CD)
and corresponding Design
District ‘A’ for the entire site
for the purposes of review.
RMC 4-2-120A
Development Standards
for Commercial Zones
Maximum secondary front
yard setback along a street is
15 feet, or 25 feet for any
portion of a building over 25
feet.
Library portion of the
building is setback greater
than 25 feet in order to
provide space for landscape
buffer along Logan Ave S.
RMC 4-2-120A
Development Standards
for Commercial Zones
If the CD lot abuts a lot zoned
residential, then there shall
be a 15-foot landscaped strip
or a 5-foot wide sight-
obscuring landscaped strip
and a solid 6-foot high barrier
along the common boundary
with an additional 5-foot
setback from the barrier.
Widths of buffer abutting to
residential vary from 8 to 15
feet; existing fence type
varies from chain-link to
solid board.
RMC 4-2-120A
Development Standards
for Commercial Zones
Max height is 150 feet, or 20
feet more than the maximum
height allowed in the abutting
residential zone (44 feet
based on abutting R-8 zone).
Building is 65 feet tall and
field lights range between 46
and 75 feet tall.
RMC 4-3-100 Urban
Design Districts
(Surface Parking
Location)
No surface parking between a
building and the front or side
street. Parking must be
screened by buildings or
landscaping.
Student drop-off lane and
parallel visitor parking
located between the IPAC
and S 2nd St, with screening
provided primarily through
site design and landscaping.
RMC 4-3-100 Urban
Design Districts
(Vehicular Access
Location)
Parking should be accessed
from alleys or side streets
rather than primary streets.
Student and visitor
parking/drop-off accessed
primarily from S 2nd St, with
secondary access from Lake
Ave S.
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
PUD AND CU - 4
RMC 4-3-100 Urban
Design Districts
(Surface Parking)
Parking areas shall be fully
screened from adjacent
streets.
Student parking lot is
located adjacent to the side
of the 1930s building and
adjacent to S 2nd St. It is
partially screened with the
exception of areas where the
sidewalk is expanded.
RMC 4-3-100 Urban
Design Districts
(Recreation Areas and
Common Open Space)
Provide at least three (3)
lineal feet of seating area
(bench, ledge, etc.) or one
individual seat per sixty (60)
square feet of plaza area or
open space.
The proposal is required to
provide 17,813 SF of
common open space
(17,849 SF provided), which
requires 297 seats or 892 LF
of seating. The proposal is
providing 260 LF/17 seats.
RMC 4-3-100 (Ground
Level Details)
Any facade visible to the
public shall be comprised of
at least seventy five percent
(75%) transparent windows
and/or doors for at least the
portion of the ground floor
facade that is between four
feet (4') and eight feet (8')
above ground (as measured
on the true elevation).
The Logan Ave facade (2,843
SF of ground floor facade)
has 53 percent (53%)
transparency.
RMC 4-4-070 (Street
Frontage Landscaping)
10 feet of on-site landscaping
to be provided along public
street frontages (i.e., Airport
Way, Shattuck Ave S, and S
Tobin St, which are not in the
CD zone).
Variable 5 to 10 feet of
landscaping provided along
Airport Way; Other frontages
meet code.
RMC 4-4-070
(Landscape Buffers)
10-foot fully sight-obscuring
or 15-foot partially sight-
obscuring buffer required
along shared property lines
when a commercial zone
abuts a residential zone.
Applicable on S Tobin St
where abutting residential.
Widths of buffer adjacent to
residential vary from 8 to 15
feet; existing fence type
varies from chain-link to
solid board.
RMC 4-4-040 (Fence
Height)
Fences within 15 feet of
front/secondary yards ≤ 48
inches; chain-link prohibited
in CD zone (unless vinyl-
coated).
Outfield chain-link fences
(with wind screens) up to 8
feet tall along Airport Way
and Logan Ave S, located
approximately 5 feet from
property line. Ornamental
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
PUD AND CU - 5
fencing up to 6 to 8 feet
provided along street
frontages.
RMC 4-4-090 (Refuse &
Recycling Enclosures)
Enclosures must have 6-foot
walls, 12-foot minimum gate
width, and 15-foot vertical
clearance.
Refuse enclosure walls are
proposed at 11 to 12 feet,
with 8-foot gate panels and
vertical clearances of 11 to
12 feet.
RMC 4-4-090 (Screening
of Refuse Areas)
Enclosures must be
surrounded by a 6-foot wall or
fence.
Refuse areas enclosed with
11-foot and 12-foot high
walls and 10.5 to 11 foot
gates to screen equipment
and serve adjacent
mechanical yard.
RMC 4-4-090 (Refuse
Area Gate Width &
Clearance)
Minimum 12-foot-wide gate
opening with 15-foot vertical
clearance.
Gate openings reduced to 8
feet (6.5 feet for smaller
dumpsters) with enclosure
roof clearances of 10.5 to 12
feet due to scale and
operational constraints.
RMC 4-4-130 (Tree
Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations)
Administrator may allow fee-
in-lieu of tree replacement.
Allow for potential off-site
planting to supplement fee-
in-lieu replacement.
RMC 4-6-060 (Streets) 12-foot-wide sidewalk on all
streets in the City Center
Planning Area. The sidewalk
width includes street tree
grates for locating street
trees.
Sidewalk widths vary from 5
feet to 8 feet on frontages,
except for 12 feet on Logan
Ave S (a pedestrian street)
and on S 2nd St the existing
sidewalk is to remain until
the City improvement
project.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Police service will be provided by the City of Renton Police
Department and fire service by the Renton Regional Fire Authority.
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
PUD AND CU - 6
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.
A Fire Impact Fee based on number of students is required to mitigate the proposal’s potential
impacts to City emergency services. The Fire Impact Fee, based on the City of Renton Fee
Schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance, would be imposed during building
permit review.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater drainage facilities.
The proposal is subject to full drainage review under the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water
Design Manual. As required by state law, the Manual adopts all known, available and
reasonable methods of stormwater prevention, control and treatment (AKART). See RCW
90.52.040 and RCW 90.48.010. The Manual generally requires that the proposal not generate
off-site flows that exceed pre-developed forested conditions of the project site. The Manual
also incorporates the latest feasible technology on assuring adequate water treatment. The
Applicant submitted a Technical Information Report, prepared by prepared by AHBL, dated
September 2025 (Exhibit 13). Public works staff have determined that the TIR establishes
compliance with the Manual for this stage of review.
The proposed stormwater system will discharge into the Cit’s stormwater system. Because
more than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface will be created, enhanced
basic water quality treatment is required. Flow control facilities are proposed to detain
stormwater and limit post-development discharge rates to existing (pre-project) conditions.
Conveyance improvements include new storm pipe networks that collect runoff from roofs,
paved areas, and athletic fields and route it through approved Best Management Practices
(BMPs) prior to connection to the City system.
D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parks and open space.
The project provides a comprehensive system of outdoor recreation and gathering spaces that
exceeds what would otherwise be required through standard development regulations. The
campus includes multiple competitive-level athletic facilities, including baseball, softball, and
multipurpose fields, indoor courts, and associated spectator and concessions areas. These
facilities are designed for both school programming and public use outside school hours through
permitted community access. Two (2) pedestrian plazas — one (1) at the primary entry and one
(1) north of the classroom building — establish identifiable gathering areas that function as
extensions of the academic environment while supporting informal community use. The project
also provides enhanced sidewalks, including a widened 12-foot (12’) pedestrian corridor in key
locations along S 2nd St and Logan Ave S, improving comfort and accessibility for students
and the public. Together, these features create active and passive open spaces that support both
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
PUD AND CU - 7
educational and community needs and represent a level of recreational investment not typically
required absent the PUD.
As identified in COL No. 17 below, the project site is required to provide pedestrian oriented
open space that comprises at least 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area. The proposal
includes a functional network of outdoor areas that support student arrival, informal gathering,
circulation, and outdoor learning, consistent with pedestrian oriented open space requirements.
The current submittal, however, does not clearly quantify the total square footage of pedestrian-
oriented space or demonstrate that all spaces counted include the minimum required elements
such as seating and lighting. A condition of approval requires the submission of this
information as consistent with open space requirements for planning staff approval prior to
issuance of the civil construction permit.
E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate streets. The proposal has been
designed and staff has recommended several conditions adopted by this decision that provide
for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation by incorporating a well linked and
defined pedestrian and vehicular circulation system on-site that is integrated into adjoining
streets and sidewalks. The proposal has also been reviewed by City Public Works staff and
found to preliminarily comply with City street standards.
The Transportation Technical Report, prepared by Heffron Transportation Inc, dated September
16, 2025, evaluated campus operations at a planned enrollment of up to approximately 1,600
students. When accounting for demolition of former on-site residential and commercial uses,
the project is expected to generate an overall decrease of approximately 610 daily vehicle trips.
Peak-hour impacts are modest as the site would see an increase of approximately 18 trips during
the morning arrival period, but a reduction of about 15 trips during the afternoon school-
dismissal period and a reduction of roughly 69 trips during the PM commuter peak. These trip
changes were evaluated at nearby intersections and were found not to result in level-of-service
(congestion standard) deficiencies or warrant off-site mitigation. All evaluated intersections
continue to operate at acceptable LOS standards.
Emergency access has been coordinated with the City and Renton Regional Fire Authority. The
reconstructed S Tobin St fire lane, gated secondary access points, and clear apparatus routes
provide multiple points of entry to interior areas of the site.
The proposed circulation system represents a superior configuration compared to conventional
development patterns. The PUD allows coordinated reconfiguration of driveways, removal of
redundant access points, and consolidation of internal circulation that improves safety and
clarity of movement. Vehicular entries are placed to maximize sight distance and reduce turning
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
PUD AND CU - 8
conflicts, while pedestrian routes are prioritized and aligned with primary building entrances.
Bus loading is relocated to Logan Ave S to minimize internal conflicts and improve route
efficiency, while student drop-off areas are expanded and separated from staff and service
access. Strategic use of gated access points provides additional capacity for event traffic without
introducing through-traffic during school hours. Parking areas are broken into smaller
groupings and screened with landscaping that achieves full ground coverage, reducing visual
prominence and softening edges along adjacent streets. Collectively, these measures create safer
pedestrian conditions, improved site legibility, and more efficient circulation than would likely
result without the flexibility afforded by the PUD.
One comment letter, Ex. 28, questioned the accuracy of the Ex. 15 traffic report. The letter
asserted that the traffic forecasts didn’t consider impacts caused by the proposed street vacation.
The traffic report did model traffic circulation with the street vacation and the impacts of those
changes were factored into projected traffic volumes. See e.g. Section 3.2.5 of the traffic report,
testimony of McBrian.
Assertions were also made in the Ex. 28 letter that various people such as students and
homeowners would not be driving. As noted by the Applicant’s traffic engineer in his response,
Ex. 30, those changes were immaterial or already reflected in the traffic counts taken to estimate
future traffic. If the factors listed in the Ex. 28 comment letter were not included in the traffic
forecasts and made a material difference, the impacts of the proposal would be overstated. Off-
site mitigation is required when total congestion delays exceed adopted City standards. The
worse the anticipated traffic generation from all sources, the greater the chance that set
congestion levels will be exceeded requiring the Applicant to pay its proportionate share to fix
the problem. If the report underreported trip forecasts because less people are driving then
anticipated, that would result in less mitigation required of the Applicant. The traffic report
was prepared by a traffic engineer using standards of the profession to estimate trip generation
and impacts. There was no compelling evidence that the analysis of the engineer was missing
any material information or was erroneous in any material way.
F. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking.
Parking regulations for Senior high schools: public, parochial and private require a minimum
and maximum of 1.0 per employee plus 1.0 space for every 10 students enrolled. In addition, if
buses for the private transportation of children are kept at the school, 1.0 off-street parking space
shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Based on an estimated 1,600
students (160 spaces) and approximately 150 full- and part-time staff (150 spaces), the required
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
PUD AND CU - 9
parking for the school component is 310 stalls. Because four (4) small buses would be kept on-
site, four (4) bus parking spaces are also required.
Parking for the district administrative offices located in the 1930s building is calculated at one
(1) space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. With approximately 76,000 square feet of
office use, a total of 76 spaces would ordinarily be required; however, no minimum is required
for commercial uses in the CD zone, resulting in a code range of zero (0) to 76 possible required
spaces. Finally, parking for the outdoor and indoor athletic and assembly facilities is calculated
at one (1) space for every four (4) fixed spectator seats or one (1) space per 1,000 square feet
of assembly space, whichever is greater. With 551 fixed spectator seats, the athletic facilities
require 138 parking spaces.
When all applicable uses are considered together, the combined parking obligation for the site
ranges from approximately 448 to 524 off-street stalls (depending on whether district office
parking is counted at the high end of the optional range). The proposal provides 476 striped
vehicle spaces, plus an additional 48 convertible event spaces, resulting in a total functional
capacity of 524 stalls and demonstrating compliance with the City’s parking standards for joint-
use facilities.
Bicycle parking is provided consistent with RMC 4-4-080, which requires bicycle facilities
equal to ten percent (10%) of the required vehicle parking, or 45 stalls (10% of 448 stalls =
44.8). The Applicant proposes a combination of short-term and long-term bicycle racks placed
in strategic locations across the site to support both daily commuting and recreational use.
The project provides parking areas that are distributed, screened, and integrated into the campus
design rather than configured as large uninterrupted expanses. Two (2) primary parking lots
serve staff, visitors, and event users, supplemented by strategically placed parallel and aisle-
adjacent stalls along internal drives. This arrangement allows the overall supply to meet City
requirements while minimizing the footprint of any single parking field and reducing the need
for additional maneuvering aisles. Parking is organized to relate logically to the functions it
serves, including proximity to the main entry, IPAC, and athletic facilities, while maintaining
separation from primary pedestrian plazas and learning spaces.
Landscaping, shade trees, lighting, and internal pedestrian pathways are incorporated consistent
with RMC 4-4-080. Perimeter buffers and interior landscaping provide visual relief and
screening from surrounding streets and adjacent uses. Parking areas located along internal
drives help calm vehicle speeds and create additional buffer between sidewalks and travel lanes.
The combination of distributed lots, landscaped screening, and efficient stall placement results
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
PUD AND CU - 10
in parking areas that function effectively while supporting a more pedestrian-focused campus
environment.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
proposal. Adequate public facilities are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Pertinent
impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding development.
Overall, through strategic building placement, significant open space buffers, and architectural
modulation, the project successfully transitions between the larger institutional campus
environment and adjacent residential and mixed-use areas, preserving neighborhood scale and
character.
The proposed project balances the larger civic scale appropriate for a regional public high
school while maintaining compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent uses. The
primary academic building ranges up to three (3) stories whose mass is concentrated near S 2nd
St and Logan Ave S, locations characterized by wider arterials, commercial activity, and larger
structures, including the existing IPAC and the multi-story municipal parking garage across the
intersection of Logan Ave S and S 2nd St. This siting strategy places the greatest height and
activity at the edges of the campus that can best accommodate it, while stepping down intensity
toward the west and north where lower-scale residential and campus-support uses occur.
Along Lake Ave S and the western edge of the campus, existing residential properties are
buffered by large expanses of athletic fields, track facilities, and landscaped areas. These open
spaces create substantial building separation and reduce visual bulk, ensuring a gentle transition
from school facilities to nearby homes. No new tall buildings are proposed in proximity to
residential edges, and the track field is intentionally designed for practice use only — without
spectator seating or lighting — further reducing potential visual and activity impacts.
Architecturally, the new high school employs modulation, facade articulation, and varied roof
forms to break down perceived massing. The building composition ties visually to both the
retained historic 1931 structure and the IPAC through compatible materials, color palettes, and
horizontal proportions. These design techniques help integrate the new construction into the
established campus fabric while presenting a civic presence appropriate to its function.
The site remains appropriate for the high school use and does not represent an over-
concentration of similar uses, as no other schools are located within the immediate area. The
surrounding urban context already functions around Renton High School, and the proposed
work largely enhances existing functions rather than introducing a new institutional use. The
Applicant notes the campus location is the most viable opportunity to accommodate needed
educational and athletic programming within the school district, after evaluating alternative
siting constraints. Approving the proposal enables the school to continue as a community anchor
within an area served by robust transportation and civic infrastructure.
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
PUD AND CU - 11
B. Tree Retention. The proposal complies with the City’s tree retention standards, thus ensuring
that in conjunction with the City’s landscaping requirements that impacts to wildlife habitat and
aesthetics are adequately mitigated.
The City’s adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations (4-4-130) require the
retention of 30 percent of protected trees. excluding those located in future right-of-way
dedication, those deemed hazardous, or those within critical areas. The Applicant submitted a
Tree Retention/Land Clearing Plan (Arborist Report) prepared by Atlas Technical Consultants
LLC, dated September 4, 2025 (Exhibit 12). . The report identifies 212 significant (protected)
trees, resulting in 64 trees that must be retained. Due to site and design constraints, the
Applicant only proposes retention of 28 trees. To ensure appropriate mitigation for the credit
shortfall, staff supports allowing tree replacement requirements to be met through a
combination of approaches, including, in order of preference: on-site planting where feasible,
off-site planting on other Renton School District properties within the City, and payment of fee-
in-lieu to the City’s Urban Forestry Program.
To meet the City’s tree retention standards, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant
mitigate the deficit in required tree credits in the following order of preference, subject to City
approval prior to civil construction permit issuance: (1) tree planting on-site to the maximum
extent feasible; (2) tree planting on other Renton School District properties located within the
City of Renton; and (3) payment of fee-in-lieu for any remaining credits that cannot reasonably
be accommodated through on-site or off-site planting.
C. Critical Areas. The proposal complies with the City’s critical area regulations and thus is found
to adequately mitigate against significant adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.
The project site is encumbered by geologically hazardous areas and wellhead protection areas.
As conditioned by this decision, the Applicant’s proposed work within these areas will be in
conformance with the City’s critical area regulations and for that reason the work is not
considered to create any adverse significant impacts. A discussion of each type of critical area
follows.
1. Geologically Hazardous Areas. City mapping identifies the Renton High School
campus as being located within an area of high seismic hazard and with limited areas
of mapped potential landslide hazard associated primarily with localized grade
changes and historic fill conditions. As such, the Applicant submitted a Subsurface
Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 3, 2025 (Exhibit 14).
The geotechnical evaluation concludes that the proposed construction, including
new foundations, utilities, grading activities, and athletic field improvements, can
be safely supported provided the recommendations in the report are implemented.
Where improvements occur near steeper grade transitions or existing retaining
structures, the report provides construction controls to avoid destabilization,
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
PUD AND CU - 12
including temporary shoring, equipment setbacks, and careful management of
stormwater during construction.
A condition of approval requires that prior to issuance of the civil construction
permit, the Applicant shall submit a supplemental geotechnical memorandum
prepared by the project geotechnical engineer confirming that the final grading plan,
utility alignments, retaining wall designs, and foundation systems are consistent with
the assumptions and recommendations of the approved Geotechnical Engineering
Report. The memorandum shall identify any additional construction
recommendations, temporary shoring needs, equipment setbacks, or stormwater
controls warranted by the final design.
2. Wellhead Protection Area. According to COR Maps, the site is located within both the
Downtown Wellhead Protection Zones 1 and 2. The eastern portion of the site is located
in Zone 1 while the western portion of the site is located in Zone 2. Open facilities and
open conveyance systems in either zone may require a liner in accordance with the 2022
Renton Surface Water Design Manual. No open facilities or convenance systems are
proposed and therefore the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for
stormwater control is preferable. BMPs that rely on infiltration are prohibited in the
Wellhead Protection Zone 1 but are allowed in Zone 2. The proposed mixed-use
building does not typically represent a type of use that would potentially harm the city’s
groundwater. Fill is anticipated to be brought on the site and therefore any offsite fill
materials shall be from a verifiable source in order to ensure it is clear of contaminants.
The city’s grading and excavation regulations require that when imported fill is in excess
of 50 cubic yards within a Wellhead Protection Zone, a source statement certified by a
qualified professional be provided or confirmation that the fill was obtained from a
WSDOT approved source.
D. Light, Glare and Noise. The proposal will not create any significant light and glare impacts.
Field lighting and site lighting are designed to be shielded, downcast and aimed to the play
area to minimize light spill. The school district’s lighting is proposed to be turned off by
10:00 p.m. when in use during the darker months of the year. The design and specification
for exterior lighting would meet all of the International Dark Sky “Principles for
Responsible Outdoor Lighting.” The Lighting Study (Exhibit 16) demonstrates spill
illumination between 0 and 0.09 footcandles at the site edges, and athletic lighting remains
below FAA height thresholds. Light mitigation is included in the school district’s MDNS
(Exhibit 27) and the conditions of approval.
Long-term noise sources such as student activities and periodic evening sports events are
consistent with existing conditions on a long-standing school campus. Truck delivery noise
impacts should be minimal as delivery access will be limited to the Logan Ave S bus pick -
up and drop-off lane on the east portion of the subject site. The noise of school children
playing or congregating outside will be an impact limited during the school day. Acceptable
levels of noise are also set by the City’s noise ordinance.
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
PUD AND CU - 13
E. Privacy. The proposal provides for adequate internal and external privacy of proposed and
adjacent residential uses.
The project provides appropriate visual separation, noise buffering, and screening given the
institutional nature of the campus and the limited number of nearby residential properties.
No new dwelling units are proposed as part of the redevelopment. The remaining off-site
residential uses are located primarily along Lake Ave S and the non-vacated portion of S
Tobin St at the northwest edge of the campus. In this area, the proposal reduces the overall
activity intensity by converting the existing spectator ballfields to a practice-only track and
field facility with no lighting and no spectator seating. The large open-space buffer created
by these athletic fields, combined with retained and supplemental landscaping, provides a
physical and visual separation between school functions and adjacent homes.
Existing fencing and vegetation along residential edges would be retained where feasible,
and additional landscape buffers are proposed to enhance screening and privacy. Parking
areas, mechanical equipment, refuse facilities, and student activity zones are located
primarily within the interior of the site or along street frontages that do not abut residential
properties, and would be screened consistent with applicable City standards.
F. Building Orientation. The dwelling units are oriented to take maximum advantage of
available views.
The proposed building orientation takes advantage of the site’s topography and urban
context to enhance views and create an active, outward-facing campus. The new classroom
building is oriented primarily toward S 2nd St and Logan Ave S, with generous glazing that
frames views toward downtown Renton and landscaped plazas while creating transparency
and visual interest along public frontages. This orientation reinforces the school’s civic
presence and supports a pedestrian-oriented streetscape consistent with the Urban Design
District standards. Internal courtyards and plazas provide additional views to landscaped
areas and athletic fields, allowing both interior learning spaces and exterior gathering areas
to benefit from open-space vistas rather than being focused on parking or service functions.
Overall, the building location and orientation enhance visual connectivity, leverage site
features, and contribute to a well-organized campus layout.
6. Superiority in Design. The proposal is superior to that which would result without using the PUD
regulations.
Planning staff in the staff report have found that the use of the PUD provisions allows for an integrated,
campus-scale design solution that balances building orientation, pedestrian movement, circulation,
safety, and site programming in a way that would not be achievable under strict application of the
development standards. The proposed project replaces an aging and functionally outdated high school
campus with a modernized facility that continues to serve the same student population while better
supporting academic, athletic, and community needs. Unlike a new school built in an unserved area, this
project reinforces the historic role of Renton High School within the downtown and surrounding
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
PUD AND CU - 14
neighborhoods, while improving safety, accessibility, and environmental performance. The PUD enables
a site design that orients buildings, plazas, and primary entries toward surrounding streets and public
spaces, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-52, which calls for buildings to face streets or
common areas rather than parking lots. The project also incorporates pedestrian pathways, plazas,
landscaping, and outdoor gathering areas that create clear edges, entries, and identifiable public spaces,
consistent with Policy LU-51 and Goal LU-FF, which emphasize human-scale design and enhancement
of community identity.
Without the flexibility provided through the PUD, the campus would be constrained by multiple zoning
districts, frontage standards, and dimensional requirements that would fragment circulation and reduce
opportunities for cohesive open space and safety-focused campus organization. The PUD allows
coordinated placement of the new high school building, renovation of the 1930 historic structure, and
arrangement of athletic facilities in a manner that supports secure internal circulation, improved
pedestrian connectivity, and clear hierarchy of vehicular and bus movements. These features result in a
more functional and unified campus than would otherwise occur.
The requested modifications primarily relate to parking and circulation placement, fencing height, and
landscaping transitions, all of which are integrated into an overall design strategy intended to improve
student safety, operational efficiency, and neighborhood compatibility. The development is located
within an existing school site surrounded by a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential uses. The
redevelopment maintains school use in this location, improves visual quality along S 2nd St and Logan
Ave S, and provides enhanced pedestrian connections while buffering athletic activities where feasible.
For these reasons, the proposed project represents a superior design outcome when compared to
development under strict application of the code, and the requested deviations are not anticipated to be
unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides for numerous public benefits beyond those possible
under applicable zoning district regulations.
As a public educational facility, the project supports long-term community investment, academic
achievement, and equitable access to learning opportunities for current and future students. The
redevelopment replaces outdated facilities with modernized classrooms, career-technical education
spaces, science labs, arts and athletic facilities, and support services designed to meet contemporary
educational needs. These improvements contribute directly to community well-being and help
implement the City’s adopted goals related to quality public services, neighborhood vitality, and
downtown reinvestment.
The PUD allows a comprehensive campus design that improves circulation, safety, and connectivity
beyond what would otherwise occur. The project includes a clear separation of bus traffic, general
vehicular access, and pedestrian movement; enhanced frontage improvements and pedestrian
crossings; and reconfigured site access that reduces conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. These
design features promote safer walking and biking routes for students and the larger community. The
campus also incorporates plazas, outdoor gathering areas, landscaping, and improved athletic and
recreational facilities that can support school functions as well as community events and youth
programs, thereby extending the public benefit beyond the school day.
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
PUD AND CU - 15
The project retains and rehabilitates the historic 1930 Renton High School building, preserving an
important cultural and architectural landmark that contributes to the City’s identity. The preservation
effort, combined with new construction designed to complement the surrounding urban context,
strengthens neighborhood character, and supports Comprehensive Plan policies related to design
quality and sense of place. Additionally, the project consolidates fragmented parcels, improves
stormwater management, and upgrades utilities and infrastructure in ways that would not be triggered
by maintaining the existing campus in its current condition.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies each of the permits under review as either Type II or
Type III permits. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the
highest-number procedure.” The Type III plat review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore
must be employed for all of the permit applications. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing
Examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to
closed record appeal to the Renton City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is apportioned amounts three
zoning districts: Commercial Arterial (CA)), Center Downtown (CD) and Residential-8 (R-8). The
project site is also located with Urban Design District ‘A’, Urban Design District ‘D’ and City Center
Sign Regulation Area. The comprehensive plan land use designations for the site are apportioned
between Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) and Residential Medium Density (RMD)
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-150 governs preliminary and final PUD review criteria. RMC 4-9-
030F governs the conditional use criteria for height increases and RMC 4-9-030C governs the
conditional use. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding
conclusions of law. All applicable criterion quoted below are met for the reasons identified in the
corresponding conclusions of law.
Preliminary PUD
RMC 4-9-150(B)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modified:
a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of
chapter 4-2 RMC, chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7 RMC, except as listed in
subsection B3 of this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of
the planned urban development.
b. An Applicant may request additional modifications from the requirements of this Title, except
those listed in subsection B3 of this Section. All modifications shall be considered
simultaneously as part of the planned urban development.
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
PUD AND CU - 16
4. The criterion is met. As shown in FOF No. 3, the requested revisions are limited to Chapter 4-
2, 4-3 and 4-4 regulations as authorized above. None of the Chapter 4-3 requested modifications are
prohibited by RMC 4-9-150B3.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that
a proposed development is following the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive
Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which will result without a planned
urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding
properties.
5. The criterion is met. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150(A), are
to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in
development of residential uses. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, there are no natural features to
protect at the project site. There are some large trees, but they will be removed in conformance with
the City’s tree retention standards as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5B. The proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified in Finding No. 19 of the staff report. The
proposal is superior to that which could be produced without a PUD for the reasons identified in FOF
No. 6. The proposal will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties because it will not result
in any significant adverse impacts for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed
development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse
impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those
adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development
will provide one or more of the following benefits than will result from the development of the
subject site without the proposed planned urban development:
a. Protects critical areas that will not be protected otherwise to the same degree as
without a planned urban development; or
b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the
subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or
noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or
c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for
development of the subject property without a planned urban development.
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
PUD AND CU - 17
d. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the
design that will result from development of the subject property without a planned urban
development. A superior design may include the following: ...
6. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for public benefit for the elements quoted above as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 7.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria:
a. Building and Site Design:
i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the
planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent
or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential
for light and glare.
7. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at Finding of Fact No. 5(A) and (D).
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria
…
b. Circulation:
i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban
development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate
with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and
private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic
demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation
report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to
adjacent areas.
8. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for adequate streets and pedestrian facilities as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4E.
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
PUD AND CU - 18
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria
…
b. Circulation:
…
ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from
pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning
patterns, and minimization of steep gradients.
9. The proposal meets this requirement as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4E.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria
…
b. Circulation:
…
iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational
areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
10. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for a well-integrated system of
internal pedestrian improvements that ultimately connect to required frontage pedestrian
improvements.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria
…
b. Circulation:
…
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
PUD AND CU - 19
iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
11. As conditioned, the proposal provides for safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles as
determined in FOF No. 4E.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria
c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other
improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development.
12. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and as conditioned, the proposal is served by sufficient
public infrastructure and services to serve the development.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria
…
e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units,
and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use
development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and
surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used,
as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the
privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage,
mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are
placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient
light and air are provided to each dwelling unit.
13. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF 5E.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
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
PUD AND CU - 20
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria
…
f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the
site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style.
14. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed
for consistency with all of the following criteria
…
g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping
and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to
typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design
provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate.
15. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF 4F.
RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the
development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any overlay
districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested pursuant to
subsection B2 of this Section.
16. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC
4-9-150(E). With the exception of the proposed PUD modifications, the proposal is compliant with
the standards of the underlying zones for the reasons identified in Finding No. 20 of the staff report
and design district standards (as modified by the PUD) for the reasons identified in Finding No. 25 of
the staff report.
RMC 4-9-150(E)((1): Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large
usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for
residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below.
…
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
PUD AND CU - 21
c. Mixed Use Nonresidential Portions, or Commercial, or Industrial Uses: The following
subsections specify common open space requirements applicable to nonresidential portions of
mixed use developments or to single use commercial or industrial developments:
i. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of
nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-
oriented space according to the following formula:
1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian-oriented space…
17. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 4D.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan submitted by the Applicants and approved by the City; provided, that common
open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior
to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the
City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within
one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a
period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device
for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance
contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is
executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file
with the Development Services Division.
b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070.
18. As Conditioned.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4)(a): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including
but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed
by the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her
designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-
060…
19. As Conditioned.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4)(b): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
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
PUD AND CU - 22
…
b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently
maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the
property owners’ association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not
maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to
provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners’ association
accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property.
20. As conditioned.
Final PUD
RMC 4-9-150G6: Review and Approval of Final Plan: The final plan shall be reviewed by the
applicable City departments, in the manner prescribed for preliminary plans, to determine if the final
plan is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan and is consistent with the
purposes and review criteria of this Section. The Community and Economic Development
Administrator shall make a decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the final plan. The
decision shall include a description of the elements of the approved planned urban development,
including land uses, number of units, phasing, the effective date of approval and of expiration, time
limits, required improvements and the schedule for implementation, and any conditions that may apply
to the planned urban development.
21. The final PUD is approved by this decision, with the information required above more
particularly described as follows:
A. Authorized land uses, number of units and conditions of approval. The final PUD is
approved as depicted in Ex. 3 and described in Finding of Fact No. 3, subject to the conditions listed
in the Decision section.
B. Phasing. The Renton High School Replacement Project is designed to be constructed
in multiple coordinated phases, with each phase containing sufficient parking, utilities, access,
landscaping, and functional open space to operate as a stable and safe environment.
C. Effective date. The effective date of approval is the signature date in the Decision
section.
D. Time limits. This PUD approval shall expire after two years. The Applicant shall,
within two (2) years of the signature date of this decision, submit complete building permit applications
to the Department of Community and Economic Development.
E. Expiration. Expiration of an approved final plan planned urban development shall be
defined as failure to initiate construction of the planned urban development or failure to submit 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
PUD AND CU - 23
complete building permit application within the approved final plan time limits. Expiration can only
occur if no on-site construction has begun or the expiration of building permits has occurred.
F. Required improvements. Required improvements and the implementation schedule
thereof is as required in the conditions of approval of this Decision as well as Finding No. 24 of the
staff report, Infrastructure an Services.
Conditional Use
The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
factors for all applications:
RMC 4-9-030(C)(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.
22. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the City’s development standards and
comprehensive plan for the reasons identified in Findings 17-23 of the staff report.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(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.
23. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5A.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall
not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
25. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned and mitigated, there are no adverse
impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on
adjacent property.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
26. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any adverse aesthetic
impacts or any other impacts that would create compatibility problems.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
27. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4F.
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
PUD AND CU - 24
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
28. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
29. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the proposal will not create any significant noise,
light and glare impacts.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(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.
30. The criterion is met. Landscaping is provided throughout the site in accordance with City
requirements as determined by City planning staff and is strategically used to buffer sensitive edges,
soften built features, and enhance the pedestrian environment. The landscape plans emphasize native
and drought-tolerant species that are well-suited to long-term campus maintenance and stormwater
performance. Enhanced buffers are located along property lines shared with residential uses, around
parking areas, and along the perimeter of athletic fields to reduce views, improve privacy, and help
disperse noise.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary and final PUD and conditional use permit applications as described in FOF
No. 3 meet all applicable criteria quoted in this decision and for that reason are APPROVED subject to
the following conditions of approval below:
1. The Applicant shall comply with the modified mitigation measures issued as part of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued by the Renton School District on
December 2, 2025.
2. The Applicant shall record a formal Lot Combination to ensure the proposed buildings are not
built across property lines. The lot combination shall include all high school campus parcels as part of
the project. The instrument shall be recorded prior to the issuance of Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy.
3. The Applicant shall mitigate the deficit in required tree credits in the following order of
preference: (1) tree planting on-site to the maximum extent feasible; (2) tree planting on other Renton
School District properties located within the City of Renton; and (3) payment of fee-in-lieu for any
remaining credits that cannot reasonably be accommodated through on-site or off-site planting. Prior
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
PUD AND CU - 25
to civil construction permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a Tree Credit Mitigation Plan
identifying proposed planting locations, tree species and sizes, total credit values, installation and
maintenance responsibilities, and the number of remaining credits (if any) to be satisfied by fee-in-lieu.
Off-site planting locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager,
and any remaining fee-in-lieu amount shall be paid in full prior to issuance of the Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy.
4. The Applicant shall submit a surface mounted utility plan that includes cross-section details
with the civil construction permit application. The Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to
ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out of public ROW view, active common open spaces,
and they shall not displace required landscaping areas. The plan shall provide and identify screening
measures consistent with the overall design of the development. The surface mounted utility plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. In
addition, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the Applicant be required to submit a
rooftop equipment exhibit with the elevation plans associated with the building permit application. The
exhibit shall provide cross section details and identify proposed rooftop screening that is integral and
complementary to the architecture of the buildings. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager.
5. The Applicant shall submit a construction outreach and traffic communication plan to notify
neighbors, road users, and affected agencies prior to major roadway disruption.
6. The Applicant shall submit a Pedestrian-Oriented Space Plan with the civil construction permit
submittal. The plan shall: (1) calculate the total amount of pedestrian-oriented space required and
provided; (2) clearly identify on the site and landscape plans each area proposed to count toward the
requirement; and (3) demonstrate that every counted area includes all required elements, including:
accessible paved surfaces, average illumination of at least four (4) foot-candles on the ground, and
durable seating provided at a minimum rate of three linear feet (3’) per sixty (60) square feet of
plaza/open space. The plan shall also include cut-sheets for proposed lighting and site furnishings. The
Pedestrian-Oriented Space Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to issuance of the civil construction permit.
7. The Applicant shall submit a supplemental geotechnical memorandum prepared by the project
geotechnical engineer confirming that the final grading plan, utility alignments, retaining wall designs,
and foundation systems are consistent with the assumptions and recommendations of the approved
Geotechnical Engineering Report. The memorandum shall identify any additional construction
recommendations, temporary shoring needs, equipment setbacks, or stormwater controls warranted by
the final design. The memorandum shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and Development Engineering Reviewer and incorporated into the civil construction
drawings. All geotechnical recommendations shall be implemented during construction.
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
PUD AND CU - 26
8.The design and specification for exterior lighting shall meet all International Dark Sky
“Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting.”
9.Installation and maintenance of common open space and common facilities shall conform to
RMC 4-9-150(E)(3) and (4).
DATED this 30th day of January 2026.
___________________________
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the consolidated Type III applications subject to this decision
are subject to appeal to .ing County Superior Court as governed by the Land Use Petition Act
(LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RC:. Appeals must be filed and served as required by LUPA within
21 days of the issuance of this decision.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 21
Appendix A
January 13, 2026, Hearing Transcript
Rention High School Replacement and Site Expansion
File No. – LUA25-000343, PUD, CU-H, LC
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
from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Examiner opening comments omitted.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:04:28):
The photographs and finally Google Earth. So a total of 30 cents. Like I said, a lot of work goes to these
things. Does anyone need to see any of these documents or have any objection to their entry in the
record? Okay. Hearing, seeing none, we'll go ahead and admit Exhibits one through 36. Finally we get to
Mr. Morro. You can tell us what this big project is about. Mr. Morro, let me swear you in this raise swear
again. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth about the truth this proceeding? I do. Okay, great. Go ahead.
Planner Morganroth: (00:04:54):
I just wanted really quick make sure we had an issue with people hearing on mine. Just want to make
sure.
Speaker 1 (00:04:58):
Yeah, I want to just to double check to see if anybody can hear me.
Mr. Feldmeyer: (00:05:10):
Yes, we can hear now.
Speaker 1 (00:05:13):
Okay,
Ms. Klein: (00:05:14):
Thank you. Yeah, we just joined so whatever the preliminary remarks were, we missed it.
Speaker 6 (00:05:23):
Thank you. Yeah, we are recording this so it should be available after the hearing as well.
Planner Morganroth: (00:05:29):
Thank
Speaker 6 (00:05:30):
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 21
You.
Planner Morganroth: (00:05:31):
Alright, Ms, pull up the PowerPoint. Yes,
Speaker 1 (00:05:34):
I'll do that.
Planner Morganroth: (00:05:55):
Awesome, thank you. Well thank you Mr. Examiner and principal plan with the city going to be making a
staff recommendation for the Renton High School replacement and site expansion project. Thanks for
making the time to come down here in person. Like you said, we like to do these bigger projects that
have more interest in person just to give everyone an opportunity to have their voices heard and so this
is a hybrid meeting that are folks, folks online didn't hear. There will be an opportunity to comment for
anyone coming up during something you couldn't hear the earlier discussion so that will happen later in
the hearing. Okay, cool. So a little bit about the project site. So it's highlighted there on the right. It's at
400 South second Street is the technical address and includes the original parcel that's there right now
as well as 42 additional parcels that the school district either owns or is in the process of owning.
(00:06:54):
The site area right now is 33.2 acres and it's a center downtown zone commercial arterial zone and then
residential aid, so R eight zone, it's in the urban design district A and D overlays. It has two comp land,
land use designations and that's commercial mixed use and residential medium density. That's kind of
the north side of the site there. The existing site used to developed with the Renton High School as well
as the area that's being added to the site. The site expansion of north was predominantly single family
homes as well as a little bit of commercial along airport way there. Critical areas on the site. I got a high
size in the cabinet area like most of this area here downtown as well as two welded protection areas
which would be a map later. So it's our two zones. So where afer are zones one and two, it's kind right
down the middle of the site. Be good coming up there.
(00:07:56):
So we'll zoom in on the zoning and complement designations in the surrounding areas. So this whole site
is split zone, so it's center downtown commercial arterial and then R eight zones. Now you can see the
RRA is that little pocket there of the north. You've got the rent municipal airport which is the industrial
zone to the north there you've got CDs our center downtown zone to the east and south towards rent's
core downtown area and then you've got ca R eight zoning, a little bit of RRA west of the middle of the
size there. And then commercial arterial which is generally concentrated along area near corridor to the
west. There it is in the airport influence area being just south of the airport there. So it is subject to
height review by the FAA and just some extra just height limits and regulations around that overlay
headed there.
(00:08:50):
This is the use falls under the K through 12 educational institution use in our code, which are permitted
in all three zones with a hearing examiner. Additional use permits, so you allow schools with a approved
CP conditional use permit in any zone in the city. So that is one of the titles being asked for as part of
this process please. So critical here, like I said before, split zone, split zone split between the weld
protection areas, zone one and two kind of right down the middle of the site running north south there
and it's also in a high size of the hazard area. So they did submit sub-service exploration and geologic
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 21
has a geotechnical engineering report that we evaluated as part of the application. There's also, there's
rules around fill and what they can bring into the site making sure we're not contaminating our aquifer
about the project proposal itself.
(00:09:54):
So the existing campus, I'm sorry about should be 34 acres and they're adding out about 10 acres a little
more. So roughly 44, 45 acres total at the end of the campus build up there. The existing development,
you've got the 1931 storage school building which is right along south second there. Very, very neat
building that is going to be retained. You got the annex classrooms building the gymnasium, the IKEA
center, the performing arts or iPad also can be retained. You got a vocational slash warehouse building
and then you've got athletic fields at various surface parking lots. So the proposed developments keeps
some buildings, removes others and expands the site as a whole. So preserving and renovating the 1931
building and then the iPad demolishing the remaining structures on the site which typical includes annex
classroom building to a smaller structures associated with the athletic fields. And then you've got a new
little over 300,000 square foot three story classroom building that kind of runs mostly nort h south along
Logan but then also expand along south side of there.
(00:11:00):
And then you've got a total build out of about 410,000 square feet and that was also a few accessory
structure still be located near the fields spot for maintenance and other activities like that for phasing.
And I just want to be clear, this is not a phase PUD which our code allows for which has other
stipulations as far as what needs to be done when this is just there. PHA schedule not. So this says again
combined PU with no formal phasing. That's not a phased PUU but this is their rough construction
schedule essentially. So I wouldn't read all this. We've got phase 1 26 to 27 so this year and that's west
parking lot front in front of improvements working on that obviously they need to keep students at the
school, built the new one and then students in there. So there's a lot of all of 'em.
(00:11:49):
The applicant was their turn. I think I'll go into a little bit more about the construction phase two. So
construction of the high school, 26 to 28, that's the new three story building a new softball baseball
field, phase 3, 28 to 29. That's demolishing the existing school building. So moving kids into the new
building and demolishing the old one, renovating the existing track and field, renovating the historic
building and the I iPad. Then constructing service entry, teacher park, things like that. And then a couple
final things in the final phase with food and service facilities and competing athletic facilities.
(00:12:27):
Just want to go quickly over public noticing just again for projects with this size. So we do require
neighborhood meetings for project large over 10 acres. So there was a meeting held on August 6th,
sorry 2025. It's not held in the future. August 26th or August 6th, 2025 at the rent high school which I
attended. SAP attended as well as the applicant probably had 10 to 20 folks there. Our textual team,
traffic team from the school district. The school district did their own CIPA noticing and review which
was completed prior to Septi land use. Here it's a little different since they do their own receipt reviews
as opposed to the city doing it. We then, once the project was accepted we followed our standard
noticing procedures which include sending out notices with property within fingered feet. We put the
theory, publish it in the paper to all of our standard stuff.
(00:13:29):
We did get about 10, probably 10, 15 comments on the project. Some of them very recent which is why
they're included as exhibit third and third as constant Additional comments. We got a few at the end
there. So a lot of the comments had similar themes. I kind of outlined a few of those which I'll give into
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 21
more. One is just how the project relates to our comprehensive plan and parents with our showing
code. I went into a little bit about how it's being considered CP for the three zoning districts, tree
retention being available bit more. They are not meeting our 30% tree retention do obviously a lot of
alternatives to being able to comply with that section which I'll give it to a bit later. Traffic and bus lane
concerns sees later when the bus blink are showing a Logan there. Just concern the overall traffic
patterns in the area.
(00:14:30):
The street vacation. So separate from this process the applicant is under must in the street vacation of a
portion of Togan Street which goes through the site that is considered by council. It's not part of this
recommendation. They don't formally submitted the council yet, but that'll be a city council to make if
for some reason that street vacation. So this proposal, this review was based on that street vacation
being approved just because that was the site plan that they submitted. If for some reason it's not
approved council denies the vacation, it would require a modification or revision to the PUD. So other
comments were just about the overall acquisition process that the school district used, which again was
not something that staff was reviewing as part of this project.
(00:15:27):
Okay, here's a nice overall site plan just to show you where some things are proposed here. So you can
see the main high school building L-shaped there at the southeast corner of the property. So fronting on
South second Street and then Logan Avenue South. You've got the existing track and tennis courts up
there that they're renovating. You've got can see the portion where South Token street ends and that's
where it currently goes. Currently public right of way all the way over Logan there. That is the portion
they're going to be requesting a vacation that'll continue to be used for fire access and it'll be gated the
South Tobin Street entrance there, but that is, you can see that the driver are shoved there, kind of
follows the contours of the existing street. You've got the baseball field, the softball field, the corner
airports way and Logan there. That is completely new. That's the largest chunk I guess of the site that
they're adding to, adding to thephysical size of the whole. You can see various surface parking lots, staff
parking, student parking, added some new parallel parking between the existing iPad building or sorry,
historical iPad and historic building there. Seed labeled there accessing labeled existing building
renovation. So there's some a turnout there essentially is to allow a parallel marketing drop off which is
new. And then you've got the multipurpose field that is north of the stat parking lot. That's all season.
(00:17:02):
Here's some floor planning, obviously much easier to see. The one on month is part of the exhibits, but
floor and floor one you've got some admin space, the gym, some other classrooms. I would say a lot of
classes are concentrated on floors two and three. The floor three is only on I guess a portion of the main
corridor. That's a long and main spine. That's one vogue in there to see. Yeah, I would recommend
taking a closer look at those. We only flow a little hard to see here showing those that part of what
these is.
(00:17:40):
There's a couple renderings which give a little better perspective of the scale there so you can kind of
see it is more on the left there. That's a view from south second on the right side of that picture there.
That's the intersection with Logan and South second. So doing kind of a plaza area there along south
second. Make sure this is right adjacent to our downtown core near side of the road. So just making sure
that there's a continuity again between our core and then the civic use that is the school. So they both
have the main student access off of, you see right in the middle of that picture there. South second,
that's the main student access to there off south second you can see the existing iPad on the left side of
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 21
the screen and historic building further. So that would be where the new drop off and parallel parking
access will be taken from there.
(00:18:35):
And then on the right side that's just looking south from I guess would be if you had a drone over the
pose fields looking back and have the inside of the L shape there. So you can see a lot of natural lighting
and modulation of different materials. I will say there they weren't required to but they were trying to
kind of tie in the materials used to what was used for the sort school sort 1931 building as well as the
iPad. So to let it look new and function and a lot of 'em more glazing obviously but still fit into that
existing build context on the site.
(00:19:16):
A little bit about transportation access. So primary access will be from south second Logan Avenue,
south Lake, avenue south with internal circulation, separating buses, staff and students. That was again,
a little more clear on the site plan there, but the bus dropoff is proposed along Logan Avenue South.
They're going to be adding a lane there, a travel lane and then also the bus parking so the buses can be
off the road without impacting traffic there. Stopping traffic. The student parking lot, the new student
parking lot will be accessed from South second Lake Avenue South. Staff parking lot is located just west
of the main building and could be accessed to the same, same way there. Parallel visitor parking, we talk
about the four for the iPad frontage along south second and they do a lot of performances there. So
these attend of that is to provide a place for people to drop off. Maybe folks that aren't as mobile that
don't have to walk all the way from the student parking module. Staff parking lot in the parking for
events as well as provide sub a DA spaces are easily accessible spaces right along there. As mentioned
before, the South Token Street, the partial vacation will be considered by Rent City Council in early
2026. Probably the next month or so is want to get through the land use process first. Proposing
substantial frontage improvements along South Second Bogan Avenue, south Airport Lake, lake Avenue
South Sidewalks, new curb ramps New Street.
(00:20:49):
Going to be doing new companion crossings on the other side of Logan to make sure those are also EDA
compliant. There'll be a new midblock crossing as Logan for students centered are crossing over maybe
to walk downtown or walk to the stadium. So yes, tangible front improvements through the PD process.
They're modifying those a bit, which are all in staff report specifically along Logan where they're doing
the bus partnering. Obviously that's outside of our standard but what they're proposing new support as
it gets the buses out of the travel links there analyst to get off close to the school.
(00:21:28):
They submitted a traffic impact analysis. I know that they do have their traffic consultants with us so if
there's the weeds questions on that. I also have our engineer, you're here, get into that more. But real
quick just to summarize mrs. An existing school being replaced by a new school is actually not going to
be big increase at all of capacity thinks the a speech that a couple hundred students, but this is again a
replacement of existing schools. So there wasn't a lot of new trips. Approximately 610 daily vehicle trips,
18 new trips in the morning arrival period by reduction of 15 trips in the afternoon school dismissal. So it
does resulted in some ways in a reduction that little bit of an increase in the am. We did review their
report and there were no changes in level of service at the nearby intersections and the project did pass
the transportation some tests that the city does for projects of this scale.
(00:22:29):
So these are all go through all of these in the staff report. We'll just run through so planned urban
development, but the intent of that is to allow some flexibility of some of our standards on sites that
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 21
maybe have challenges like being split zone or uses that have to request a number of modifications from
our code. This allows them to make that request if they provide a public benefit. So we use this for other
projects as well. In this case because it's split zone, one of the request was to apply basically the CD zone
site-wide. It's very difficult to do any kind of staff analysis when you're looking at three different zones
and buildings across and zones. So that was something that we supported with applying that CD zoning
as well as the Urban Design District A standards which are very similar to design district D, just a couple
variations there.
(00:23:24):
It's a little more set up for the compact urban development that's near size there. Building light pole
heights, some run things quick, we can come back to any of 'em. Expanded in variable setbacks and
buffers for field plazas, fire access, parking, parking screening, plaza seating, ground floor transparency
on field facing facade, more variable sidewalk and landscape widths. Part of that is from the bus drop off
area, some taller fences in the fields and then refuge refuse enclosure, modifications to the gate size in
there and then tree retention. So I talked about that a little bit before there was, I can't remember this
guy number. It was 222 trees on the site and they're proposing to retain I think about 10% of those,
which is obviously far less than our 30% in our code. Our number one choice obviously is the preference
to have to say trees on site.
(00:24:25):
Number two would be replacing those trees with new trees on the site and making up for those trees
lost. And then number three is paying a fee in blue in this case through the PUD process. Another
alternative that we presented is a recommendation of approval would be to plant trees offsite on other
school district properties. We found that it great to pay into the tree and our fund is great so it might be
a combination of paying fund and doing that, but if we can get new trees on school, other school sites or
government sites, whatever it is, we find that those are retained a lot better than those plants that un
finding property. And so that was one we just wanted to give them a little more flexibility. So there'll be
some tree replacement onsite, probably some tree fee in lieu of they approach as our tree fund, which
we use in the plant with trees in the area and then some offsite tree planting that maybe some as our
other canvases was city limits.
(00:25:21):
So that was one recommended condition of approval there. The public benefit is I think pretty clear it's a
modernized public high school campus compared to what's there now. It's upgrade, athletic field play,
roof pedestrian safety both for students and for members of the public. This is going to improve the
sidewalks on all four sides of the site. You'll add a number of crossings, complete some a DA
improvements, enhance stormwater utility fire infrastructure there. It will improve site security,
emergency access compared to what's there know which is partially very important these days with
schools landscape buffering, visual screening between school activities and nearby neighborhoods. And
then obviously it's just a long-term mode investment and a civic institution that been in downtown for a
long time.
(00:26:15):
So additional use permit analysis can be found in one of the findings in the code. So again, in the staff
report. So again the K through 12 educational institution, which this high school falls under that land use
category does require a hearing examiner, conditional use, permanent all zones. So that's across all
three zones. That's something we can modify through the PD process is anything. Our zoning use table
in title four, chapter two. So in this case they did get CUP to have a high school in all those zones. We did
find it consistent with plans and regulations such as the comp planning and zoning code did find that it's
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 21
appropriate location doesn't result in a detrimental over concentration particular use. A lot of that is the
use sort there. There's not our school right nearby there. I've done adjacent properties resulted
substantial undue adverse effects on adjacent property compatible to scale and character of
neighborhood and I do think this certainly represents a larger building and a larger site overall, but
compared to what's there now.
(00:27:21):
But I think carefully keeping the old historic building, blending the new building into that and locating
along as near our downtown core as possible away from airports and away from the commercial arterial
strict commercial along right here. There lens to that parking is provided. They're providing full parking
required by code. Then we reviewed the traffic impacts with their traffic impact analysis and found no
issues there. Noise lane clear was evaluated and then landscaping was also evaluated. This will result in
tree removal but it'll also result in a number of areas that weren't landscaped before being landscaped
like the seed parking lots. The overall long term there will be more landscaping on the site and then
hopefully we'll working with them to get some of the additional trees offsite, which is not a part of the
conditional use permit analysis, but that will improve citywide tree canopy as well.
(00:28:27):
So if you the integral project features, this is just kind a summary of the main high points here. So
compar of project represents comprehensive canvas modernization, the new academic building, athletic
fields and support facilities. It's got the centralized main entry public plaza on south second Logan
Avenue, which is what we want. We want that to be kind of a pedestrian friendly environment that's
right adjacent to our downtown there. Got the joint use parking. So essentially they have one of need
for parking during the day and also for events at night, there's the stadium nearby. So you utilize the
joint use parking strategy to limit impacts in neighborhood. They've got the athletic complex, you got
new fields, new lighting for the afterschool sports. The big one is that they're improving pedestrian
network in the area. So there are sidewalks along the Logan Southside now, but this will again add new
crossings, more a DA access expanded sidewalks and so it will result in overall that's during safety.
(00:29:36):
We've got the integrated landscaping and buffering along the streets along the building facade,
especially amongst Logan Avenue sells there. You've got new stormwater utility fire upgrades, you've
got the FA approved building. They did get that. That's an exhibit that FA did a prudent building heights
there. And then just those get the long-term adaptability to support future educational programs at the
sites. Gives them this expansion and then the new school will give them students a lot of opportunity for
things they maybe couldn't do in their older building as well as the new fields. Not any bus stuff off sites
for that.
(00:30:22):
So staff is recommending approval of the rent, high school replacement, site expansion, bind,
preliminary PD ED and final PD as well as the conditional use permit. Something to the seven
recommended conditions below. I won't read through each one of these, I'm sure we'll come back to
'em, but we've got compliance with cepa mitigation measures, the school district issues parts part of
their MD MS you've got, we want to have a lot combination completed to make sure that there's no
building or lot lines or anything like that and just makes it easier steer our code. Just one big lot. Got the
tree, the tree credit, sorry, the visual wave, the tree credits, the tree density that allow 'em to do maybe
some offsite planting there. So trying to make it pretty flexible there. We've got for service bond utility
plan, just making sure that we're screening any utility, you've got a nice branding building.
(00:31:19):
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 21
We want to make sure there's not something either ground or rooftop for mechanical equipment or PSC
transformer that takes away from that. We want to have 'em submit a construction outreach and traffic
communication plan done. Other school projects too. This is a big gas, some construction traffic
temporarily when they build construc this. So I want to make sure that roadway destructions are at a
minimum and people are aware of if there's any detours, things like that. Asking for a pedestrian
oriented space plan, civil construction permit. Just making sure we're getting all those mounts that are
in the code as far as requirements for open space as lightning of that nature and those will get tweaked
as they get closer to the opening permits. So we have a condition, typically an non product like this as
they kind of figure that stuff out and they get closer to submitting a building permit and then just
submitting a supplemental geotechnical meran just documenting that they are following everything else
that they probably high seismic hazard area. Want to make sure they're meeting those
recommendations that are as part of the report. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:32:34):
I think most of that I have of the applicants couple for you that I take, there's a light spill plan conducted,
right? I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. Basically there's no light spill over beyond property
boundaries, is that right? Yep. I mean we are the closest residences to the going to be to the sports
fields once this the start.
Planner Morganroth: (00:32:52):
There's a couple residences that will still be to the west there. No, Jake, can you go back to the main and
then Yes, then east across Logan. Yeah, yeah, that's fine. That's fine. So there's still some in the rra, so
there's kind going to be a little bit of single family between that the ca zone portion. So it's a close by
and all the app can talk a little more about their programming for the eza. Typically they don't run past
10 that they're downward facing
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:33:26):
And then the light still over on those finished properties. So that was the fun.
Planner Morganroth: (00:33:30):
Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:33:30):
Okay. Okay. And also, I mean how much of a light or hyper variance are they asking for under the PD
criteria?
Planner Morganroth: (00:33:38):
So the lights, I believe were at 77,
Ms. Tomlin: (00:33:44):
But I think they're going to end up being 71 71
Planner Morganroth: (00:33:47):
Feet. Yes. So that was so they to submit to the FAA as well as the school building as well. So again, this is
all validated under the CD zone, which has a mass height and I think it's 50 feet for so little bit of
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 21
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:34:03):
A, so now in terms of applying the CD zone to the entire project side, is that going to result in any
difference in the uses that are allowed at all or we just talking about bulk and
Planner Morganroth: (00:34:14):
That just applies to this budget? Yeah. Oh okay. Yeah, it's not actually changing the zoning. Underlying
zoning by standards. Yeah, the bulk modified amount how to use. Okay,
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:34:29):
Perfect. Alright, thanks this board. Alright, let's move on to applicant's. The applicants want to say
anything at this point? It looks like we've got a couple here in the room. So yeah, just coming off to the
microphone there at the podium, I'll swear you in. Let us know your names and how to spell it for the
record. Go ahead. So SRE right hand, do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing about the truth in this
proceeding? I
Speaker 8 (00:34:50):
Do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:34:50):
Okay sir, what's your name for the record?
Speaker 8 (00:34:52):
I'm Matt Feldman. That's F as in Frank. E-L-D-M-D-Y-E-R.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:34:57):
Okay,
Mr. Feldmeyer: (00:34:59):
Go ahead Mr. Feldmar.
Speaker 8 (00:35:00):
Okay, we have a PowerPoint that I believe Lisa Klein was going to host Kristen Zoom. Oh great.
Speaker 1 (00:35:06):
I
Speaker 8 (00:35:18):
Present interview Lisa.
Ms. Klein: (00:35:20):
Sorry, I got the wrong screen probably, huh?
Speaker 1 (00:35:25):
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 21
Yep, different screen. There you go. Okay,
Speaker 8 (00:35:37):
Just wanted to kind of present a little bit of how we got here and why this project is very important to
the school district. Go ahead to the next slide Lisa. So from a timeline standpoint, school buildings last
for 50 years. Well I county that line. They're very difficult to go in and update systems and do what I
would call building surgery to keep them functioning as modern learning environments for current
students. As you can see in this timeline, this is all our middle and high schools. Red high school is our
oldest building in the district. It has had some additions and major remodels over the years, the last one
being 2002, 2003 timeframe. When we get to that 20, 25 year line on building systems, we start to
realize they need to be updated again and brought up to modern codes and we were starting to hit that
with running high school and realizing we put a lot of money into remodeling the historic building last
time and got less than we'd hoped for just because of the difficulty of remodeling the historic building.
So we started to contemplate is this site the right site for school? We need to consider relocating it to
the site where we could build a new modern building going to the next site or slide there Lisa.
(00:36:58):
And the reason we consider that is this site is a very difficult site to work with. It is surrounded by the
airport and a lot of FA restrictions. It is a very well known and documented archeological site for the
Duwamish crud and it's small, it's much smaller than our other high school sites and much smaller than
the high school sites for our peer districts, which came with limitations on what we could do for the
students on this site. So we went ahead to the next slide. Lisa started talking to a realtor in May of 21
about potentially finding some new properties and getting some data on where the properties might be
if we could move to high school knowing that we would be coming up with a bond to try and get some
funding to either redo the current high school, expand the current high school or move the high school
and would need to form a citizens facilities advisory committee and provide them with some
information on what would be essentially the best plan for that.
(00:38:00):
So we worked with the realtor throughout 21. We started meeting with our citizens group and reviewing
our older schools and identifying some of the projects we needed to do with the upcoming bond and
ultimately went to the board and recommended with that citizens group that we relocate the high
school to another site. We then spent from May of 21 to April of 23 I believe it was, well June of 23,
basically two years trying to find another property. Some of those properties we were considering are
on the map on the right side of the screen and just realized that all of the ones we were finding that
were 30 acre plus sites that could post the high school program weren't really doing what we were
hoping for this high school. So we went back to the board in June and said we'd like to consider
expanding on the current site rather than moving. They asked us to put together some feasibility studies
between June and October we did. We went back to 'EM and in October of 23 they passed the
resolution to move forward with the project in its current site. Go to the next slide, Lisa said.
(00:39:11):
So you can see the red kind of yellow, orange and blue are current high school site. The red is 5.5 acres.
We can nothing away because it's in the runway protection zone implemented by the airport. The
yellowish orange has extremely strict height requirements that really limit us from doing anything but
grass fields and parking lot with very low height parking lot lights. So the blue area is all we had of our
high school site that we could develop or modify an athletic program, a high school building, et cetera
on. So we presented the board with the 8.37 acres to the north and 1.3 acres I believe it is to the east,
and then move forward with starting to purchase those properties based on their guidance. In
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 21
November we selected a construction partner in early 2024. Then we started having community
meetings with those affected by us purchasing the properties as well as adjacent neighborhoods for
what the project would meaning for the area. Go to the next slide Lisa.
(00:40:22):
So where we are now with the site plan that you saw from Mr. Morgan off a moment ago is working
with the city. They really wanted us to push the main entry to the new school towards the second Logan
intersection. That's the asterisk you see there on the southeast corner. Well with school sites we've got
four to five different traffic and transportation systems we have to kind of overlay with each other. We
have student parking in the case of the high school, we have staff parking, we have bus drop off, we
have parent drop off and we have special ed bus drop off in an ideal design. All five of those are
subgrade from each other, which is always very hard to do because you then have five set entries and
exits and drop-offs and parking lot, et cetera. So we try to work a little bit with what we have now and
prove it Currently the lot that you see that is new over to the west side of the school building.
(00:41:16):
South of the track is a student parking lot and what will be the student parking lot in front of the design
currently that is over on the second loaded corner. So we're basically just flipping that to the other side
of the building and putting staff parking kind of behind the building free from the streets as much as we
can. But currently our bus entry and exit is off of Logan right in the middle of the street and pulling in
and out off of Logan into our current bus loop is difficult. Logan is a very busy street, but getting the
parking as parallel on the street gives us a lot more opportunity for high visibility as those buses turn in
and out of the street rather than turning 90 degrees right or left into traffic with a large vehicle. So we
proposed to the city as part of this design, can we move a lane over, create a new parallel parking lane
and give our buses some area in the 20 to 30 minutes in the morning the afternoon to still be close to
the main entry of the school on the southeast corner but also not be pulling out onto a busy road, which
there are many up in this area.
(00:42:23):
We also have a shorter pairing drop off to the south currently, which backs traffic up onto second all the
way back a couple blocks. Typically during the morning drop off and afternoon pickup, we are trying to
extend that drop off loop as part of this project and that's part of what you see on the south side of the
site currently. And then you can see we're going for a student entry exit off the second as well as more
off lake and staff entry exit off of SHA and Tobin and the rear move that traffic off the main roads to
separate from those other big pieces of the transportation puzzle. The last piece we the special ed buses
which we're planning to do to the staff parking. So that's kind of how we're trying to solve the
transportation equation for this project and some of the logic for how we ended up where we are have
Rayanne Tomlin explained a little bit of the design and where we are ing. Okay.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:43:20):
Ms. Tomlin, did you swear yourself in when I got Mr. Meyer or do
Ms. Tomlin: (00:43:23):
I
Speaker 8 (00:43:23):
Not yet.
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 21
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:43:23):
Okay. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth and this proceeding?
Ms. Tomlin: (00:43:27):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:43:27):
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Ms. Tomlin: (00:43:28):
And that's T-O-M-L-I.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:43:30):
Perfect. Thank you.
Ms. Tomlin: (00:43:32):
Okay, so just Lisa back one slide real fast. I just wanted to address a couple of the questions that I've
heard come up today. One is about the lighting at the ball field. So those are going to be specially
designed lights with FA input on high cutoff fixtures, make sure we're not affecting runway visibility or
incoming aircraft visibility. And that also helps address the spill question. And then just wanted to
confirm, the height of the new school building is supposed to be 64 feet, which has already been
approved by the FAA as Mr. Mor Roth mentioned. And then I just also wanted to share that the district
went through a voluntary process hiring a consultant to do a crime prevention through environmental
design review, Ted, to give us input on our landscaping, our site lines, site supervision, make sure we're
really reinforcing those ideas of site security and pedestrian safety that were brought up in the city.
Okay, next slide.
(00:44:41):
Matt touched briefly on some of our neighborhood outreach meetings. I just wanted to also share that
we in cooperation with our design partners did a very robust staff student and family community
engagement process. We know especially at a school like Redmond High where there's high community
need that this building really functions more than just during the school day. It's really more of a
community center. There are families needing services, there's a HealthPoint team clinic onsite. And so
we really wanted to make sure that the site design was not only accomplishing the goal set forth in the
PUD, but also making sure that it was really serving the needs of both our school community and those
that access those services. Next slide. And while it's not part of the PUD process, we did get several
questions about our cultural resources during both CIPA and through the PUDI think so I just wanted to
share a little bit about, we have hired historical research associates as a consulting firm to do site
investigations reports and monitoring for both the archeological side of the cultural resources as well as
the built environment, which is historic preservation side of things.
(00:46:04):
So it's a timeline on the bottom of the various investigations we've done, the reports that have been
submitted to DAP and the tribes for preliminary review, where we are at today is that any site
demolition occurring on our acquired properties is being monitored by both HRA and tribal
representatives as they're available with a monitoring and discovery plan in place. And we are preparing
our archeological permit submittal to DAP and targeting a submittal of next month for that.
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 21
(00:46:41):
Next slide, Lisa. And these are just the high level takeaways of that process. As Matt mentioned, there's
been identified sites on the rent and pay property for many years. We have had several meetings with
both tribal and DAP representatives to discuss mitigation avenues for those. We've taken their feedback
into consideration as we talk to the school about what that may look like and we'll continue to make
sure we're doing all required monitoring and reporting as we move forward. And then I think I will just
address two things quickly. We wanted to clean up a couple of things we saw in the staff report, which
Lisa will mostly do, but I just wanted to address a couple of comments about the trees. I know we got
some public comment and Mr. Morgan wrote the address, the overall tree quantity. One of the things
that was in consideration, like Matt said, was the configuration of the site oriented towards downtown,
which really is kind of the guiding force behind the location of the athletics field.
(00:47:55):
So athletic fields obviously have limitations for tree placement, but in addition to that th coordination
with the FAA, we discovered that many of the trees north of Tobin are what they consider existing
nonconforming in terms of height being in violation of the part 77 threshold. So it became more difficult
for us to propose keeping some of those when the FAA had stated up taking offense to some of those
locations. So we needed to keep some of that in consideration as well. And then we got a public
comment about specific tree on the south side of the cycle on second, which when we studied it, I spoke
to that gentleman at a neighborhood meeting this summer about it. We reviewed the location, which is
not shown on this plan, but yeah, the approximate location that Lisa it is showing, and unfortunately it
was right in the middle of that extended dropoff and we knew through our coordination with the city,
that was pretty important. Traffic mitigation location on site, really extending that drop off to make sure
we're alleviating backups. So that tree was not going to allow us to do that, but we are, there are a
couple other significant trees on the site that we are going to access to save. I'll hand the rest of that
final slide over to Lisa and then Matt and I are available for questions.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:49:19):
Okay. Ms. Klein, you're handing it over to?
Ms. Tomlin: (00:49:23):
Yes.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:49:24):
Okay. Ms. Klein, let me swear in. You're going to testify, is that correct?
Ms. Klein: (00:49:28):
That's correct.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:49:29):
Okay. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Ms. Klein: (00:49:33):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:49:34):
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 21
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Ms. Klein: (00:49:36):
Okay, I stopped sharing just because I couldn't figure out how to do the
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:49:41):
Screen. Okay, Mrs. I think is there some way we can increase the volume or,
Speaker 1 (00:49:46):
Yes, I'm having actually some issues with sound. Just give me one second. Okay.
Speaker 6 (00:50:11):
Okay. Do you want me to try testing? Is that any better? Okay, can you try again? Is this any better? Yes.
Ms. Klein: (00:50:27):
Okay. So a couple of just final comments to be made. First of all, we wanted to thank Alex Morgan Roth
for the staff report and it's all a great summary of the volumes of material we submitted. The district
does not have any issue with the conditions as they're presented. A couple of other cleanup things. We
didn't have audio at the beginning, so I don't know if Alex, if the Heffron memo got submitted as an
exhibit, it wasn't included in the exhibit package. So if not we should get that submitted.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:51:15):
Mr, is that in the exhibit list? Yes, it's in a
Planner Morganroth: (00:51:22):
Response. Oh, okay. Yep,
Ms. Klein: (00:51:25):
You'll see it. Okay. You'll see it. Okay. And then we also have this PowerPoint presentation that we
emailed to the district, so that should be entered as an exhibit.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:51:37):
Okay. And I take it Mr. SROs, that's not in the record, right?
Ms. Klein: (00:51:41):
It's not,
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:51:41):
Okay. Any objection over the PowerPoint that Mr just presented? Okay, hearing on, that's admitted as
exhibit 37.
Ms. Klein: (00:51:50):
Awesome. So just a couple of cleanup things. There has been some adjustment to the construction
timeline as it's described in the staff report. And basically the of note is that at this point in time, the
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 21
students will be starting in the new building in the fall of 2029. The staff report says 2028. There have
also been some revisions to the grading and this is as a result of meetings with DAP and the tribes on the
cultural resources. And so the cut and fill quantities, that's actually the fill quantities have increased and
this is in an effort to try to avoid disturbance to cultural resources. So the new fill number is 40,000
cubic yards cut remains at 4,900 cubic yards. And then a couple of comments on the street vacation,
which is not a part of this application, but there's definitely lots of public comment about it.
(00:53:01):
We have submitted that application request we did in December, and so city staff is currently looking
through our application. There will be a public hearing on that with council, but that has not been
scheduled yet. So we don't have that. If that should be declined by city council, if they don't approve it,
it would change the site plan. But the process or the school still this expansion would still move forward.
There would be some safety concerns about traffic going through the campus in that location, but it
wouldn't stop the project. Just want to make that point. Other than that, I think that concludes the
applicant presentation. So we are available for comments and the full team is here. You've got a cadre
of professionals that can answer any specific technical questions.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:54:01):
Okay. Yeah, just that one. It was about Tobin actually, so I guess that would be for Mr. McBrien. Kind of
an interesting point raised in at least a couple comment letters was that Tobin is used as a shortcut and
that if it's vacated that will add to the traffic on the surrounding network. I was just kind of curious, was
that a factor that was included in the analysis of the level of service analysis? Mr. McBrien, 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?
Mr. Feldmeyer: (00:54:32):
I do,
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:54:32):
Yes. Okay, great. Yeah, go ahead.
Mr. Feldmeyer: (00:54:36):
Yes. So the answer to your question is yes, absolutely. The potential vacation was accounted for. We
conducted multiple counts on Tobin, both intersection turning movement counts with video at multiple
times a day, over three different count periods, including spring of 24 and 25 as well as during the
summer of 24. So we have a lot of data. We also conducted multi-day machine counts along Tobin three
times over that period. And so we have a lot of data to understand how Tobin was being used and we
reassigned all of that traffic. Some of it was clearly generated by the school as there's a couple of access
points off of Tobin that were being used, but there was also other traffic, probably some generated by
the uses that would be displaced by the site expansion and probably some other trips that were using
Tobin as an alternative to airport way. But all of that traffic was reassigned to airport way as part of the
project traffic reassignment and accounted for in the level of service analysis. And it all demonstrated
that the project could accommodate that shift in traffic from that local street if it's vacated.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:55:55):
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 21
Okay, perfect. Great. Thank you. That was really helpful. Thank you Mr. McBrien. Alright, finally, now we
get to public comments. Like I said, we'll start off with people here in the meeting room and after that
we'll move on to people participating virtually. And I don't think I explained to the people participating
virtually if you had any objections to any documents how to be heard on that. I mean it would've been
click on the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen if it's a heart so that some Zoom programs use a
heart. You click on the heart, there's a little hand that pops up and you click on that. But anyway, if you
did object to any of the documents that were in as exhibits, just take the opportunity during the public
comment portion to voice your objection. I mean the grounds for objections are pretty narrow for this
kind of thing.
(00:56:38):
It's just you find that your position is that the document isn't relevant to this proceeding or the
document may not be authentic. I mean if you just disagree with the conclusions in the document, that's
just an issue to testify about. It's not a reason to exclude the document. But anyway, let's move on. First
of all, I'm going to just, I had one person who actually signed up to speak, so I'll start with her. That's Ms.
Becker. Ms. Becker, come on up and I'll swear you in and every person who's going to in the meeting
room is going to testify. I just need you to go to the podium there. I'll swear you in. I'll need to know the
spelling of your last name. Ms. Becker, that's B-E-C-K-E-R for you as I take it? That's right. And then you
can go ahead and make your comment. So just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the
truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Ms. Becker: (00:57:20):
I do.
Examiner Olbrechts: (00:57:20):
Okay, great. Alright, go ahead Ms. Becker.
Ms. Becker: (00:57:22):
Okay, thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Examiner. So I was taking some notes as the meeting was
proceeding, so I have some comments to say before my actual comments that I came with. But one was
I appreciate the input from the person who did the traffic study. I have some concerns that the traffic
study was done in the summer when school is out. I think that would give lower traffic flow counts also
spring for traffic studies is also a lower traffic flow count as enrollment in schools tends to decrease as
the school year goes on. So I think traffic counts in the fall would raise higher, more accurate counts of
traffic on Tobin. So I just wanted to bring that up also. I appreciate Mr. Meyer clarifying and bringing in a
little bit of a history of the Renton High School project. I want to add that when the initial bond was
passed in the city of Renton voters passed that bond.
(00:58:31):
We were under the impression that the school would go to a new location and that was in 2022. And it
wasn't until 2023 that the school switched gears and decided to remodel at the current location. And I
think the public was blindsided about how the expansion was going to affect the city and take some
resources that we had seen in the city of Renton planning that we were going to have high density in the
downtown area for commercial and residential. And now that is some of that is being removed with the
expansion of the school to create ball fields north of the school. So we're losing a lot of the housing that
we have in that area.
(00:59:25):
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 17 of 21
Let's see. Also, it was also a comment earlier that the 1931 building is being remodeled for use. It was
my understanding at one of the public meetings I went to that the 1931 building is not being remodeled
for student use, that it is being kept there because it's a historic building, but it will not be used for
students and that it's going to be left for admin uses in the future and that the students will only be
using the new school. That's just a side comment and that was my understanding. That may have
changed since I had that information. Okay. So the comments I came with, again, I had written in some
written public comment concerning zoning of the residential north of the school and wanting it to keep
zone eight and how that the school plan to convert that land into ball fields does not coincide with the
2024 City of Renton comprehensive plan for maximum use of that area for the residential and high
density, or I believe it's medium density use.
(01:00:38):
And commercial zoning also had written in regarding the landmark trees, the significant trees and not
keeping up with the 30% retention. And I also wrote in about use of Logan and second as primary access
points. So I won't delve into those too much. I did want to add some more comments regarding traffic.
So the use of Second Street as a primary access point, it's my understanding that the city of Renton will
be converting Second Street right now. It's a one way street. We'll be converting that to a two-way
street in the near future. Well, nearest projects go for doing such as a project like that, but in the future
they're going to turn into two-way street, which would mean that traffic on second would have one lane
going down second for access point. So if people are slowing down to turn into a primary parking lot at
the school and only one lane of traffic to do that, it is going to cause a lot of backups and especially with
Tobin potentially being closed as a through street. I just foresee a lot of issues with that. Mr. Feld also
mentioned in his presentation that there currently is noted backups on Second Avenue as it already
stands. So to keep second as a main access point to the parking lot I think should be reviewed. There is
the option of having the accent point off Lake Avenue, which was shown in one of the slides. So I believe
that could looked at as to maintain that as a primary access for parking and not have it on second.
(01:02:27):
Another comment was that they want to keep Second Avenue pedestrian friendly. So if they want to do
that, I don't understand why they're making it a main access for parking lot. I believe those are my main
concerns. Oh, the buses on Logan. Yeah, Logan is an issue too. That's the first I heard about a mid-block
car crossing on Logan. So now we have a highly trafficked street with buses and crosswalks and I just
foresee we've already had some accidents at the Sartory school, which is also a downtown elementary
in Renton because of traffic in residential neighborhoods on busy streets. So I just foresee that could
cause some issues having the access on Logan for the buses. And I don't understand why that can't be
moved to Lake Avenue, which is a side street that does not buzz but up to residential and it is not
through street for a lot of traffic. I would request that those access points for the parking lot, for the
buses and for student parking be revisited, see if they can be located on Lake Avenue for the safety of
students and for the citizens of Renton to have more better flow of traffic as this project continues. And
I think that's it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:04:01):
Thank you Ms. Becker and Mr. McBrien. I hope you heard all that. I'd love to hear your response to Ms.
Becker's questions about the street access, that kind of thing. We'll get back to you when we go back to
applicant. Final word there. Okay. So anyone else in the hearing room want to testify at this point? Any
note takers? Okay, let's move on to virtual. Like I mentioned, if you're participating virtually you want to
say something, click on the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. Or it might be, like I said, a
heart, in which case you click on the heart and then you'll see a raise hand and you click on that. Mr.
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 18 of 21
Ros, do we have any takers? Looks like you got one there, Mr. Hunt. Is that him? Yes. Okay. Mr. Hunt,
looks like your audio is working. You want to say something so we know you're there Mr. Hunt? So Mr.
Ros, it doesn't look like he's,
Speaker 1 (01:04:56):
But not because of the sound issue earlier as well.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:05:01):
Alright, well Mr. Hunt, yeah, we're not hearing from you and you're not muted. So if you did want to say
something, just send an email to Mr. Cisneros, she'll show you what her email address is and then I'll let
LA staff and applicant to respond. Do we have any other takers participating virtually today? Nope.
Okay. Well that's just fine. Like I said, we did get a lot of public comments and that's going to give me
enough to think about and focus on there. If anybody isn't able to participate today, they couldn't figure
out how to be heard, you go ahead and send an email to Ms. Cisneros, just be sure to mention it's
because he had some technical difficulties, what they were. And then we'll let you get your comments in
if you can get 'em in by 5:00 PM tomorrow. And Mr. Ros, do you want to maybe put your email address
in chat or something so people know where to send it to?
Speaker 1 (01:05:49):
Yes, I can do
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:05:50):
That. Alright. Oh, do you already do that?
Speaker 1 (01:05:53):
I can do that.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:05:53):
Oh, okay. Yeah, so she'll take care of that there. Okay, well let's move back to Mr. Morgan Roth. Any
responsive comments you want to make at this point?
Planner Morganroth: (01:06:01):
Sure, yeah, I can address a couple things. So first, and these are kind of related to all the comments
we've gotten because a lot of 'em are have similar themes, but just to respond to Ms. Becker's comment
on the night, the historic buildings just want to be clear, that wasn't a requirement to save from the city.
We don't have a landmarks ordinance or anything. The school district decided to keep it. I think they got
a lot of community feedback and they can speak more to that about just kind of preserving the history
there. And that is correct, is going to be used for admin functions is my understanding too, and not for
students there. So just a point of clarification there. As far as the zoning, the comp plan, so again there is
a portion of the site zone residential eight, so R eight zone, which has predominantly historically been
single family, although now does allow multifamily town homes with the new state regulations that
came into effect.
(01:06:53):
But that being said, we do allow a number of uses like schools, churches, government buildings, stuff
like that in residential zones, civic uses that sometimes are appropriate to be in those zones. So it does
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 19 of 21
require the conditional use permit, but I feel like it is a residential zone. But we do also allow these other
uses through the conditional use permit process because they can have bigger impacts than maybe
what you think of as a traditional use for residential zone. As far as the comp plan, same thing it is in the
residential, there's a portion of it in the residential medium density. This is obviously not a residential
project, but the comp plan does lay out preferences for against civic uses that serve neighborhoods such
as schools, churches, things like that in that land use designation as well. And then I'll let the traffic
consultant talk more about the traffic stuff, but just really quick, the bus along Logan, I think that is
something that was looked at early on or at least we looked at from the cities.
(01:07:56):
Could that be pushed somewhere else? The Lake Avenue is, it would be almost a quarter mile walk for
students to get from the buses over to the new building there. So I think that's i'll of them speak more to
why that was chosen. I think Matt already addressed that a little bit, but it was something the city did
look at very, very early on and it's far away is kind of the main challenge there as far as pedestrian
safety, certainly with the buses there, there's going to be those vehicles along Logan, but the Midblock
crossing is not just going to be a crosswalk, it's going to have the flashing lights and stuff, so there's
going to be a formal midblock crossing. So yes, there's certainly going to be a lot going on in that street,
but the intent is that some of this infrastructure improvements they're proposing will result in a safety
improvement over what's there now.
(01:08:41):
And then lastly was just having the lots off of access off of South second. There's just really the site this
large that takes up such a big area, four different frontages. It's not possible just to have all the access to
be off of Lake. We did have them push that as far west as possible. So it is kind of away from the
downtown core as much as possible. And then lastly, as far as the two-way conversion, there's no no set
and date planned for that yet. That is the intent I think for that to happen. But the traffic analysis did
incorporate that. That's going to happen eventually into their analysis and I'll let he can talk more about
that, but that was captured as part of this too.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:09:23):
Okay, thank you. Perfect. Thank you Mr. Morgan Roth. Alright, applicant, you get final word there. So
any comments from the applicant
Ms. Klein: (01:09:34):
Prior to passing this over to Todd? I was just going to add that I think that between the staff report and
the follow-up comments by Mr. Morgan Roth that the comments by the public have been responded to.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:09:52):
Okay. Mr. Feldmar, was there something you wanted to add?
Speaker 8 (01:09:55):
Just a couple of clarifications. One is that the use of the historic high school building is still to be
determined, but definitely being considered to support both the high school and the district as a whole.
So there will definitely be some opportunity for that to be used by students, but it is not intended to be
used as the new high school. The second is the second street frontage as we've been working with the
city is going to be greatly modified as part of this project and there will be a lot of additional pedestrian
and bus lane improvements made down the road we believe. And we're setting aside frontage for that
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 20 of 21
purpose based on our conversations with the city. So we wanted to make sure that it was acknowledged
that the traffic pull off from parent drop off the future bus lane, future sidewalks, all of that is being
considered to make this a more pedestrian friendly environment as part of the project.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:10:51):
Okay, thank you sir. And finally, Mr. McBrien, if there's anything else you want to add. It looks like a lot
of the questions were already answered, but if you have anything else, especially the turning movement
impacts on the adjoining streets, that seemed to be a pretty important issue.
Mr. Feldmeyer: (01:11:06):
Yes. Yeah, absolutely. A couple of things, just to clarify from Ms. Becker's testimony, she had mentioned
the counts and data collection that occurred during summer. As I mentioned in my earlier testimony, we
did collect some data during summer. In fact, we collected data at all of the study area intersections and
roadways that was mostly used to understand what traffic conditions were like when school was not in
session. We also collected data in the springtime, as I mentioned in April and May. Those were the data
that we used to actually conduct the analysis. And in each of those cases, we selected the highest
volume of the counts that were performed as a worst case. We also, in coordination with the city,
assumed a 3% annual growth rate on all of those background trips for 3% per year from the time that
they were counted out to the year 2030.
(01:12:07):
And in addition, we accounted for pipeline development traffic within the area that the city provided to
us, so other developments that would generate traffic. So we have accounted for lots of increases in
traffic, not just the change that would be because of the school's increase in capacity. And with all of
that and the conservative analysis approach that we took, we still found that the project could be
accommodated without any adverse impacts. Secondly, she mentioned the future potential conversion
of second to a two-way back to a two-way operation. The city is still designing that. They did not have
enough information about how that would be designed for us to evaluate it and did not have us
evaluate that. Once they move forward with their design of that project, they'll evaluate how that street
would operate with the school course being part of it. In terms of the backups that occur on second, a
lot of what this project is doing are intended to help that.
(01:13:10):
If you are familiar with the site at all, there's a driveway that serves the student parking lot currently on
second. It's located about 170 feet west of Logan. And that proximity actually is part of what causes
backups to the intersection. That driveway will be eliminated and the student access parking lot will be
much, much further to the west. So that should help. In addition, as Matt mentioned, the onsite student
dropoff loop will be extended substantially. And so that again will help minimize the traffic over spill. On
the second, because of pickup and drop off, there is a driveway proposed on Lake as well to serve
student parking. I know Ms. Becker mentioned that, so I just wanted to point out there is an access that
can be used to that parking lot as well. And then finally, the buses on Logan. She mentioned the
challenges with buses using Logan.
(01:14:10):
As Matt noted, the buses are already turning in and out of Logan from the bus driveway that exists
there. They're making left turns in both directions, both entering and exiting. So this plan actually would
eliminate those movements since all buses would have to approach from the north in the southbound
lane and pull out. So this will improve bus operations there and the bus loading area proximity to the
Appendix A -- Renton High School Trans. 1.13 (Completed 01/29/26)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 21 of 21
building will hopefully make it more attractive for students to use the school bus. I think there's also the
midblock crossing. I think Mr. Morgan Roth mentioned that the midblock crossing of Logan will be, have
a signal of some sort. The city is still determining the exact type of signal. It may be a full stream signal
or what we call a hawk beacon, which looks like a red light for drivers that pedestrians push. It may also
be rapid, rectangular, rapid flashing beacon. So those things are still being decided as part of the design
improvements. I think that's it.
Examiner Olbrechts: (01:15:15):
Oh, great. Okay. As usual, very helpful. Thank you Mr. McBrien. Of course. Okay. I think with that I can
go ahead and close the hearing. And like I said, there are a few concerns out there and like I said, I'll
certainly take a close look at them. I think the public probably already understands there are two issues
outside of the scope of this hearing outside of my authority. One is whether or not to vacate Tobin that's
going to be, as Mr. Morgan Roth said, something that will be decided by the city council after another
public hearing. So you can certainly let the council know about that. And the other issue that's really not
considered relevant to my review is the school district decision making on the use of eminent domain
and taking property, that kind of thing. That's kind of between the public and the school board probably
of the Renton school district.
(01:16:04):
I just focus on the impacts to the neighbors and in terms of traffic and noise and building height lights,
spillage, all the things that go hand in hand with school development. I always say that the Renton
community is, I've worked for 35 communities and City of Renton has some of the most detailed, I think
and fairly strict to design standards. And I mean they cover everything. If you can meet their standards,
that's about as much as you can reasonably expect of any developer. And Mr. Morgan Roth has done a
pretty good job of explaining how those standards have been met, though very good chance the project
will be approved. And I was happy to see the Heffron Transportation engineers involved in this. I've held
a lot of hearings for Seattle Public Schools and they always use Heffron. So Heffron sort of has a lot of
expertise and school traffic impacts both in terms of the offsite parking, which is a big deal in the city of
Seattle, as well as the kind of impacts that you have here.
(01:17:05):
So I think at least you might not like the fact this is coming in, but it sounds like you had some good
consultants working on it along with your very capable of rent and planning staff. So I'll have a decision
done in the next couple of weeks, and as we mentioned earlier, that's appealable to Superior Court. If
any of you want a copy of that, be sure that Ms. Cisneros has your email address so we can be sure to
get that out to you. And also, I always like to put the developer in the spot in big projects like this and
just ask if you stick around to answer questions from the public. Is that okay? Yeah. So you've got their
traffic consultant here and you have the applicant. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask
them. Now would be a good time to do it. So I appreciate you all taking time off your busy days in the
middle of the day to express your concerns, that kind of thing. And like I said, I'll be taking a close look at
all that and I'll explain how your concerns are addressed in my decision. So anyway, thanks again for
participating and we for this afternoon.