No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscDenis Law. - - . Mayor1 of Mayor r� Lune "9,_01'4 City Clerk -Bonnie LiNalton NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED. 8Y: Roger A. Paulsen RE: :Environmental Review -Determination; 'Enclave at. -Bridal Ridge;-WA14-000241, ECF, PP Tb Parties:af Record:. Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances; written appeal of the Environmental.Re'view. Committee's Determination as referenced has been filed with the City Clerk: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the v►ritten appeal and other pertinent documents -will be' reviewed .by the Hearing Examiner iri. a hearing scheduled for 8:00 a.m.; Tuesday, june 24, 2U14: The'he'aring Will take place in the 7t Floor Council Chambers +of Renton City Hall. The. address is 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA.98057.. Enclosed is copy of the appeal filing. Also -enclosed is copydf Renton Municipal code section 4-$-110.E. regarding appeals of Environmental' Review decisions or recommendations.. Far additional information or assistance; please feel free to contact me at-425 430-6502, Sincerely, Bonnie I'. Walton City Clerk Enclosures (2)'" cc.' "Appiicant.Justin Lagers Owners Safly Lau Nip.ert and G. Richard Gulmet. Parties of Record Hearing Examiner lenniferHenning, Planning Director, Gregg Zimmerman, OW Administrator 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 130-65 101 Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov 00000 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASH INGTON FOR KING COUNITY ROGER A. PAULSEN AND JASON M. PAULSEN, POA FOR. JUDITH PAULSEN, CASE NO. 14-2-31273-3 KNT Petitioner, v, CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation, and PNW HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Respondents, STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING RESPONDENTS OUIMET AND NIPER,r AND WAIVING INITIAL HEARING PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70C.080(5) STIPULATION The parties to the above -captioned litigation hereby stipulate and agree as follows. 1. All claims against the landowners G. Richard Ouimet and Sally Lou Nipert named as respondents in this action shall he dismissed without prejudice and without an award of costs or fees to any party. All claims between petitioners Roger A. Paulsen and Jason M. Paulsen, POA for Judith Paulsen (collectively, "Petitioners") and respondents City of Renton and PNW Holdings, LLC (collectively, "Respondents") remain in the case. 2. The initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters presently j scheduled for January 9, 2015 is hereby waived pursuant to RCW 36.70C.080(5). j STIPULATION AND ORDER - I IVan Ness Feldman,,, 719 Second Avenue Susie 1150 Seattle, WA 96104 f206�623.9372 000002 1 2 3 4 5' 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. The defenses of lack of jurisdiction, improper veMle, lack of standing, untimely filing or service of the petition, and failure 10 join persons needed for just adjudication are hereby waived, and the Petitioners' land use petition should be resolved by trial on the merits in the assigned judicial department on April 20, 2015 as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule dated November 17, 2014. 4. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C, I 10(1), the City of Renton shall submit to the Court no later than February 19, 2015 a certified copy of the record for judicial review of the Hearing Examiner's decisions in this matter, as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule. The parties agree that, pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(2), the record may be shortened to avoid reproduction of portions of the record that are duplicative or not relevant to the issues raised in the Petitioners' land use petition. 5. The City shall provide Petitioners and PNW Holdings with a copy of the certified record on the date the certified record is filed with the Court. Each party shall pay the City's actual costs incurred in producing the copy of the certified record for that party. And, Petitioners shall reimburse the City's actual costs incurred in producing the certified record to be filed in the Superior Court, subject to potential future reimbursement by the other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.1 10(4). The parties shall pay the City any payments due under this paragraph within fifteen (15) days of receiving an invoice from the City for the same. 6, Subject to potential future reimbursement by other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(4), Petitioners shall prepare at its expense and submit to the Court no later than February 19, 2015 a verbatim transcript of the proceedings held on June 24, October 23, and October 27, 2014 before the City. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(2), Petitioners STIPULATION AND ORDER - 2 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue Suite s 150 Seattle. WA 98104 (206 ,23.9372 000003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may shorten the transcript to avoid transcribing portions of the proceedings that are not relevant to the issues raised in Petitioners' land use petition. 7. Petitioners shall provide Respondents with a copy of the verbatim transcript on the date the transcript is filed with the Court. Eacb respondent shall pay the court repoirting firm that prepares the transcript dircctly for the aniount billed fol, the copy of the transcript for each respondent. 8. The Court should enter an Order reflecting the terms of this Stipulation, as set forth below, STIPULATED AND AGREED TO this q1 day of December, 2014. STIPULATION AND ORDER - 3 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP Bye 8r nt Car n, WSBA 416240 H. Ray Liaw, WSBA 040725 Attorneys for PNW Holdings. Respondent CITY OF RENTON, CITY A-717ORNEY By: Larry WMTen, WSHA 05853 Crarmon Newsom 11, WSBA M3141 B Attorneys for City of Renton, Respondent By- G. Richard Ouimet, Respondent By:-� Sally Lou pe , R Mesponde t Vale Ness Feldman i19 Second Avenue Suite I I5D 50AItia WA v0. V- (2061 523-9312 000004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 By; C �iJC �l�' ' (�ltt Roger A. Paulsen, Petitioner Eac V t 1 t X 1 By;� Nl(.1 11,' (,4tt l b`)il`Lti'� ,4 ! ,1asUn M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M. Paulsen, Pctitioncr ORDER This matter came before the C.oull on the above joined Stipulation of the parties. Based on the Stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. All claims by or against G. Richard Ouimet and Sally Lou Nipert in this action are dismissed without prejudice and without an award of costs or fees to any party. All claims between Petitioners and Respondents remain in the case. 2. The initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters is hereby waived putsuant to RCW 36.70C.080(5). 3. The defenses of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of standing, untimely filing or service of the petition, and failure to join persons needed for just adjudication are hereby waived, and the assigned department of this Court has jurisdiction to and may review and resolve Petitioners' land use petition on April 20, 2015 as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule dated November 17, 2014. 4. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C, 110(l ), the City of Renton shall submit to the Court no later than February 19, 2015 a certified copy of the record for judicial review of the Hearing Examiner's decisions in this matter, as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C, 110(2), the City may shorten the record to avoid reproduction of portions of the record that are duplicative or not relevant to the issues raised in the Petitioners' land use petition. 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 4 Ilan Ness Feldman,,.. 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Sealue. WA A8104 (205)023•9372 000005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 lI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5. The City shall provide Petitioners and PNW Holdings with a copy of the certified record on the date the certified record is filed with the Court. Each party shall pay the City's actual costs incurred in producing the copy of the certified record for that party. And, Petitioners shall reimburse the City's actual costs incurred in producing the certified record to be filed in the Superior Court, subject to potential future reimbursement by the other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(4). The parties shall pay the City any payments due under this paragraph within fifteen (15) days of receiving an invoice from the City for the same. 6. Subject to potential future reimbursement by other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(4), Petitioners shall prepare at its expense and submit to the Court no later than February 19, 2015 a verbatim transcript of the proceedings held on June 24, October 23, and October 27, 2014 before, the City. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(2), Petitioners may shorten the transcript to avoid transciibing portions of the proceedings that are not relevant to the issues raised in Petitioners' land use petition. 7. Petitioners shall provide Respondents with a copy of the verbatim transcript on the date the transcript is filed with the Court. Each d on resPent shall pay the court reporting firm that prepares the Luanscript directly for the arnount billed for the copy of the transcript for each respondent. DONE I-zMX3this-- ecember, 2014. Judge p STIPULATION AND ORDER - 5 Wan Ness Feldman,,. 719 Second Avenue Smte 1150 SeaWe. WA 9$104 (205) 623-8372 000006 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 '16 17 18 19, 20 21 22 23 24 25 Presented by: VAN MESS FELZk4A LLP r i (\ , Brent Carson, WSBA # 162410 H. Rav Liauw, WSBA #40725 Attorneys for PNW Holdings LLC Approved for Entry; Notice of Presentation Waived: CITY OF RENTON, CITY ATTORNEY By: Lv— eft. `YEA �.K (.J.v Laby Warren., WSBA 95853 J Garmon Newsom II, WSBA 1131418 Attorneys for City of Renton, Respondent BV-- G. Richard Ouimet, espondent By. -:12�oup�ert,nnSally L By: R ger A. Paulsen, Petitioner J -on M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M. "en, Petitioner I STIPULATION AND ORDER - 6 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue Suitt 1150 Semple, WA 281Q4 i208i 523.IW2 000007 iT'Y OF RENTON June 5, 2014 City of Renton Attn: Hearing Examiner 1055 South. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 .SUN 0 5 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFECE REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton, Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Appeal of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP, dated May 19, 2014. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Appeal is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant --- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration and Appeals processes work in concert with one anothet. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Appeal Request is not in -line with what you may typically receive. Please note that I have also filed a concurrent Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2) with the understanding that if the Reconsideration Request is not granted, this appeal will be processed, and my appeal payment check cashed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be a series of missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Appeal. Stan " As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments on the Enclave at Btidle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a previous Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this project (Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5' Place/ 156t' AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefiilly consider this Request for Appeal and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe I have the required standing to bring this Request for Appeal. Identification of Concerns for Which This Appeal is Requested The issues for which I request this Appeal relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice process associated with the original SEPA Threshold Determination. Point of Appeal #1. Transportation The proposed access to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge project site is via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156 h Avenue SE, just north of the 156�' Ave SE and 142'd Place intersection (Preliminary Plat Plan, Exhibit Q. In response to concerns raised in my earlier Request for Reconsideration (dated April 16t) the applicant commissioned an additional Traffic Study on April 22"d, and submitted an Addendum (Attachment D) to the original Traffic Impact Analysis. The Addendum, dated April 29, 2014, concluded that the two proposed site access streets will operate at an acceptable level of service (C) for future conditions. Subsequent to the April 22"1 'Traffic Study and the April 29'' Addendum, the City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156`h Ave SE and 142"d Place intersection. Reference the May 5'h letter from Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22" letter from Mr. C.E_ Vincent, CED Administrator (Attachment F). On May 19'h, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) met to consider my April 16`h Request for Reconsideration, and retained its threshold Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated, with one additional mitigation measure: Due to the existing Level of Service (L OS) designation of F at the 15e Ave. SE / Si 142 d PL Sic: intersection] and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed prnjeet shall be rrsponsible far paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 15e Ave. SE / SE 142" PL intersection. The ERC Meeting Summary (attachment G) includes on page 2, the following statement: With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the prvject vicinity would improve. The first reason for this appeal is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern, including the intersection at 156"' Ave. SE / SE 5`'' PI., and the intersection of 154'h Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL. The City was aware of the plan to install the new traffic signal, but failed to consider its impact on the proposed development when it issued its threshold Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated on May 19th. It is very likely, based upon the longer queue times associated with a signalized intersection, that the level of service associated with ingress and egress at the two new access streets, as well as at adjacent 2 existing streets such as SE Yh Place, will actually prove worse than has been modeled to -date for an un-signalized intersection. While the Level of Service of the 156`' Ave. SE j SE 142d Pl. intersection may end. up "improved" as a result of the new signal, the record lacks any data or analysis for understanding theVotential adverse impacts associated with the new signal as it relates to the new 12oints of ingress and eegress. Until such an analysis is completed and made available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process, it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets Ievel of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Point of Appeal #2 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A) and my original Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit B) I remain concerned that the City's "Notice of Application....." (Exhibit H) with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misre_ nrT esented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental�SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22". Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22"", the opportunity to provide input that would inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the original Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on June 24th' and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting once again to raise here. Requested Outcomes of Appeal Based upon each of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Appeal, I ask that the Healing Examiner take the following action: • Withdraw the May 19d, 2014 'Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant work with City staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE 5"' Place. • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application 3 000010 and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opporturuty to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request Appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Detern mation for this project. Respectfully Submitted, Rogn n raa�v� 6617 5E 5`s Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 List f Exhibits: Exhibit A - R. Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit B - Request for Reconsideration (April 16'h) Exhibit C - Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D - Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E - Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F - C.E. Vincent Letter Exhibit G - ERC Meeting Summary Exhibit H - Notice of Application and Proposed Mitigation-.. 4 000011 O# 1; •1 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdin>(anenton wmgov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECP, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"d. 1 also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5a' Place. 1 would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156`h Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142"d intersection during the .morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of I56th and 142°d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to I56"'north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 1390' Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142°d, and then only 1F the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156`h north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 000012 ]EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 15e between SE 5" Place and the project. by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156' from SE 5' Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142"0 intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156`i' during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156t'/ 142" d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156t1/ 142°d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5tn Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents_ Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 000013 EXU BIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot 44, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Applicationn for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 241h deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22" d public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination r� for to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but p.nly those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 000014 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at Ro erAPaulsen cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 11I1I6I11 E-1 EXHIBIT B April 1 G, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.1 10(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in -line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Stand' As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5' Place/ 156"' AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 000016 requesting_ To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Iden 'fc tion of Congerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA.) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: `The .-cope of this analysis is based upon the preliminavy plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development" By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. ar P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis_ See excerpt below Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 000017 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: `The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Senine (LOS) renew of The surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity... " This report goes on to conclude that: ".. ,the sanraunrling intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 150 Avenue SE/ SE 142" Place intersection. " Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actuaUy looked at existing intersections other than the 156" / 142`d Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156" Ave SE/ 142" d intersection is the ONLY exi_ ist n intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5 h Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17''), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions an 150 at SE 5`s PIce or other impacted intersections to the north_ The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA_ Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156`s, but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "... impose left turn rrstrictions at that intersection. "(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Ixvel of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156¢'/ 142a intersection, but also suggests that the City's "rernedy" wilt 000018 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`h/ SE 5`1 PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156`6, the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise requited street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: '7t is not anticipated that The proposed pr ject signifacarrtly adversely impact (sic) the City of Denton s street Dystern subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156'/ 142" intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 & the Growth ?Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156d'/ 142d or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from. Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the C'ity 's Transportation Division is `currently assessing any irr ravements are warranted (if any)... ". This confirms that work is on -going at this time (April 15`h) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 This e-mail serves to document pet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir Frwm Steve Lee sent: Tuesday, April IS, 201411:14 AM To: CityClerk Records CC Jan Illian; lilt ring; Neil R. Watts: Jennifer T. Flenning; Rohini Nair subject: RE New Public Records Request- PRR-I4-085 (Paulsen) Attachnwrts: TranspoConcPoficy14O415.pdf See attached files that are related documentation an the: City process for c6%wency, standards and prams relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. 1 Wleve this Is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeking. The information, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen hour the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-&070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of Irnprovernents or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, pVr 4-6-070 A.i, or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for imprtamments throughout the City. Our Transportatlon Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord. 5675, 12-3.2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, 'Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes It in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 tfi SE to access Cemetery Road" Thanks. -Steve tee, PE, MS, CESCt City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 fe r nw . av Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, srWresentwedthe actual opportunities for pint enogem eent in the environmental (.SEPA) review of this prroiect. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22'', Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 000020 until April 22nd, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application...' As a result, the record now shouts that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22", and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5 h Place and 1566 Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156' Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE Yh Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 000021 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B -- Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C — Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D -- Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E — Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated I EXHIBIT C THE ENCLAVE AT EROLE FIDGE. xxx—XXx: i 1-- •�4u 1 __ Sib � •('-, ��__ .j '-1 I - *+eft - [ 4 1 I 4J��. i 1 teRs_"'i 's7 f•"7 ` 1 - [ A 1 '- �ja '= {. . (11 r 1 sl ' �'• ;. -__—__ I 71 i yi��/ � __ `�i iii �Jt1 ..� ��j��-�' � _'i. ■i r - i'\ 4. _ s �`- __y-� -r3 I, -. Lam' C'A 19 — �_.. '- '+�SJr � — ---'•__emu ,rt�-r��' 4—__— � 1 L I � PIK tuts �Itvtv�ta r 1 f �g Z too 4t Jim i € z 10 lit if fig, i FIN EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3e St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by NORTHWEST 7-RA Ff'lc E'XP ER7-.s 11410 NE 124" St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 000024 rraffmy April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: lVaRrNwrST T)7Arr7.c EXP£RT9 11141GIE124thSt. #590 KiWarid, VA 98034 Phnm.425.522,4113 Fax:425.522,4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. + Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. + The 142" d Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142" d PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page i 000025 The Enclave at Bridle Ride rra queues were observed to back up from the 142"d PI. SEISE 156" intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 PI/ " Ave 5E WB (C 15A) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access I NA NA WB (C 16.4) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access ! NA NA WB (C 17.4) 156th Ave. SE. SE 142" PI / Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) 1561h Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Nighwa ry Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5"h PI./156'h Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all -way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/156th Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 000026 The Enclave at Bridle Ride '�'a or PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142"d Pl. SEISE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142"d PI. SEISE 156th intersection to SE 5 h PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5tr Pl. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5"' PI. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 PI/ WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) 156 1h Ave SE North Site Access I NA NA WB (C 15.2) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access 1 NA NA WB (B 13.3) 156th Ave. SE. SE 142" Pl / Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) 156th Ave SE (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 000027 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156t' Ave. SEISE 142"d PI. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.230% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142"d PI. SE/1561h Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 000028 The Enclave at Brittle Ridge .Tral far �r rrru r ir���w�rr^w/ rr � ��� rw �A•�i rrrr�r SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156�' Ave. SE. Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vincep,nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx w ffST__G . NA 4--F 9�14 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx Page 5 000029 s PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT pOf �� . M E M- O RAND UM DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes; Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 1561" Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne(Tgmail.com? Recommendation. We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants accordingto Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C. 4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 15611, Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Qf these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blacks away from the intersection in' question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h;tdivisipn.sltranspor.tat\operatio\ron\tomn tom96453,doc 000030 EXHIBIT F Denis Lavin - Mayor City or I, J", S S Community & Economic Development Department May 22, 2014. C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat % LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request -for Reconsideration, the City conducted an independent study of the 156rh Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection warrants.the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156`" Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection, the Cityr s Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the. developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding becomes available. if you have any further questions on this matter, please"contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at . (425) 430-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov_. i - Sincerely, C.E. "Chip" Vincent j CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin Lagers, Applicant .. sally Lou Niper, Owner G, Richard Ouimet, Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall - 1055 South Grady Way : Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.g"ov 000031 Cite of L. DEPARTMENT OFCOMMUNITY t� „fir AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M 0- R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge (WA14-060241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated {DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). - - The i3 M way palilishtrl on Aptif=4, Z0 4 with an appeal peed °that ended an .AprHIS, 2-014. A request for reconsideration ofthe SEPA determination was received -on -April 17; 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014). The j submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156ei Avenue SE/SE 5"' Place i intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis- After conducting the additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h_ oedlplanminglcurrent p1mm nglprajccts114-000241 jilllerc 3reconsfderation recommendation memo.dotducx 000033 Enviroz=ental Review Co. tee Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation E at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156�h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,43S (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2, The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for_ the 156th nue SE/51 T42'�d Street �ntersectioti; it dtdWna include'a L05 anarsts icar tF�e --......- - - - .. F.. .. - 156t�` Avenue SE/SE 5a` Place intersection. j Staff Comment: Item # 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development". The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required_ However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/5E 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 15e Avenue SE/SE 5tfi Place intersection. According to the addendum the LOS for the 156d' Avenue SE/SE 5t' Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed . subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 15e Avenue SE/SE 5t' Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:lce4lanninglcurrcnt plaaing)pro}octsNI4-D0024I ji111erc rmmsidoration moommeodadon memo-dotdocx 000034 Environmental Review U.-mittee 'age 3 of 4 May 19, 2 014 156th Avenue SE/SE 51h Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading_ People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the e. existing DSIrf-M'with one new mitigation rrieasure as follows:. . 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to:the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SEISE 142°d Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signs I to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142,d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak haurtrips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with. Nearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. hAce4lanniaglcurrentplanniaglprojacts114-0D0241 jiHl erc reconsidmdon recommendatioa memo.dotdorx 000035 Environmental Review Co .tee Page 4 of 4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 i signatures: 4 Gregg Zimm r a Administratorfill, Public Works epartment Date Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Date 12�' V Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergen Services Date V C , ;�- C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Date Economic Development - lvlcedlpianniugl =enr planninglpmje=\14-000241 ji11= v=rmdtrAUon rwonvamAsdon memo.dotdocx 000036 EXHIBIT H r City o1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals, DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LAND LiSENUMBER: LUA14.000241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a B.8 acre project site located within the RA {Residential 4 dwelling units per acre} zoning designation. The proposal would result In tine creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new fats would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000254) Is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 15e Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M)- As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DN5- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods For the project and the proposed DNS•M are Integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14•day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF ComPLETEAPPLICATION, March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justln lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC 19575 SE 36°i Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 9BG40 / EMIL: Justirt@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be requ€red: Construction, Building, Fire Requested Studies; DraTnage Report, Geotechnicaf Report, Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) — Planning Dlvlsion, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1955 South Grady Way, Benton, WA 98057 PUBLIC WEARING: Public I is tentatively scheduled f r April 22 4 before he Benwft Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambg at 10.00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO — Planning Division,1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-=241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: — City/State/Zip: 000037 J, CONSISTENCY OVERVIEM Zoning/land Use: The subject site is designated Residential low Density (COh1P4iLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and R4 on the Citys Zoning Map. . Environmental Documerrts that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPAL Ch'eckllst Development Regulations Used For Project Mftigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures; The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnlcal report. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted tra frestudy. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to llll Ding, Senior Planner, CED— Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5.00 PM on March 24, 2014, This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing an April 22, 2014, at 10.00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are Interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 43"578. if comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Tel: (4Z5) 430-6598, Eml: id(ngerentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED — Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. fame/Rle No.: The Enclave at Bridle RidgeAUA14.004241, ECF, PP NAME: MAJUNG ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: oty/state/Zip: 000038 6/6/20f4 RENTON MUNICIPAL. CODE 4-8-110 APPEALS: APPEALS TO HEARING EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations; Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing, filed with the City Clerk. b. Environmental Determinations: Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3- 090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, when any proposal or action is granted, conditioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official, the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: a. When a reconsideration request has been submitted, the matter shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration. A new fourteen (14) calendar day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. b. In order to request reconsideration, the person or entity must have been made a party of record, or submitted written comments to City staff prior to the issuance of the determination for which the reconsideration is being requested. 3. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by state law or exempted by a state or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a person who has been made a party of record prior to the issuance of a decision may appeal the administrative or environmental decision. In order to appeal the person or entity shall be aggrieved or affected by the administrative or environmental decision. In order to be aggrieved, the person or entity must demonstrate the following: a. An injury in fact, in that the person or entity will be specifically and perceptively harmed; and b. That the interest the person or entity seeks to protect is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated. 4. Time for Appeal: Any such appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk's office, together with the applicable appeal fee, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the final decision or publication of the final decision, whichever occurs later, except in the case of a Final EIS, in which the appeal shall be made within twenty (20) calendar days of the publication of the final decision. S_ Clarification of Appeal: if the appeal is unclear and does not sufficiently explain the basis for the appeal, the Hearing Examiner may issue an order requiring that the appellant amend the appeal within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the order. If the appeal is not satisfactorily amended within the time allowed, it shall be dismissed. 6. Motions: The Hearing Examiner may dismiss an appeal, without hearing, when it is determined by the Hearing Examiner to be untimely, without merit on its face, incomplete, or frivolous. Any application to the Hearing Examiner for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing, shall be in writing, stating the reasons for the request and setting forth the relief or order sought. Written motions shall be received at least five (S) business days in advance of the hearing. 7. Parties: The parities in appeal hearings shall be the City, the applicant, and the appellant(s), if different from the applicant or the City. No other persons shall be allowed to testify unless serving as a witness to one of the parties. S. Notice of Hearing Required: A written notice of the time and place of the hearing at which the appeal shall be considered by the Hearing Examiner shall be mailed to the applicant, all parties of record in the case, 1 000039 6/6/2014 and to the officer from whom the appeal is taken not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing. 9. Format of the Appeal Hearing: The appeal hearing will be of an informal nature, but organized so that testimony and other evidence can be presented efficiently. An appeal hearing shall include at least the following: a. An introductory outline of the procedure by the Hearing Examiner. b. Presentation by the appellant, including any witnesses. C. Cross-examination, if any, of appellant and appellant's witnesses. d. Presentation by City staff, summarizing the staff analysis and including any witnesses for the City. e. Cross-examination, if any, of City staff and staff's witnesses. C Presentation by the project applicant, if different from appellant, including any witnesses. g. Cross-examination of any of the project applicant and applicant's witnesses. h. Rebuttal testimony and closing by City staff. i. Rebuttal testimony and closing by applicant, if different from appellant. j. Rebuttal testimony and closing by appellant. 10. Prehearing Conference: The Hearing Examiner may schedule and hold a prehearing conference when it appears that the orderly and efficient conduct of the hearing will be served, or that settlement of the appeal through such a conference is likely. A prehearing conference may, among other things, consider: a. Simplification of the issues. b. The existence of undisputed facts to which the parties are willing to stipulate. c, The identification of witnesses and documentary or other evidence to be presented at hearing. d. Any reasonable needs any party may have for discovering the details of the case the other party intends to present. e. The imposition of reasonable time limits. Based upon the discussions and agreements at such a conference, the Hearing Examiner may enter a prehearing order, which shall govern subsequent proceedings. If the case is settled at such a conference, the Hearing Examiner shall enter an order reciting the terms of the settlement and dismissing the appeal, 11. Content of the Record: The record of an appeal hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner shall include at least the following: a. The notice of appeal and any amendments. b. The staff analysis responding to the appeal and all accompanying documents, including the papers that comprise the record of the decision subject to appeal, C. Additional documentary or physical evidence received and considered, including all exhibits filed. d, The Hearing Examiner's decision. e. Electronic recordings of the proceedings and/or an accurate written transcription thereof. 12, Hearing Examiner Decision: a. Substantial Weight: The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. b. Hearing Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Hearing Examiner may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: L In violation of constitutional provisions; or ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or iv. Affected by other error of law; or 2 6/6r2014 V. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or vi. Arbitrary or capricious. C. Time for Hearing Examiners Decision_ Each final decision of a Hearing Examiner, unless a longer period is mutually agreed to in writing by the applicant and the Hearing Examiner, shall be rendered within ten (10) business days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings. d. Collateral Estoppel (issue Preclusion). The Hearing Examiner may deny a party's request to relitigate one or more issues or determinative facts decided or ruled upon in a previous litigation if the party against whom the collateral estoppel doctrine is to be applied had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. The party requesting application of the collateral estoppel doctrine must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the issue decided in the earlier proceeding was identical to the issue presented in the later proceeding; (2) the earlier proceeding ended in a judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to, or in privity with a party to, the earlier proceeding; and (4) application of collateral estoppel does not work an injustice on the party against whom it is applied. The Hearing Examiner may apply collateral estoppel, sua sponte. e. Res ludicata (Claim Preclusion): The Hearing Examiner may apply a prior ruling or summarily decide an action or appeal if the current, pending or proposed action or appeal is substantially identical to a prior action or appeal in four (4) respects (1) the same persons and panties or a person or party in privity with the prior person or party; (2) causes of action that substantially involve the same rights or interest, the same evidence, an infringement of substantially the same rights or interests, or the two (2) actions or appeals arise out of substantially the same facts; (3) subject matter is identical or substantially the same; and (4) at least one or more of the parties are bound by the prior judgment or ruling. The party requesting application of the res judicata doctrine does not have to prove each factor, but must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that application of res judicata is appropriate. The Hearing Examiner may apply res judicata, sua sponte. f. Full and Fair Opportunity: Failure to seek or obtain evidence or information that existed at the time of the prior proceeding does not establish that a party did not have a full or fair opportunity to litigate an issue or change the subject matter of an action or appeal. 13. Optional Request for Reconsideration: a. When a reconsideration request has been submitted, the matter shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. b. In order to request reconsideration, the person or entity must have been made a party of record prior to the close of the hearing, participated in the hearing or have submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. 14. Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council: Unless a specific section or state law providing for review of decision of the Hearing Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or other body, all other appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be made to the City Council within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's written report. 000041 )CITY OF RENTON June 5, 2014 City of Renton Attn: Hearing Examiner 1055 South. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 JLAN 05 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFPCE REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Appeal of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP, dated May 19, 2014. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Appeal is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures_ As an ordinary citizen, I found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration and Appeals processes work in concert with one another. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Appeal Request is not in -line with what you may typically receive. Please note that I have also filed a concurrent Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2) with the understanding that if the Reconsideration Request is not granted, this appeal will be processed, and my appeal payment check cashed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be a series of missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Appeal. Standi As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a previous Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this project (Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`' Place/ 156 h AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Appeal and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To 111111I11 p� allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of tray property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe I have the required standing to bring this Request for Appeal. Identification of Concerns %r Which This Anneal is Reguested The issues for which I request this Appeal relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice process associated with the original SEPA Threshold Determination. Point of Appeal #1. Transportation The proposed access to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge project site is via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156`s Avenue SE, just north of the 156"' Ave SE and 142nd Place intersection (Preliminary Plat Plan, Exhibit C). In response to concerns raised in my earlier Request for Reconsideration (dated April 16d') the applicant commissioned an additional Traffic Study on April 22"d, and submitted an Addendum (Attachment D) to the original Traffic Impact Analysis. The Addendum, dated April 29, 2014, concluded that the two proposed site access streets will operate at an acceptable level of service (C) for future conditions. Subsequent to the April 22"d Traffic Study and the April 29`h Addendum, the City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156`h Ave SE and 142" Place intersection. Reference the May 5`h letter from Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22nd letter from Mr. C.E. Vincent, CED Administrator (Attachment F). On May 19`s, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) met to consider my April 16" Request for Reconsideration, and retained its threshold Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated, with one additional mitigation measure: Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 15616 Ave. SF' / SE 142" " PL Sic. intersection] and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall he responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156" Ave. SE / SE 142"' PL intersection. The ERC Meeting Summary (attachment G) includes on page 2, the following statement: With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity mould improve. The first reason for this appeal is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern, including the intersection at 156 b Ave. SE / SE 5t` Pl., and the intersection of 154`s Ave. SE / SE 142°d PL.. The City was aware of the plan to install the new traffic signal, but failed to consider its impact on the proposed development when it issued its threshold Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated on May 19th. It is very likely, based upon the longer queue Humes associated with a signalized intersection, that the level of service associated with ingress and egress at the two new access streets, as well as at adjacent 2 000043 existing streets such as SE 5'h Place, will actually prove worse than has been modeled to -date for an un-signalized intersection. While the Level of Service of the 156"' Ave. SE / SE 142nd Ph. intersection may end up "improved" as a result of the new signal, the record lacks.,any data or analysis for understanding the potential adverse impacts associated with the new 5ignal as it relates to the new points o£in Less and egxess, Until such an analysis is completed and made available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process, it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets Ievel of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Point of Appeal #2 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A) and my original Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit B) I remain concerned that the City's "Notice of Application ...." (Exhibit H) with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA,) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22" d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22nd, the opportunity to provide input that would inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the original Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on June 24th' and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting once again to raise here. Requested Outcomes of Appeal Based upon each of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Appeal, I ask that the Hearing Examiner take the following action: • Withdraw the May 19'h, 2014 Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant work with City staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE 5" Place. • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application 3 000044 and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request Appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project Respectfully Submitted, Rog n 6617 SE 5`" Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — R. Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit B — Request for Reconsideration (April 16` ) Exhibit C — Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D — Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E — Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F — C.E. Vincent Letter Exhibit G — ERC Meeting Summary Exhibit H — Notice of Application and Proposed Mitigation.... 4 000045 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdin�a rnton wa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-00 024 1, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5`h Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5t' Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156t Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "roiling stop" situation present at the 142"d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156 h and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156d' north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 51h Place (shown in the traffic study as SE l3Vh PI.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142"d, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156 h north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156`h even more difficult. 000046 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156h between SE 5"' Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow health safe and welfare for the existing residents who access 156' from SE 5' Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 5$.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156a'/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156`h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142" d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156`h/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5�h PIace. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000047 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24`h deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 000048 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen(dcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000049 EXHIBIT B April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn. City Clerk Renton City Hail 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concem, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in -line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration. (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5' Place/ 156a` AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 000050 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Detcrrnination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: `The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Anaysis for New Development': By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M_ Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 000051 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did �S provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: 'The Trafic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a JL.evel of Sen4e (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity... " This report goes on to conclude that: the ssrrroundin& intersections mould continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) moth the exception of the southbound approach to the 156" Avenue SE/ SE 142"d Place intersection. " Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156`h/ 142s Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156" Ave SE/ 142 d intersection is the ONLY exi�stin intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5`s Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17`s), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156'' at SE 5`h Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's 'Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TLA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156''', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "... impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. "(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 1566/ 142`d intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156", further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`h/ SE 5d' PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156" Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156`h, the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `It is not anticipated that the proposedproject ject significantly admrsely impact (sic) the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code inquired impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156 h/ 1.42"d intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156`17 142nd or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "czrrrently assesring any improvements are warranted (if any)... ': This confirms that work is on -going at this time (April 15`�) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 000053 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated urith this project, This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From; Ste►T Lee Sent Tuesday, April 15, 201411:14 AM To: City0erk Records cc: )an nlian, !rill Ding; Neil R. Warts; Jennifer T. Henning. Rohini Bair subject RE. New Public Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) Attachments: TranspoConcPol icy140415.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City process for cdncurcency, standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. 1 believe this Is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeking The information, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a cstrrrbination of improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit Issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 4-6-070 A.I, Ora financial commitment Is placed, A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City forimprovements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the techn1cal review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord. 5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement;, "within the City of Rentort, the steep topography ipetween Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access_ widening f-405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road_" Thanks. -Steve Lee, PE, MS, CESCL City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425.430..7299 slt29 rerrtanwa.¢av Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concem, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, rnisr l2resented the actual opportunities for public en- meet in the environmental (SEPA), review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 000054 °d, until April 22 the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application...") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22", and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5"' Place and 156`h Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156`h Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City ofRenton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 000055 st_of Exhibits: Exhibit A — SEPA Detrm- ination Comment Letter Exhibit B — Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C — Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D — Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E — Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated 000056 EXHIBIT C Ff / THE 04 AVE AT BFtOu RIDGE xxx—m oq IMF — •-- �,, r—'ate.•- F —`mot--- -''.7 � �a��y�� r� �____��-3 a .$ 1_�{t '-X1.._•___ � _ +- mom` E L _t y-•a�+tr t I" _ 113 lu rr pow i o y— jr LJ. '`_`� S } 7YJjL ir 7iirt — tom" " _ -" — �+tJ —�L Y�`•�-ter ~ 1�• - - C" znkfa a�aewasa i7 Id!e 1 q IN 10 ;-Div 7 EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by 4 1 rra0tv 7"RAF-F-fc Ex�=.cwrs 11410 NE 120 St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone. 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 000058 rriaff,a, April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: 1V01?rHw--sr TIPAFFlC E-Xpra7sr 1141O NEE 124th St. #580 Kirkland V'fA 98034 Phone; 425.5&4118 Fax: 425.522,4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 h PI/156" Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"d Pl. SEISE 156`h intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5tn PI/i 561h Ave SE and 142"d PI SEISE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8.15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page I The Enclave at Bridle Ride rjwff queues were observed to back up from the 142nd PI, SEISE 156th intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 PI/ 1561h Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access J 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access 1 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE PI / 1142" 156 Ave SE Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5`' Pi./1561h Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all -way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/156`h Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 000060 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge II II I PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/156" Ave SE and 142"d PI. SEISE 156'h intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5.15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142"d PI. SEISE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 51h PI. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 51h PI. were unproblematic_ Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 PEf 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) North Site Access f 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 15.2) South Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 13.3) SE 142" PI f 156th Ave SE Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 000061 Th FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156th Ave. SEISE 142"d PI. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2,23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 6.65 % at the 142"d PI. SE/1561h Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 000062 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rjwff , SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on I W' Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince nwtraffex.com or IarryOnwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx - W VW - 4_� 9,14 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx Page 5 000063 EXHIBIT E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT c+ty� ° C Mom M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 T0: Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 1S6th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmait.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 15& Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. hAdivisi on.s\tra ns por.tatjoperatioVon\tomVom9645a Am 000064 .!' EXHIBIT F Denis Law Mayor May 22, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 99059 City of - 41 - UA Community &.Economic Development Department C.E`Ch ip"Vi ncent, Adm i n istrator RE: Enclave at Bridle midge Preliminary Plat / LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration, the City conducted an independent study of the 1.S61h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. The study concluded that the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding becomes available. i if you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager., at j425) 430-5598 or via entail at iding2rentonwa.gov, Sincerely, C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: MC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin Lagers, Applicant Sally Lou N€per, Owner G. Richard Ouimet, Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov 000065 Wo DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D ct of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT `. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT; Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-•000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shalt be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). The Di �1 �+ras pal�fiShect on Ape is 4; 20I wit an appeal perZ dth t ended on q P 2014. A re nest far reconsideratiati o�the SEPA determination was receive ril=, , 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the $EPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated; April 29, 2014). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156u' Avenue SE/SE St' Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. After conducting the additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed i hAoed%plannin&urrCnt p1annin9VTQ ectsll4-W024X JW1,ere reconsideration rocammcndaEion mcmo.dot.docx 000067 Environmental Review G. Aittee Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156t" Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156 h Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LO5) Analysis for the 156t" i . Yi[S-� +a.� .. _ ;. L� Avei� u SE SE I42 Street intersection; it �dnof include a LO5 anaf�sis for the" 15'6th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item # 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development". The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5tn Place intersection. According to the addendum the LOS for the 156n' Avenue SE/SE 5d' Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 35.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 second$ with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection- The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:kcftlanuinglcurrent planning%proje=t 14-4Q6241.jW\erc reconsideration recommendation memo dotdocx Eavironmcntal Review Com„littee Page 3 of 4 May 19, 2Q 14 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public !tearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In fight of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the existing DSM-M'with one -new mitigation measure as'fnllt;ws: I. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnicaf Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to:the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142❑d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:Q0 p.m. on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. h:lce4lanninglcurrent plane nglprojwts114QOfl241.ji111erc reconsideration recommendation rnemo.dotdocx Environmental Review a- -iittee Page 4 of 4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: GreggZimm r a Adrinistrator Mark peterson, Administrator Public Works epartment Date Fire & Emergen Services date C Terry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E. "Chip "Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development hEcedlplanningNcplanninglprojccts114-000241 jiU\crcreconsiderationrccommcadationmemo.dotdocx 000070 EXHIBIT H r.� r City 4f, i NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been fled and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development {CEDj — Planning Aivision of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 tAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) toning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots .and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range In size from 11,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet_ Access to the new Pots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 whIch will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present an the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14039 1Se Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFiCA.NCE, MITIGATED {DNS•Mj: As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment perlod. There will be no comment period fonowing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M)_ A 14•day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M, PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETEAPPUCATION: March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Junin Lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC / 9675 SE 3e Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 / EMT: justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building Fire Requested Studies. Dra€nage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CEL1) — Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9SO57 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearIng Is tentaftly scheduled for April 22 4 befoM 1he Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton Clty Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED — Planning Division, IOSS So. Grady way, Renton, WA 98057, Name/Fife No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/5tate/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: _..�..� ,l-.�►, } �- City of,-� `„ w:. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW Zoning/land Use: The subject site Is designated Residential Low Density (COMP-RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map. . Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental I5EPAj ChecklJst Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mit€gation Measures will Ilkely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report. ■ Project canstruction shaft be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments an the above applici tlon must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, CEO — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by S:00 PM on March 24, 2014. This m=er is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearft on April 22, 2014, at 10.00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Halt, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. if you are Interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430.6578, if comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. if you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project, CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Tel: (425) 430-6598; Ern]: idinl;Calrientonwa.,goy PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROIECr NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED —Planning Division, 1055 5o. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-OW241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: City/State/ilp: 000072 �Y Q CITY OF RENTON Receipt No 2125 0 ri) City Clerk Division + + 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 Date b ❑ Cash ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Notary Service heck No. Uj �1 WAppeal Fee ❑ Description: ' u c' Lull- tH - f Funds Received From: Amount $ Z15L . c.Z; Name Address City/Zip City Staff Signature 000073 June 9, 2014 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY: Roger A. Paulsen RE: Environmental Review Determination; Enclave at Bridal Ridge; LUA14-000241, ECF, PP To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Determination as referenced has been filed with the City Clerk. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in a hearing scheduled for 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The hearing will take place in the 7th Floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Enclosed is copy of the appeal filing. Also enclosed is copy of Renton Municipal code section 4-8-110.E. regarding appeals of Environmental Review decisions or recommendations. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Applicant Justin Lagers Owners Sally Lou Nipert and G. Richard Oulmet Parties of Record Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Gregg Zimmerman, PW Administrator 000074 Easy Pee106 labels i A Bend along line to Use Averye Template 5160' � 'eed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM � AVEIZYS 516a(l) 1 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC Richard Ouimet 9675 SE 36th St, 105 2923 Maltby Rd Mercer Island, WA 98040 Bothell, WA 98012 Maher Joudi Sally Nipert D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 14004 156th Ave SE 10604 NE 38th Pl, 232 Renton, WA 98059 Kirkland, WA 98033 Wade Willoughby Roger Paulson 6512 SE 5th PI 6617 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Eloise Stachowiak Mazama, WA 98333 6614 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 AVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE 5TH PI RENTON, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 ft(wee#tes faciles 6 peler i A Repllaz a la hadium afln de i L tillser IQ aAh;%rtt AVrn%16 51rtg i Sens de . .AI 000075 www.amryA cDrn Denis Law CityOf ti Mayor �. �— June 9, 2014 Mr. Roger A. Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Re: Enclave at Bridal Ridge; LUA-14-0241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Paulsen: City Cleric -Bonnie L Walton Regarding the referenced land use application, the City Environmental Review Committee issued a response to your April 16th Request for Reconsideration on May 19, 2014. On Friday, June 5th, you persona Ily.filed the following in this office: 1) A letter dated June 5, 2014, withdrawing the pending appeal dated April 16th that was being held pending the outcome of the Response to Request for Reconsideration. Your check #9443 for the appeal fee was returned to you. ,2) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014, serving as anew Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination. 3) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014, serving as a new Appeal document, accompanied by your check #9490 for the $250 appeal fee. After review it has been determined that there is no option or availability at this time for another request for reconsideration of this matter. The Response to the Request for Reconsideration dated May 19tfi clearly sets forth the option for appeal,. however there is no option at this point for request for reconsideration. Therefore it is necessary that the Request for Reconsideration filing dated June 5, 2014, be considered invalid and will be marked void. The appeal process, however, will now go forward based on the appeal document you submitted June 5, 2014. The receipt for the appeal fee is enclosed. Our appeal notification will be coming to you by separate letter soon. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me Sincerely, I_is..l _ •. � __�_� _ter Bonnie Walton City Clerk Cc: Gregg Zimmerman, ERC Committee Chair Jennifer Henning, Planning Director 000076 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6.516 • rentonwa.gov CITY OF RENTON un e 5, 2014 C of Renton A . City Clerk 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 To All Whom It Pursuant to City of formal Request for by the City's Envirc 19, 2014. IOctS k'0 'S t D JUN 0 5 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 9aAd 1�e/ vael /p: ee on-r RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) Concern, Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a deration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued `Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP, dated May As a party of record for this prof ct, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative emedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, \of and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopolicies and procedures. Thank you for taking the time to conquest, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional stgation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citicommunity. As a long-standing member of this community, I b th accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in dprocess reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In e spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit thi Request for Reconsideration. andi As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who proper�sub ttted written comrxaents on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a pRequest for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this proje t (Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transp tion network via the SE 5'h Place/ 15G`" AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare e at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the nec sal actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA, has the potential to adversel pact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate t the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe I ha the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration. 77 Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issue for which I request your reconsideration relates to the transportation impacts of the proposed project. Concern: Transportation The proposed access to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge project site is via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156ffi Avenue SE, just north of the 156 h Ave SE and 142"d Place intersection (Preliminary Plat Plan, Exhibit Q. In response to concerns raised in my earlier Request for Reconsideration (dated April 16'') the applicant commissioned an additional Traffic Study on April 22"d, and submitted an Addendum (Attachment D) to the original Traffic Impact Analysis. The Addendum, dated April 29, 2014, concluded that the two proposed site access streets will operate at an acceptable level of service (C) for future conditions. Subsequent to the April 22"d Traffic Study and the April 29''° Addendum, the City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (FIP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156" Ave SE and 142"d Place intersection. Reference the May 5"' letter from Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22nd letter from Mr. C.E. Vincent, CED Administrator (Attachment h). On May 19`s, the City's Environmental Review Committee (BRC) met to consider my April 16'' Request for Reconsideration, and retained its threshold Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated, with one additional mitigation measure: Due to the existing Level of Service (L O S) designation of F at the f 5e Ave. SE / SE 142 PL ISic: intersectionj and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsihle for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156' Ave. SE / SE 14Z" PL intersection. The ERC Meeting Summary (attachment G) includes on page 2, the following statement: Wlith the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The first reason for this Request for Reconsideration is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern, including the intersection at 156`� Ave. SE / SE 5"' Pl., and the intersection of 154d' Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL.. The City was aware of the plan to install the new traffic signal, but failed to consider its impact on the proposed development when it issued its threshold Determination of Non -Significance --- Mitigated on May 19th. It is very likely, based upon the longer queue times associated with a signalized intersection, that the level of service associated with ingress and egress at the two new access streets, as well as at adjacent existing streets such as SE 5'h Place, will actually prove worse than has been modeled to -date for an un-signalized intersection. While the Level of Service of the 156'h Ave. SE / SE 142nd Pl. intersection may end up "improved" as a result of the new signal, the record 1_acks. any data or_analysis for understanding the potential adverse irn acts associated with the new si=al as it relates to the new points of in.gress and egtess. 2 KII1I114:3 Until such an analysis is completed and trade available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process, it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets level of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: Withdraw the May 19', 2014 Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE, 5" Place. Once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, reconsider the SEPA Threshold Determination for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination.. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Paulsen 6617 SE 5`" Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — R. Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit B — Request for Reconsideration (April 16") Exhibit C — Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D — Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E — Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F — C.E. Vincent Letter Exhibit G — ERC Meeting Summary 3 000079 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ jAnggMtonwagov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECF, P.P. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 50'Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142" d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156h north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5`h Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142"d, and then only 1F the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156a' even more difficult. 000080 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5`h Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156a' from SE 5" Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17, I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156"/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156 h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156"/ 142" d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156t"/ 142d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 51h Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 000081 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (bath of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 20 deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22"d public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but o_ my those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22"d, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22"d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 000082 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsenges.com. Sincerely, Sent Eleetronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000083 EXHIBIT B April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in -line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5" Place/ 156' AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 000084 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property ar the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which_ Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee shade an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffcx (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows `Tbe scope of this analysis it based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines far Traffic Impact Analysis for Neu Development". By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2, Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: `The Trafc ImpactAnalysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity... " This report goes on to conclude that: "...the surroundsng intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Sen,7ce (L.OS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156`a Avenue SE/ SE 142ae Place intersection. " Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 150/ 142" Place intersection. Thud not. In fact, the 156"' Ave SE/ 142" intersection is the ONLY exi`istinintersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5`h Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour {just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17'''), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156"' at SE 5"' Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156"', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "...impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. "(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"/ 142`" intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will 111� i s force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156`', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156'h/ SE 5'h PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156`h Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156"', the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concerti #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one Iooks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `fit is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact (sic) the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156'h/ 142 d intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156'''/ 142"d or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concerns #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April. 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering ,Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any)... " This confirms that work is ors -going at this time (April 15') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 1+I1I1I111FA This e-mail serves to document pet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration - Sandi Weir Fmm: Steve Lee sent Tuesday, April 15, 201411.:14 AM To: CityCJerk Records cc Ian filian; Jill Ding; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. Henning: RoNni Nair Str * t RE: New Public Records Request - PAR-14-085 (Paulsen) Attactunfrttc TranspoConcPohcy140415.pdf See attached fifes that are related documentation on the City pracass for co'ncurrency, si andards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. 1 believe this Is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeking. The information, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Cade Section 4-"70 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of Improvements or strategies in place at the time of laui'lding permit issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 4.6-070 A.1, or a financial commitment Is placed, A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees pald for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (it any) (ord. 5675, 12-3-2012 )- The Transportation Division has currently providee some direction as to an initial response with the statement, 'Within the City of Renton, the sleep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening I-4051which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE ro access Cemetery Road." Thanks. -Steve Lee, PE, M5, CESCL City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 slee[r?irentonwa.goy Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public enZagemet in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22'. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 000088 until April 22", the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application... ") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"d, andthey will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P-M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5'h Place and 156`h Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156`k' • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Comrnittee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5`h Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 000089 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B — Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C — Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D — Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E — Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated 7 EXHIBIT C THE 04UAVE AT SROLE RK)GE I xxx—SDm 1� EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36 h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by fExA RTHWEST TRA FF/C Ex,=ER T.S 11410 NE 1241" St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 000092 rraffay April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: NaRrHwEsT TRA,-= EXPSRTMT 1141 O NE 124th St. #590 IfirW . 0 98034 Phcre: 425,522.4118 Fax, 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 h PI/1561h Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142" d PI. SEISE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5" PI/156th Ave SE and 142" d Pl. SEISE 156 th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page l 000093 The Enclave at Bridle Ride Y�Wfty queues were observed to back up from the 142n1 PI. SEISE 1561h intersection to SE 51h Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 KgTHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 PII 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (G 16.4) South Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142" PI / 1561h Ave SE Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 51h Pl./156'h Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all -way stop controlled intersection (SE 142n°/1561h Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 000094 The. Enclave at Bridle Ridge 7"d9Ay PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 51h PI/156th Ave SE and 142"d PI. SEISE 1561h intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142n¢ PI. SENSE 156'h intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th PI. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th Pi, were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 PI/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) North Site Access I 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 15.2) South Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 13.3) SE pl I h 15 S 156 AveAv SE Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 000095 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge 711VAfty FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 1561h Ave. SEISE 142nd Pi. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142"d PI. SE/156" Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 000096 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rjwff SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vinceOnwtraffex.com or larrvOnwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx r 4- 9_14 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx Page 5 000097 EXHIBIT E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROOM (a M E M 0 R A N U U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager FRAM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142nd Place at 156ti, Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 15eh Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of crnba ne mail.com? Recommendation: We should place this Intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C.4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h:\djvisipn.s\transpor.tat\operatio\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc 000098 EXHIBIT F Denis Mayor City _. f.... C1ty o f . -_ Community & Economic Development Department May 22, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 i RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat / LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration,,the City conducted an independent study of the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142.d Place intersection Warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142'd Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal Would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at. . (425) 430-6598 or via email at iding2rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, 2- C.E. "Chip„ Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin Lagers, Applicant Sally Lou Niper, Owner G. Richard Ouimet, Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall + 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY � o City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ., M E M O. R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge f LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnica! Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). The DNSiIM~was publish-c%d owApri4 4,...2014 with an appeal pert dthat erided on 2014.'A request for reconsideration of the SEPA determination was received on'April'17, 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 15e Avenue SE/SE Sti' Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. After conducting the additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed bAcc&plamingl=n=t p1anning19rajectsU4-W0241 P\erc reconsidembon remmmmdation mcno.dotdocx 000101 Enviroa entat Review Co, ,flee Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2Q 14 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142" d Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156'' Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 156th Rveiide SE/SE I42�41 treet intersection; it b�d�riot'include a 55 ana sis for fhe' - 1S6th Avenue SE/SE 5ih Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item # 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development". The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156`h Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the hAv,c&plarmuaglcuaentplanainglprojects114-OMp241 jU1\uc reconsideration recommendation memo. dotdoex 000102 Environmental Review Co�nAtee Page 3 of 4 May 19, 2414 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunityto become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the existing DS9 Mwit.h orie"new mitigation rrieasure as follows: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to.the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 147"d Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0,00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be fled in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. h:lce4ianninglcurreatplAaa glprojects114-000241-jilllercreconsidcration recommendationmetro.dotdecx 000103 Environmental Review Co_ .ittee Page 4 of 4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: Gregg Zimm r a , Administrator Public Works epartment Date Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Date 12�' V IM - - cr Mark Peterson}, Administrator Fire & Emergen Services Date S - —�74 -'5- 1 /(.1(t �- C.E. "Chip "Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Date Economic Development }deed%piamvngkurrmt pUnniuglpmje=%14-000241-ji1Ilerc reconsideration recommendatim memo.dot dom 000104 CITY Or RENTON June 5, 2014 JUN Of 2014 City of Renton. RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Attu: City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge - Project LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear City Clerk's Office, I wish to withdraw the Request for Appeal I submitted to your office on April 16'h. Based on a recommendation by your office, that Appeal was placed "on hold" pending the City's review of a Request for Reconsideration that I submitted at the same time. In response to that Request for Consideration, the City's Environmental. Review Committee issued an updated threshold determination for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project on May 19th. Enclosed with this cover letter, please find a new Request for Reconsideration of that updated determination, and a new Request for Appeal, pursuant to the guidance provided by Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E). The personal check (#9443) in the amount of $250 that accompanied iny original appeal can be applied to this new appeal. A16JU CrI I;SdeO dA) 'r Mo If for any reason the opportunity for Reconsideration is not available at this stage of the City's process, please cash my check and consider this appeal as being timely filed. If the accompanying Request for Reconsideration is accepted, I understand that will be given the opportunity to withdraw my Request for Appeal after tevieu-ing the City's response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions related to this submission. My contact information is shown below. Thank you for your assistanceH Sincer , R en 6617 SE 5`h Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 Roge.rAPaulsen@cs.com Enclosure(s): Request for Reconsideration, with attachments Request for Appeal, with attachments cxez,fe yn,3 161-aw 6�t) ��- /00 000105 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of ,neral circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on May 23, 2014. e full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sutra of $84.00. f 'Linda M, Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 23rd day of May, 2014. Kathleen C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Buckley, Washington CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON I'he Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determi- nation of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) for the following project under the au- thority of the Renton municipal code. The Fnclave at Bridle Ridge LUA 14-000241 Location: 14038 156ih Ave SE. Decision issued on Request for Reconsideration submitted 4/17/2014 to retain existing SEPA DNS-M with one addi- tional mitigation measure. Pro- ject proposal is for preliminary plat approval of 31 lot plat with two tracts. Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before 5.00 p.m. on June 06, 2014, Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-It0 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, 425-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the �Pouncil Chambers, City Hall, on S.Ine 24, 2014 at 8:00 am to con- �ler the submitted application. �f the DNS-M is appealed, the $ppeal will be heard as part of Otis public hearing. Interested .-parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in the Renton Reporter on May 23, 2014. N 1056968. Denis Law Mayor 00000lliiiliiiiiii ct Df r j A Community & Economic Development- Department May 22, 2014 C.E"Chip'Vincent,Administrator CITY OF RENTON Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th.Place . MAY 22 2014 Renton, 1NA 98059,Rt=CLNi:D CITY CLERICS OFFICE RE: .'Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat / LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. -Paulsen: . As -part of the review of your Request -for Reconsideration, the City conducted an .independent- . study of the 15.6t, Avenue SE/SE 14z. Place intersection. The study concluded that the 156th nd Avenue SE/SE 142. Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City'has added and is. prioritizing the installation of,a traffic signal at this location to its. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determinedthat the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place' intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the. developer to. pay their fair share for the installation of-the.traffic signal as an additianal mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part: of this project,, but would occur at a later date as additional funding, becomes available: If you have any further questions an this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, a.t (425) 480-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. Sihcerely, C.E. "Chip„ Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc.- ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin Lagers, Applicant Sally Lou Niper, owner G. Richard quimet, owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington §8057 + rentonwa.gov . 000107 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT p �Of��� M E M 0 R A N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes; Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT; Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 156`h Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 155th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of crnbayneeugmall.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Biackground: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 1560 Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruptian of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 151P Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.. Mdivisian.s\tra nspor.tat\operatio\ra n\tomktom9645a.doc 000108 Page 438 Standard: 2009 Edition' The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the .followiing conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition Ain Table 4C-1 exist oil the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or- B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition Bin Table dC-1 exist oil:°, the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: as If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the, traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Guidance: 06 The combination of Conditions A arzd B is itrteffded for application at locations irliere Condition A is trot satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternuth es'.; that could cause less delay and h7convenierlce to traffic leas failed to solve the traffic problems. Standard; 07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 412-1 exist on { the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and: D. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 412-1 exist oil"', the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however .' `he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of , the 8 hours.,i Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, fright -Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A —Minimum Vehicular Volume Number of lanes far moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher-wl ime minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100'ro 130°6° 70%' S6X° 100%d BO°/-- 70 � 56%" 1... 1 5Dlh. 4q0- 3¢0 2130 1_50 .., `1.20 1 D5.. '_ 84 ;. 2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 1 D5 84 2=or mole, 2 orore 6Do 48D 42Q 3�iBp0 18D !40 i F2 1 2 or more Soo 400 350 280 F 200 160 140 112 Condition 13—Interruption of Continuous Traffic Nurnber of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour an major street Vehicles per hour on higher•volurne traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) minor -street approach (one direclion only) Major Street I Minor Street 100-K- 80%- 7o %° 56%° 1004c' 80°60 7Ra}°� 55%° .< ?50 60U „525 420 75 gD 53 42 2 or more 1 900 720 630 5D4 75 60 53 42 2;ormare 2r�more 9UP T20 fi30 5U4 D� i30 :'.y 1 2 or mare 750 00 525 420 100 80 70 T 56 ' Basic minimum hourly volume ° used for combination of Conditions A and 8 after adequate trial of other remedial measures May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,D00 ° May be used for combination of Conditions ,4 and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the majorstreel speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated communily with a population of less than 10,000 SCct 4C,02 Dec, Page 440 2009 Editiaa J Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Soo 400 MINOR STREET Soo HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 115' so` 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET --TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with.one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESSTHAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 300 MINOR STREET HIGHER- 200 VOLUME APPROACH- VPH 100 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 _1 LANE & 1 LANNE 90, 60' 200 300 400 Soo 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:130 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Sect, 4C.04 D,,vuber 000 2009 Ssli iun 600 �0a MINOR 400 STREET HIGHER - VOLUME 300 APPROACH- VPH 200 " 100 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE -,-1 LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the tower threshold volume far a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MANOR STREET) 400 MINOR STET E ET 3oa HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 2 OR MORE LANI}ES & 2 `fOR MORE LANES 2 OR h10RE LANES & 1 LANE .1 LANE & 1 LANE 100' 75' 300 400 500 600 700 800 400 1000 1100 1200 13W MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES --- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Pate 441 150, 1W 200 00st" Signal Priority Ratings: A = Number of correctible accidents in a 12 month perlod AR = Accident Rating = 100 / 5 x A Vm = Average of the 8 highest hours of main main street volume in veh/hr (total both directions) Vs = Average of the 8 highest hours of side street volume in vehlhr (total both directions) Note: right turns on red and/or free right turns are subtracted from the side street volumes, K = reduction factor = (6.97 In (Vm / Vs)) - 0.32 Cv = Capacity constant Note: When the 85th percentile speed of main street is >40 MPH, MUTCD volume warrants are reduced therefore, reduce Cv so that Cv = 0.49 x Cv Number of Lanes Main Side Street Street Cv 1 1 75D 2+ 1 900 2+ 2+ 1200 1 2+ 1000 VR = Vehicular Volume mating = (Vm x Vs) / (K x Cv) Pm = Average of the 8 highest hours of main street pedestrian in pedlhr (total both directions) Wm = width of main street in feet Cp = pedestrian constant = 78000 PR = Pedestrian Volume Rating = Vm x Pm x Wm I Cp Total Rating = AR + VR + PR Intersection A ::ice: Vm Vs :::::f ::::: Cv <;V :;:;:: Pm Wm :::::F?R:: :%fit t: SW 41 st STIOakesdale AV SW 5 :�:00 615 407 ":;:tJ. iB; : 900 ,345&:.1�: 0 56 O t}0:::3558' S 4th ST/Wilfiams AV S 0 ;::D;:: 442 357 :=Q;..1_' 9000 :-t$::4f'. 12 43 ::2;$::::�t$ NE 44th ST/1-405 NB Rams 3 :.$Q> 539 476 :::-�0;2C►':: 900 : 1429::4''2: 0.5 40 .;0;#4:' SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 :A:- : 783 306 ::A-59 1200 :'337,'64�.:J 0.5 51 S 7th ST/Talbot RD S 03 ::: fi.::: 990 315 .=::Q,:79::, 900 =:'43$: 8:: 9 74 ::8:4 ::.453 NE 12th STIUnion AV NE 0 ::::Q::: 449 220 ;;:iD:37s ' 750 ::35 —.: 6.25 45 ::1:62:: >356 SE 31st St/Benson RD S 2 ::440:: 1221 270 -=::-1 14: 1100 ::-262:'104':: 0.33 51 R'26=: :302:. NE 4th STINo ulam AV NE 2 :::40: 1899 153 "::ZAW: 588 :::232:74::: 0 62 ::i7:110:: >:27u:; 5 55th STITa[bot RD S 3 :;:0:: 898 174 ;^;# 2;7 :: 750 ;:; �3:$Q :; 0.37 36 N 44th 5T/1-405 SB Ramps, 3 ::A0: 460 179 :.::Ei3 `. 1000 28": O.17 56 [,-.0 DO': NE 12th ST/Kirkiand AV NE 6 ::1:2� 542 120 ;4 ::: 900 ::::i3:5;::: 5 38 SE 142nd PU156th AV SE 0 0 976 167 ::1::` 750 :::15�i;E)7:: 0 39 ;:.[#:.QO::.::1:5�; S Eagle Rid a MBenson RD S 3 ?$ :. 1148 93 ::2; 2 .- 539 ::::93:�a3•; : 0 39 N LandingLN/Garden AV N 0 ::::0: 5D4 158 ::F}.8f:::; 750 -: l31 87::: 16 41 :-.:24:: :13b NE Sunset BUHo uaim AV NE 2 :: 40: 838 69.5 :::2:30.: 368 :::::7,6:85'.:: 1 37 5 Carr RD/Mill AV S 1 0: 1887 44.5 ::::3:3:1 : 441 :::57:'44:::: 1 49 ::'kA9:- ::::79::: NE 4th ST/Bremerton AV NE 2 ::40.: 2035 20 ::::4:a8'.: 441 .::22,', :: 4 56 SW 34th ST/Lind AV Sw 2 :: }p: 1161 49 :2:7$` 1200 =::#7:.74.'. 0 58 NE 21st STIDuvall AV NE 1 ::2(}: 13101 37 441 0.5 53 NE 12th ST/Duvall AV NE 1 ::'. 9941 37 ::2;57 :: 441 :;::;;+::: 7 1 51 ::4;5::::-_:::. S 26th ST/Benson RD 5 0 :=:V0 1OO8J 27 68 :::: 3;:k7:::: 15 47 =:9:• 1::::: 2:::: NE 6th 5T/Duvall AV NE 0 :':'Q: 949 38 :,: a : 441 _.-: 9;.1E:::: 2 58 :1.4.7: NE 10th STIDuvall AV NE 0 ;:'0 < 458 48 1: $7. 441 :26.63 -: 6.38 58 NE 4th ST/Queen AV NE 0 :':;0;:. 1641 16 ; :;:4A ' 441 :14:27:,: 0.16 66 - 0:22 : :" 44;>: done done done done done done 000112 TOM 9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142nd Place/156`h Avenue Southeast WARRANT 1 Meets warrant —volumes meet Condition B for eight hours. WARRANT 2 Meets warrant — four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-1 for seven hours. WARRANT 3 Does not meet —this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. WARRANT 4 Does not meet —the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. WARRANT 5 Does not meet this is not a school crossing. WARRANT 6 Does not meet -- there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. WARRANT 7 Does not meet —there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. WARRANT 8 Does not meet — We classify 156'h Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142"d Place as a residential street. WARRANT 9 floes not meet -- This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. FN; T13"8620W 000113 O O ML 4 Sheetl TOM ; 9645W I 156th AV SE I I SE 142ND PL � NB SB ! NB+SB 1NB EB EB+WB ;TOTAL HOUR END .J. 0 % 100 7 _. 13 20 28 26 54 74 100 200 6 8 14 14 ... 17 31 45 200 300 E 4 2_......_ 6 8 13 21 27 300 400 12__. _. _ .... 3 . .. _.... 15 8 - 13 I 21 36 400 500 38 3 41 12 30 42 83 500 600 89 18 107 50 168 21B" ! 325 . ..... 600 700 f ...4 .._..._. 82 227 1 28 63 758 ; 985..... 700 800 ! 228 137 365 259 692 951 1316 00 800 9000...._.'._ _ 232..... ........... 282._. 665 - I... 947 1179 136 _.......67_._..... 85 221 217 442 659 i 880 I000 1100 R 132 92 224 208 310 1100 '� 1200 124 96 220 248 293 541 761 1200 ' 1300 110 223 265._ 269 534 757.._... 1300 1400 .E3 108 13.5 243 308 288 _ ._..,596 839 1400 1500 k 186._- -- -... 147 333 -_ 453 _. 316 769 i 1102 1500 1600 167 176 343 606 _ _ 454 1060 1403 _ 160D 'l 1700 155 175 330 725 441 1166 1496 1700 18Q0 161 � 192 353 723 465 ! t 1188. 1541 1800 1900 130 165 295 578 389 967 1262 1900 2000 99 119 - 218 343 266 609 827 2000 2100 70 1Q$ 178 231 i 223 454 632 -2100 2200 J 47 77 124 170 151 321 445 2200 2300 21 45 66 102 .104 206 272 2300 2400 13 36 49 56 64 120 169 2356 2091 4447. 6022 6729 12751 Page 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O. R A N D U M DATE: - May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBIECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination o€Nan-5ignificance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). The D3�=M-was-pnblishedorfApti,14 2014 with an appeal- pefiiudthaterided on, -A 2014.'A request for reconsideratii}ti of the SEPA determination was receive d"oil"April-17; - 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC- Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 15e Avenue 5FISE 5e` Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis- After conducting the additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed hAced�lann4kurr= Pi B�pmj=ts\14-000241,jW'%xc rcwnsideracion recommcndadon mcmo.dotdocx 000116 Rnvironmental Review Committee Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation Fat the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 156th - "a- Avenue SE/5E T42 Stre' intersection; it tiitfnot include a LO5 ana sis for the _ i 156th Avenue SE/SE 5'h Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item # 2 of the City's Guidelines far Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development". The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection_ According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5ti' Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE P Place intersection_ The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h kt&pL%=inglcurre& planninglpmjectsll4-DN241-jOem rwonsidmtiom recap mcadadon memo.dotdocx Environmental Review Committee Page 3 of 4 May 19, 2014 156th Avenue SE/SE 51h Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed -subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 155th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the existmg DShf-M'iNith on`e'nevu mitigation measure as foliaws: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to:the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142d Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the ISe Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Nearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. •Appeals to the Examiner are governed by }3MC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. h:leedlglanninglc==t p1auxdng)pmjects1140D0241 JiU\c= mtousiaeration recommmdation memo.dotdocz 000118 Environmental Review Committee Page 4 of 4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision. May 19, 2014 signatures: Gregg Zimm r a , Administrator ilrlark Peterson, Administrator Public Works epartrnent Date Fire & Emergen Services Date t Terry Higashiyarna, Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development h:lrrdl bmuingN=acntplauniu&mjects114-00D241.jifllercr=onsiderdfionrecommmdalion.rne=.dotdom 000119 rraN� Apri129, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers .PNW. Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36"' St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: 114101E'124th St. s Phow, 425,=41 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156t' Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analvis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 PI/156t' Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project_ • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"d PI. SEISE 15e intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5"' PV1560' Ave SE and 142"d Pl. SEISE 156t` intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 A.M. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peals hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page i 000120 i PE113LEC fN[3#;ifCS aEPAE2TiViEIyT M E M- D R A N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Tranpartation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 156e'Airenue Southeast Issue; Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142" a.Alace and 15e Avenge Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbaYne ail.com? . 'Recommendation: i We should place this irftersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a tnPw sign a I. Background:- i We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142'd Place and 156�' Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Deiiices_ This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of ContiruousTraffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes -for Four Hours. Please %nd attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devises, Figures 4C-1 through 4-C4 from the Manual of Uniform 7-raffic Control Devices and.a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersect;zon does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.2009, there have been five recorded accidehts on 156 Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. of these, only one "accitfent occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"a Place and 156�` Avenue Southeast.. The other four accidents occurred at least•two blocks array from the intersection in question. Pleasie find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.. hldn�aions�transportat�operatio�ranjtom�#ortt969sa-doc 000121 PUBLIC WORKS DrPAttTMENi - . B .� rf��� ce M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager 1=Rom: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142" a Place at 1560, Avenue Southeast Tissue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142".Place and 156e' Avenue -Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne afcmba ne ail.com? . Recommendation: I We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a •new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Contiol 3 Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Flours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic yolumes, Fable .4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-L4 from the Manual of Uniform Troffilc Control Devices and -a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This Intersection does not meet Warrant 7 far crash experience. Since.2009, there have f been five recorded accidents on 151 � Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other tinro involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142" d Place and 156' Avenue Southeast. The other f6r accidents occurred at least -two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. dhisiarc.s\trar5par.tatloper4t!o\ on\tomVom9645a.doc 000122 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT- Traffic Cancwrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Prellimtrkaty. Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.13 as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at l 130o of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, I which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Proiect subject to transportation mitiation _ or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impactfees at time of building permit. Sitespecific street im rovements to be completed b ro'ect?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off -site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. BaRkEgund Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070• The specific.concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070_D, which is listed for reference: 000123 Transportation Concurrency Test -The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 21114 D. CONCURRENCYREWEW PROCESS: 4. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrancy Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and pro edures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test Z Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specitrc land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the appfication and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrerrey..:lesf, the prnject application shall be denied by the decision shaker wtth the'authatny fo approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Flan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. N 000124 CITYQE RENTON April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn. City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CAk__� APR 16 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERICS OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures_ As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the bcnefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in -line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process are hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. StandiLig As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5d' Place/ 156' AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 000125 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SETA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of ray property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis ('M) prepared by Ttaffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy far such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project_ In the TTA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: `The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Garidehnes for Traffm LwpactAnalysis far zVeu, Development". By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For 'Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peals Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 000126 I It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the rninitnum information and analysis requited by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing then Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation lk My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: `The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Sermce (LOS) review of the sw nAev&hg intersections in the immediate vicinity... " This report goes on to conclude that "...the surrounding intersections avauld continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exceptian of the southbound approach to the 150 Avenue SE/ SE t 42°' Place intersection. " Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than. the 156'''/ 142od Place intersection_ Thy did not In fact, the 156' Ave SE/ 142�d intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5" Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 .ruin on December 176), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156"' at SE 5!' Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff ate not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156a, but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may `:..impose left tarn restrictions at that intersectian. "(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156d / 142"a intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will 3 000127 force this traffic to the rights or north, onto 156", further degrading the .Level of Service at the 156'/ SE 5" PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156"' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156 h, the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigationn recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `7t is not anticipated that the proposed project lignzficantly adversely impact (sic) the City of Renton s street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required fivntage improvements " Unfortunately, nowbere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156a'/ 142"' intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156'"/ 142 a or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any imprnvements are warranted Af any)... ". This confirms that work is on -going at this time (April 15`) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 000128 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From Steve Lee Slot Toesclalr, April IS, 201411.14 AM TO: C+t Qwk Records cc Jan 86W A ding Ne4 R. Wants. JemWer T. Henning: Rohiri Nair Sub*t RL New Pubk Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulsen? AtUchnmeW TranspoConrPok-V14041S.pdf see attached files that are related docvrnerttatian on the City process for cd-no t ency, standards and pmcess relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. l believe this is the information W. Paulsen is seek' --The in6ornlation, as extrrrted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen hove the Clty administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Seectloru 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in pfwe at the time of bLdIding permit issuance, or vAthin a reasonable amount of time after budding issuance, per 4-"70 A-1, or a financial commitment is ptxed. A Tina racial commitment can be the trade mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements th=ghoW the City. Our Transportation DMsion is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvwrrents are warranted Jif any) (ord. 5675, The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, 'Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Mapla Valley Wghway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in fieasfble to provide odditional access Widening !-4C]S (which the State is pursuing j to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cerxiery Road.' Thanks. -Steve tees Per. MS, MCI. City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425.44,7249 Concern #G Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns l have raised herein, Misrepresented the actual opportunities for public en ement in the environmental (SEPA) nevi w of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 2Td. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 000129 until April 22"d, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application-..') As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"', and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the aboveconcerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Pear Hour, including at the imtnediately adjacent intersection of SE Yh Place and 156`h Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 1566 • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper '1'raffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods bete -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project_ Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of time Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, r � Ro aul 6617 SE Yh Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 000130 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — SEPA Determination Comment Letter ! Exhibit B — Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C — Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D — Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E -- Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non--Significance-Mitigated i 000131 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SEAT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ J eMtonwa, ov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-00024 1, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and .Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5"' Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5`h Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156h Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156t' and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156t' north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5"' Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139a` Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156ei north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning tragic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156 h even more difficult. 000132 EKTIIBTT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156t' between SE P Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant_ potential to threaten public health, afely and welfare for the existing residents who access 156d' from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156d'/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156d' during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156t'/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156`17 142°d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5d' Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 111111Z W EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot 44, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division. Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot 44. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24 h deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22n1 public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but paly those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief .now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22°d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to -the City's SEPA Determination. 3 000134 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RoaerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000135 EXHIBIT B THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings., LLC, 9675 SE 36"' St., Suite 105 Mercer island, WA 98040 Prepared by rra jrf n Z7R7-Hw,-.sr-F %4AFF`iC ExF'ERTS 11410 NE 124"' St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 000136 aNOAT1y►WEBT 7)Z4r"V €XArR 7aftborV 114106E 1241h 5t, 090 INMdWA96034 Ply: 425.522 118 Fix 4 .&7.4311 December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PP1W Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36 St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038156t' Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156" Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156"h Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page i 000137 The Enclave at Bridle Ride 7?afflaff TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below. Time Period Trip Rate Trips rrips Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 25% 7 7 23 PM Peak Hour 1.01 31 620 311 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site -generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISnNG PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 158'' Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142"4 Pl. Residential Access Pa9e2 000138 The Enclave at Bridle Ride Paz 1 Se Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 15e Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156'h Ave. SEISE 142nd Pl. is an all- way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 1561' Ave SE or SE 142d PI. in the project vicinity. FJGSTING TRAFFIC COMMONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156t' Ave. SE and the 15EP Ave SEISE 142"d St. intersections. Per the Cily of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Ana sis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% In traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156u' Ave SEISE 142ndPl. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) Is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flaw, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures In the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 000139 TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F >'I0.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. Signalized 10 <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 0 Stop Sign Control <1 >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IMM PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156h Ave. SEISE 142"d Pl. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Desi n Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft. from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 000140 The Enclave at Bridle Rldge approximately 250 ft north of the 156 h Ave. SEISE 142rd Pi. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family Domes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156h Ave. SE. Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton, No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118_ You may also contact us via a-rnail at vince@nwtraffex,com or larry(@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vindent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 5 Ci A LD . w , t Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000141 TABLE I PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access I -- �j 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 15e Ave SE/ EB (B 25.6) E8 (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142"d PI. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (813.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) * Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board HWbway Cagacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach Ng northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 000142 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Vicinity Map r,amfEx 7??.4rF7C EXPERTS Figure t 000143 d —7; r7 VI a ,fir Ike' The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - C4 of Renton Site Plan Figure 2 000144 PM Peak Hour Traffie Volume EnDer 20 Exit 11 Totaf 31 L4 rr2 Q C'"i NAccesst 1,%Mave fi A[rm- sJ IMh Ava 156thAvel SE142R The Enclave at Bridle Ridge . City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and distribution ?i AffE TRAr"C FXPER7 S Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 3 000145 � � � /vaarriwEsr 7??AFJ7C ExPERrs r r" Pjk c f r d 1 y R, k Y "2nd�S}1 " �5' 71S2M SL 3 66 11 � r_ Oc � '+h . A i 'y ✓. l .i. } 4 Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project M ti ti a ti p 1 L` 4 1 L D �` 4 t LL 4 �o (D, 11�z `2 pt, a m eq N Axes/ 15M ave N Access/ 1551h are N ACMssl 156th ave N AMWXJ 155th ave N !-- t� 1� f L`0 LSO 1 L`4 1 L.`4 M f7 M C5 M M r v- .- S Access/ 156th Ave S Aoxsel 1561h Ave S Aomss! 156th Ave 8 Access/ 156t1'r Ave Ln CO to 4m0 W h N ti 332 Go r-_ CI C%I m M so w sn w co 156th Ave! SE 142 PI 1561h Arran SE 142 FI 15M Ave/ 9142 Pl 156th Avel SE 142 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure PSI Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 000146 TECHNICAL APPEND!( 000147 Prepard fbc Traflex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Plot (M) 92&,GM W: (=1922-72t1 £-Mall: TmneTIMIrm am ws"BE Intw�flnm: 1561h Awe 5E &SE 142adIn DOM of GQLMC Tres 12117R013 aJI00a: ACmm.wA"gwu Ohsdud By: ka T-mu remSl0"Ism(S ) RantSOathae Ram EMtan(INB) ImmWaIaa tldrvM k0m] 15kh A r SE: 156th Aiv'SE 0 SE 1479d PI Toil at T L S 9 T L S A T L S 'R T L S 9 �:ISF' 1 0. 36:. _116 ' 0 -]12 .: 11 0 a.-0. . @. 0 :. ,-''0 0:,. ..�: 0 2d3. q:]a P 6 0 I1 172 1 14 >Z 0 0 a a 0 0 70 a 37 306 .. 4:73.!'. _7 "�.0 :. - ifi .. : ISd 0 ,_6. ...;. - - �S"... 4 ... _. `-'a . ,0:' .. a_:'.a- .... - - -..... S�q F 0 0 19 179 7 12 19 0 a 0 0 a 0 70 0 20 370 S,ISI ! 0,. '19 .141 ] -?A 17 _:..: ' G .,p = 0 -''.'. p -. ;`0 0 : 70 " ,. 5.30 P 1 0 20 lit 0 [9 Ia 0 a 0 I a a 0 72 0 29 297 3i5t 0, ,'A....79 151 0' If IR 0. .q- .:,p 0' 0. .{ 93 L. oq 339 G-0a F 0 0 21 ] H 2 16 14 0 a a 0 0 1 74 0 17 291 _.0 ..a,_ -.:, ... 1) 630F 0 0 0 6 a 0 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0 b 0 0 ...SP a:,0 a.'...0. '`.p-a--.9.: p. ..0 0 0 a -9:!-0p- D.. M. p a 0 O q 0 a 0 0 Q q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll 12 0 137 J 224 6 179 ! f 7 a 0 p 0 a 1 610 0 2 a 2.197 -PO&RIOur: 4:m4'A -16 �-. Y-]5FJ6- 7am! 9 0 6R1 d5} 1 4-1 9I 1 63 1 0 1 Q 1 a 1 0 1 0 0 1 309 1 Q 1 1001 IIV 723 I55 a 109 1287 MY I.91i PLJF 0.93 156lh Ave SE Ion 7+.I 3tt I O ,60:c SE [42nd PI afs 6a =fl d Tor Owl 0 bSc o i! 109 atlD I'M 10 5:1$I'M I 79 S 4 w Fea= 91 43 191.11 PRF flc*L Hw, l bktw Mot _ _ FF 0 JJY _0_ •_ T� PE1F'411Y Orr —y�_ I _� 6 HT 03 ! I- 0 Cbmk EU wa -MT ` 0 '! In: 1297 NB pta 26•,: Jeri �l _- 0 323 Out: 1227 Sp - I.m Hrw_.oJ'E[SS Q Mth Ave SE Tim- 0,03 imA Nr 47 a laryafw Fiom: 8 a wSB taut M 04 I 0 WTa1 I 0 S-6 ra It a WT o4 .�--__A_9 rrr I �- 'a 0 rme' _�_ _ — 1IT ae „"`H�5113iC1 "-`- a a rr-1a 9-10 5 Noen Inl fTJ _ .. I_ „ a Rla Ko1Gcgau bmtded SB • m mau thm M I5+bipi4=rm]]mEgwxmfarm filer, Mstl jaw W T24 0 a Aa 0 0 0 0 TRA13184M Mpf 000148 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE l2r26r m N 4\ t I i.ena Cpr►figurabans � �` A Volume {vph) 309. i 0a 92 63 88 656 Peak lotirf=ate - 0 93� 0 93 :; 0 93,- . 0 Hourly Row rate (vph) 332 108 99 68 78 704 Volume Total_(vph) 44D 167 777 �dume%ft{vpfij:: „ _ Volume night 108 6 704 r 7- [)eparhire fleaduvay {s} 6.2 6.6 6.2 G act vetrlh572 526 679- -. CanirQlDtay {s 25 6 24 Approach Delay {s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 8 '.' . -F .:. . 624 Fmm Leval of Service F Analysis Period (min) jg -.... _ . _.._ . Basarme Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000149 Future Without Project 3: 5E 142nd Pi & 166th Ave SE 12i26l2413 _JA 4% ! t Lane ConfigUr ons - __ .. *� *... _ Slop.:: :: sip_ : sop:- Volume (vph) 32$ 106 98 67 72 695 _ :... ... .. 0 93 ASS Hourly fkw rate (vphJ 353 114 105 72 77 747 Volume Total (vph) 467 177 825 VoiUme R ght (vph) i 14 0 747 [Sj R _ ..03 Oat Departure Headway (s) 6.2 61 51 flegree _U za6ork. x U.BO a 33. 1 22 Ca pa {vehlh} 571 518 665 Corrhot;[eiay {§5- 20.1 129_ :-133.2 Approach Delay (s} 29.8 12.9 1332 Os _ �elaty ; FILM Level of 5erwce F ntersean Ga , chy Ubl�ra -' E Analysis Period fmin) 15 BmIne Synchm 7 - Repon Page 1 000150 Future With Project 3. SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12126,r20f3 t i Lane Configurations, si gnarttraf ;....- Stop -f3_: Stap V*me (vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 _...- _ Peak Houi lvac4ar ;:_, _ _.... 0 93 tl 98 „ 0.89 ." D 93 ` - 0.93 ,_. 0 93 '. Houdy flow rate (vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 Volume Total (vph) 471 180 828 Volume Volume bight (vph) 114 0 749 14 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6_7 5.4 Degrselfi��z8tfon,x, 0.81" Capacity (veh/h) 571 5i6 652 Cotik i Delay (sj :: 30. _ , 13.0 ; 1371 Approach Delay (s) 30.7 13.07. 1371 HCM Level of Serme Inters t€an CapaayUdli�aflon = 90 896 ''_., ICU LevatafSemce . E71 Ane1 sus P.etd rnh Baseline 5ynchro 7 - Report Page 1 000151 Future With Project 5: Noah Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12/20013 i" t l 1* Laren Contlguratforts 4T v0auaie (1J 2::' -4 _ 177 ;. 3.:: 7. 774 Sign Control Stop Free Free ]D%:. 0% :. 0% Peak Hour Factor 0:93 0.93 0.93 OM 0.93 0-93 laurlyow rate (rphl 2`'" ]9p" . - "3 8 .:. ' 83 Pedestrians Walang Speed (fVs) R►ght tum flare (veh) 14iadfan;type '. hione . ;. None Medan storage veh) pX platoon unblocked '192, 4rC, corr�rir�vofurne 1039 . " 194 . vC1, stage 1 canf vol Co�rYp l ^ vCu, unblocked vol 1039 182 194 6.4: 82 41 tC 2 stage (s) :.. 35::; A. 22 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 ]94 Volume Left 2 4 8 cSH 481 1700 1392 0 01 , Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Lary LOS 8 A `y). 12 f10 = 0.1 Approach LOS B Bas &* Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 000152 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 1PJ26 013 i" k t � � 1 ne Configurations A a..._ , •s r rs� Sign Control Stop Free Free _ Grade, _. .. fl56 A�Q ... Peak Hour Factor. . 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 NbUr ""rate•1,?)rh) Pedestrians wafwng Speed jfUs) Pe leent.]lodca9e - Right turn We (veh) NerietVone .., Medfan storage veh) . pstream lgrta3.{ftj:, .. FX platoon unb[ocked +it;, certffrjg volume iD33 vG1, Stage 1 conf vol etage:2 mnf Vol T _ vCu, unbfocked voI 1033 191 192 tc 62 EC, 2 stage {s) _ pp queue free % 100 99 99 Cm cap?c yy {Ye#1 l - z a a5s,'_ , _ .1393 Volume To�a1 `> 5 •;• - i 92 ;� 1334 . ; : - - - - Volume Leff 1 0 8 Volur- _Right ' S 0 : _ - . _ . CSH 585 1700 13M �. . .• Queue Length 95th (0) 1 0 0 orrtrol Okay (SJ # i.2 0� 0a - ._' Lane LOS B A Approlrrli �efay:{s� ; •. .: # #.2 0 0 , . 01 ,,.. _ . .. Approach LOS B .. Average Delay 0.2 lntersactionCapaciry UAlirahan 5G F% ICkI.LeYel nt Service B Analysis Period (manj 15 __: ... - BaseAne Synth 7- Report Page 3 000153 EXHIBIT C # ' n + POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS "�'�� FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 - 9:00) or PM (3:00 -6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site -generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format. The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assignment: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site -generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM -PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area 000154 EXHIBIT C Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development_ If the development is multi -phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site -generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis-. Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary, the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage, these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/112.008 H:Ovision_s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\TIA GUIDELINESIGUa)ELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 000155 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EXHIBIT D Gityof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: March 31, 2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager: Jill Ding, Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 140041561' Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Applicant%Contact. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36t' Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: 14038156t' Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 Project Svmmary. Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would. result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and 8) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue 5E. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being rcrnoved from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 5F Total Building Area GSF:• N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Ca mutes issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Nora -Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000156 Giy of Renton Deportment of Community & Econamlc Development fminmmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVEATSRIDfE RIDGE LUA14-0=44 Eta, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 142-3059023, and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences. The project site is located within the R-4 (residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The surrounding properties to the north, south, and east of the project site are also zoned R-4. The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat.. An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel. The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future, separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.8Q acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication). The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots, the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and 6). Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention. Tract B would be located at the northwest comer of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new "looped" public street (Roads A and B) with two access points off of 156e' Avenue 5E. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156v' Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot planting strip_ A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials, which identified 303 existing significant trees. Of the 303 existing significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees. There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained; however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention. Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the CdYs tree retention requirements. PARTTWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Irk compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (5EPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Emrironmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. FRc Report 14-000241_docx 000157 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Errvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCL4yEATBRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of irrrorl Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 B. Mitigation Measures 1.. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Project construction shall he required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; howeverthe easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February 5, 2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Exhibit 1.0 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) Exhibit 13. Construction Mitigation Description - D. Environmental impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether' the applicant has adequately identifted and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented during construction ERC Report 14-(W241.dbcx 000158 Oty of Renton Department of Community & t:conon* aeWopment EnWronmentol Reidew Committee Report THE E]VaAVEAT8RIMERIDGE LUA14-0=4.t FCF,PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February S, 2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study, the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of field grass, trees, and blackberries. The Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site. Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slowto medium runoff. They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transition ing to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) were excavated across the project site. Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits (TP-1, TP-3, and TP-6) at depths ranging from 2-3 feet. According to the submitted geotechnical study (Exhibit 7) groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material; therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring, and early summer months. The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore.groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higherthan what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, foundations, seismic design, slab -on -grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backfiil, and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content, the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red -osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present. The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrDphytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERCReport 14-00024Ldocx 000159 Gty of Renton Department of Community & EcanomK DMIopment Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCIAVEATWUDIE JUDGE LUA14-0=42, ECF, PP Report of Mareh 31, 2014 Page 7 of 11 improvements including paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). ATraffc Impact Analysis prepared byTraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) (Exhibit 10) was submitted with the application materials. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 150 Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit lO) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156"' Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142d Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10) that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12)-citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SENSE 142"d Place intersections. The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 7. Fire & Police W Report 14-000243.doot 000160 Cq of Renton Department of Cnmman4 & Erowmk DevefopMent Emwanmentoi Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE ATBRJDLE RIDGE LUA14-MM41, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant" ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.2LC.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, [Sty of Renton, 1055. South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5*00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall --1'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. AD VISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., -Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'dock (9:00) a_m, and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit_ Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement fora single farni!y home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report I4-DL7o241.docx 00016'1 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE EAfCYAVE/f7N DLERIDGE U1A14-0=41,ECF,PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 9 of 11 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). if the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 30D-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed'to support a 30 tan vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long_ Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: a.. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from.Water District 990 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer. 1: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 15e Ave 5f near the intersection with SE 140 Street and ext6ending the sewer main into. the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156 h Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 15e Ave SE up' to the north property -line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main -in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is pal& 5. All plats shall provide Separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. 5urface water: 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D-R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project Is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre -developed rates ERC Report 14-0=41.docx 000162 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Coma &W Report THE ENC1AVEAT &RJDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241, r=CF, PP Report of March 33. 2014 Page 10 of 11 for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow_ The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC_ The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was hound at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology ►mill be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site_ Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips., Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the. intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the, anticipated new`peA hour AM and Phil trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LO5 F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's .complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along Loth sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet, If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave 5E shall indude 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8- foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. ERC Report 14-WO24I. docx 000163 Gty of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmentul Review Committee Report THE ENCLOEATBRWE RJDGF LllA14.0=41, FCF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page it of 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer small prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. FRC Report 14-=241.docx 000164 EXHIBIT 1 Te ENcr 165 q r f ft EXHIBIT 2 INE ENCLAW s qs,l j. -I : IN 1. !t' • VAT -2, L r•- 31L :i-7 ID-31W �w Y1 Me IN 9< I . 10 1?4 Sam] L a 7HE ENCLAVE EXHIBIT 3 d f � z 10 a _1 14) 41 00167 WE� EXHIBIT 4 168 IVE ENCUVE EXHIBIT 5 000'169 EXHIBIT 6 . Greenforest Incorporateu 17) - _..�.�� Consulting Arborlst 2/18%2014 RECEIVED . - Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC C!]Y 0" 2EN;TON 9675 5E 36th St., Suite 10S P[ilNNUNG 0{VJS1ON Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 i56th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (fax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week -and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree Is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DEH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree -free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs; oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 000170 EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 St en H. Avr S Geologist Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED ES-3220 FEB 2 7 2014 GIN OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PIANI%NG DtV001v 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 - Fax: 426-449-4711 Tall Free; 866-336-8710 000171 February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 1.05 RECEIVED Mercer Island, WA 99040 V FEB 2 7 20 R RE- The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton SWC Iob#13-187 CEO PLANNfNG DfUi ION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), Iocated on the east side of 156h Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington {the "site"). Vicinity Map 000'172 EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038155G' Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant RECEIVED PNW Holdinws; IJ_C 9675 SE 36' Street, Smite 105 10 2 7 2T14 Mercer Island, `IVA 98040 Report Prepared by , p #� i1 � L4hflV1TV� OfV&ON D. R. STRONG Cansul#irlg Engineers, Inc. 620 7"fi Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, -2014 02014 D_ R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc, 000173 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTGN Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36 h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by AICRTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124" St, #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF Ri�Nrpllt pwr�rvaVG nrvfmoN C1I1I17 fL ! David Michalskd 65525 se S* pi Renton, Wa 99059 March 21, 2014 Jig Ding, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady way Renton, Wa 98057 EXHIBIT 11 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA144000241/ECF/PD I We off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. my concern is regarding the traffic going North a nd South on 156 h Ave Se. Since the buildfng of the bridge across Cedar River r--..,- traffic an 15& ave se is unbearable. Comingnut of any of the side streets off 156°i ave se-i sometimes impossible with waits as much as 1.5 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick step and acacelerate'up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down, there is a huge backlog of vehicles _ and this causes tem`ble traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156a'. I feel that arrimmediate traffic study be implemented. I am reaW surprised there Isn't more accidents than I see_ Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for faiks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, "a)"mi tAJ David Michalski Email: dcrnicha1Pmsn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 /?&C& Vt7t) 2914 ,°GPNrpAy 11*0Ory 000175 March 22, 2014 Ms. All Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SEAT i is Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay a@ Idin ntonwa.Zov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECF, PP My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's fmal SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5'h Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE P Place in light of.the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156 h Ave_ This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new tragic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of I Se and 142"4 that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 1560s north of this intersection_ , Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5tl` Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139P Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142 d, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156 h north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e_g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 15e even more difficult. 000176 Tlxe addition of ANY new trips to SE I56o' between SE 5a' Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the exiisting�residents who acr,,ess 156�' from SE 5'� Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / 142"d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the Iengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156 h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156d'/ 142' intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156's/ 142°d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension, of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all Iocated on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5`s Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to acco�itturc waste water access to the new a as art project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing boozes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and twice advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000177 Rear Yard Designations ar that the applicant has applied aside -yard setback With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appe where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot- of this irregular Iot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard do proposed lot 44. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and irnfonxn the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24' deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22d public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Nearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22d, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to conunent on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RozerAPau Is en(elcs. c om. Sincerely, Sent Flectronirally Wi-thordt Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attacbument. PDF of Notice ofApplication 000179 i I City Of, - NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A master Applicatfon has bm filed and accepted "with the Department of Community A Economic Development (cWj — Planning oMsion of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the appLaSon and the necessary Pub[k Approvals. DATE OF SCMM OFAPPUCATION: March 10, 2014 t4NOUSENUMbF1r: L1iA14-0OD2C1 ECF,PP PROJECT NAML' The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECTDESCRWVOFa Proposed subdivision of a 8.9 acre project site looted within the 0.-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre( uming designation. The proposal would rrsult In the trebtion of 31 lots end 2 tracts (ThK:ts A and B) and a new pr k street. The proposed lots would range in slze from 11,050 square feet to 12,565' square feet Acem to the new lots wauid be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adJustmerht (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 142MS91U which Wei result In 30.175 square feet of parctl 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No afttol areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14M 1 6' Ave SE 9PT10KAL DETERMINATION OF WM-SIGMFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-Mj: As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has dotermined that Agnifiant emeorroental Impacts are unlfhely to result from the proposed project Tlherefore, as permitted under the RCW 43MC-110, the City of Renton is using the optional ONS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is tiltety to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-fMt are integrated into a Single comment period There wlft be no comment period follwaring the issuance of the Threshold Determination of NorrSignifionce- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period Will folioed the Issuance of the DNS -RI. PERMITAPPUCATIONDATV- FebruarIZ7,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 APPUCANT/PROJECT0MACTPERSON- JustjntapersfPNWNoldhrgs,LLC/96755E30Street Suite 105, 80 Marcertstand, WA 940/ EML- justEn@amedanclassichomex.com PcrmwRevrew Requested_ Environrhental (SPAj Review, Preliminary Pict Review Other Permits which may he requ4ed;: ConstructW, Building, Eire Requested Studles; Drainage Report, Ged*thnical Report, TrafficS" Location where application may be rgviewed: Department of Community & loeogomlc Development (CtD)— Ptannine DivislioN SbRh Plaar ltenton Chy HAI,10SS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 38157 Pt suc MEARiNG: Pubffrr he Renton Newt" Examiner in Region Catrnril Og nhers at 10=AM on the 7th Roar of Renton aty Hatl looted at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would litre to be made a party of remrd to receive (erther information on this proposed project, complete this fort and return to: Clty of Renton, aD— planning Division, UISS So. Grady way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No_ The Enclave at Bridle IUdgeAUA144)W241, ECF, PP NAME, MIAIUNG ADDRESS Gtq/Statef4p: TELEPHONE tVo.: 000180 City of,- CONSISTENCY 0MVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site's designated 89sidelrttai Lvty DerW ty,<COMP-RLDj on the Cry Of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the WS Zoning hiap_ _ Entrirontnental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project Emiranaentaf [SEPAI Checklist Development Regulatlam Used Far Proje,± fvlltlgatlon: The project Cvill be subject to the Cny's SEPA ordinance. RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development. and other applicable codes and rcgulaiions as appropriate. Proposed mitlsationmeasures:, The following Mltigati6n Measures will kikefy he imposed an the proposed project These recommended MltEgation Measures address project impacts not mvereti by existing todes and regulations es cited above comply with PrnJect consimirdion shaiibe required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above applicationmust be submitted bt writirg to 101 Ding, Senior Planner, CED-planning DiVslan, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057; by S,00 PM on Match 24, Z034- This matter is also terrtativety achedufed for a public hearing on Aprif 22 2014, at 100 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, ibSS South Grady Way, Renton, If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contad the Planning DiMlsion to ensure that the hearing has not been reschedOed'A [4ZS} 430.6575. If mmments cannot be subrnimt d in visiting by the date indicated above, you may.stiit appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before tht Hcaring Examiner. tf you have questloris about this proposal, or .,?eh.to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone 10io submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified ofany decision on this project. CONTACT" PERSOM Jill Din$, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml: Iding@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDETHE PROJECr NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE fDENTIFICAnON If you would Rke to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: city of. RenmTM M - Planning Dhlsion, Im So Grady Way, Rennin, %yA 98D57. fklamefFle No:: The Enclave at Bridle. RidgejlUA14,M41, Ely, PF NAME. MAILM ADDRESS; TELEPHONE NO- _ ChyfStaleJ%p: 000181 EXHIBIT E r ! * j3a NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Maater Application has been flied and accepted with the Department of Community & Etonomic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-00024.1, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESOtIPTIgN: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential A dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would rfsuh in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new pudic street_ The proposed lots would range in size from E,050 square feet to 12,566 Square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) Is proposed between tax parcels 14230SM57 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the i project site. PROJECT LOCATION: I4038 156'' Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21CA10i the City of Renton is using the optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued, Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M ate integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M)_ A U-6y appeal period wil I foilow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Permlts/Review Requested: Other Permits which maybe required: Requested Studies: Location where appiicaton may be reviewed; PUBLIC HEARING: February 27, 2014 Maich 10, 2014 Jtlstln Lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC / 9675 SE 35"' Street Sulte 1D5, Mercertsfand,WA 98040/EMI»justln@ameelcanttwsichomes.com Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Construction, BuOding, Fire Drainage Report, Geoteehnical Report; Traf(k Study Department of Community & Economic Development (EED)— Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton CIty Hall, IA55 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 91057 Public headeg h tEnWibTjXscheduied fiirAPdI 22. 2014 beFoM Le Renton Hearing Examiner In RenWa C.Quagil Chambers at 12-04 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City. Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way, If you would like to barnacle a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City or Renton, CED — Planning Division, 1035 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA98057. Name/Flle No.. The Enclave at Bridie Ridge/WA14-000241, LIEF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO:: City/State/21p: 000182 City of CONSISTENCY OVEMEYV- ZonindLand Use; The subject site is designated Residenttat tow Density (COMP-RLDJ on the Cfty of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map, , Environmental Domments that Evaluate the Proposed Pro)ect; Environmental (SEPA) Chedllst Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project vAl be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, Rk1C 4-2-1it! Reslderaw Development, and other applicable codes and regulations as .appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation ,Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by cAsting codes and regulations as cited above, • Project consh uctlon shalt be required to comply with the submitted geotechnfcal report. • project construction shag he required to comply with the submitted tru frc study. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Jill fling, senior Planner, CEO --.Planning OlvWon; loss South Grady Way, Renton, WA 4BO57, by 5;00 PM on March 24, Z014. This matter Is also tentatively schedufed for a public hearing an April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Councit Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, loss South Grady Way, Renton. if you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has oat been rescheduled it (42S) 430-6578, if comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Witated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before tare Hearing Examiner.. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be rmtitied of any decblon on this project, CONTACT PERSON: Jill fling, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430.6598; Eml: 1ding0rentonwaxow PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE iDENTIFICATM If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City ofitenton, CEO —Planning Division, MS So -Grady Way, Renton, WA 58057, Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUAi4-000241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRM! Clty/State/zip: TELEPHONE NO. 000183 April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Requests for Reconsideration and Appeal Dear City Clerk's Office, CrrY 0>= RENTiON poly -APR 16 2014 tc)-,V RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S 01=�710E Enclosed with this cover letter, please find my official Requests for Reconsideration and Appeal, pursuant to the guidance provided by your office, and the information contained within Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E). � 4�3 Also enclosed is the required fee for the Appeal, in the amount of $250. Q It is my understanding that the Appeal fee will only be processed if my Request for Reconsideration is denied, or results in no change in the City's Threshold Determination. I plan to be traveling between this date and what I understand to be the earliest possible formal appeal hearing date of April 22, 2014. If a new hearing date is set, or if any associated procedural actions are required, please contact me via electronic mail at RogerAPaulsen@cs.corn. A phone message may be left for me at (425) 228-1589. Thank you for your assistance in navigating what has proven to be a complicated process for an ordinary citizen like myself. Sincerelv ola4l4z,&� 6er n 6617 SE 5' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 Enclosure(s): Request for Reconsideration, with attachments Request for Appeal, with attachments Personal Check #9443 000184 0 OL April 16, 2014 iJ City of Renton �L Attn: Hearing Examiner Pel Renton City Hall 1 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON APR 16 C014 ) 0-.5�1�,,,,,` RECEIVED OVY\ CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Appeal of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Appeal is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration and Appeals processes work in concert with one another. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated and file this request in a timely manner leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Appeal Request is not in -line with what you may typically receive. Please note that at the direction of the City Clerk I have also filed a concurrent Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2) with the understanding that if the Reconsideration Request is not granted, this appeal will be processed, and my appeal payment check cashed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Appeal. 000185 Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Appeal (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`' Place/ 156`h AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Appeal and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Appeal. Identification of Concerns for Which This Appeal is Requested The issues for which I request this Appeal relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Point of Appeal #1, Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis CfLk) relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: `the scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Kenton Policy Guidelines for Trafc Impact Andy sis for New Development ". By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: 2 000186 Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Point of Appeal #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the FRC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, the Committee states: `The Tra�c Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a vel of Seaice (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity... " This report goes on to conclude that: ". , ,the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Seance (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 1566 Avenue SE/ SE 142 d Place intersection. " Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156d'/ 142nd Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156`" Ave SE/ 142"d intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public continent informing city staff and the FRC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5`h Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour {just 2 hrs. 45 ruin on December 17`"), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156 h at SE 5`' Place, or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. 3 000187 Point of Appeal #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156`', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may `:..impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. "(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156 h/ 142nd intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156`s, further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`s/ SE 5d` intersection, and other intersections to the north along 150. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156 h, the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the F.RC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Appeal. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements, the only Mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `71is not anticipated that the proposed pmject significantly adversely impact (sic) the City of Renton's street System subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156`h/ 142n' intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156`h/ 142"d, or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. 4 000188 Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currmlly assernng any impnvements are warranted (f any)...'! This confirms that work is on -going at this time (April 15') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Appeal. Sandi Weir From: Steve Lee Sent Tuesday, April 15. 201411:14 AM To: CiK erk Records CC: Jan Phan, Jin Ding; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. Henning: Rohini Nair Subject: RE. New Public Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulseri) AttachmmtK TranspoConcPolicy140415.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City process for concurrency, standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. l believe this is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeking. The information, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place atthe time of building permit Issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after boding issuance, per 4-6-070 A.1, or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and i5 currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord.5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction asto an initial response with the statement, "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between {Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 256 th SE to access Cemetery Road." Thanks -Steve Lee, PE, MS, CESCC City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 sleel2rentonwo.iaov 5 000189 Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22"d, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. (Exhibit E "Notice of Application...") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22°a• and they -%-M do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting once again to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Appeal, I ask that the Hearing Examiner take the following action: • Withdraw the T reshold Determination for this project and requite that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5`h Place and 156`' Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156`" • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, that the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Please note that at the time of submittal of this request for appeal, I have pending Public Records Requests pending with the City of Renton. Assuming those requests are satisfied in a timely manner, I respectfully request the ability to further inform the record in support of this appeal prior to or during any open record hearing which may be held for this purpose. 000190 Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request Appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Respectfully Submitted, Ro n 6617 SE 5' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B — Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C — Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D — Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E — Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Nan -Significance -Mitigated VA 000191 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ A ngk entonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project 9LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156`h Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142" intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142"d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139h Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 000192 1*1492" wl The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156`h between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the e�residents who access 1561h from SE 51h Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156`h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156`h/ 142nd intersection itself This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156`h/ 142Rd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would snake logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 000193 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot 44, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's PIanning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24`j' deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22n1 public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination PAor to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22" d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 000194 Iiff H1�1 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen(a cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000195 EXHIBIT B THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3e St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by rraaMaRrHWC.9r 2Dr TRA FT -IC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 000196 rrafty NamrHwror TRArnc Ear-awmrs 11410 NE 124thSL #390 WA SM fie: �425.522. 118 �.522.4311 December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36St., Suite 105 Merger Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 1561' Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156"' Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be Installed on the site frontage on 156"' Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. 000197 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: . Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Ex1 ing 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 259�0 7 7 23 PM Peak Hour 1.01 620 37%1 31 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site -generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume pattems, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156'' Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142`d Pl. Residential Access Pap 000198 1561' Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 15e Ave SE is strai ht and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 14P Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 15e Ave. SEISE 142"d Pl. is an all- way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 1561' Ave SE or SE 142"d PI. in the project vicinity. MSTING TRAFFIC CONDMONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peals hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156d' Ave. SE and the 156`h Ave SEISE 142"d St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New DeyolopMpnt intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 6% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156t` Ave SEISE WWI. intersection and is Included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) Is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic Interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given fetter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 000199 TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F Signalized <— 10. >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >8 .. 0 <20.0 — <35.0 — <55.0 — <80.0 — 0 Stop Sign Control <1 >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS i1l+ITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156M Ave. SEISE 142nd PI. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly Impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Tablg for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft. from an Intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 000200 The Enclave at Bridle Ride approximately 250 ft north of the 156t' Ave. SE/SE 142"d Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156t' Ave. SE. Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(a-nwtraffex.com or larry(afnwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx ONA L D f �4 ti W i EaNaLa Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx Page 5 000201 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH I 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access ! NA NA WB (B 12.6) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access 1 NA NA WB (B 11.2) 156th Ave. SE. 15e Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd PI. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized Intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capagjtty Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 000202 ZI:AffEdomVol TRAFFIC EXPE'Rrs z to 35ttt 5t SET SE 336tbU' i 137I�j " ` r L °}- St-i h SE ": rerrhte SE -s SE137thSt" v SE Vd.PI S Si} SE41hSt ' .. .. � •:SE 5th St J .. , w SE 1391h Ft rnrn St 1470 Pf" Project" ` sE 1420d St Site —SE 12s: a ; } r 1�? �1 N �+ SE 14 Pt � SE143rd5t e r ar to rsi SE 144th St. LO .. SE 1+4411%Pf �. N � 7 ds 1Aye ..SE so The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map I 9 000203 IMMAYESE rOLM �.rl`YiwEsr rRAFrFIG EXPERTS _ .. 1rr I I [[[ II 1 I ! I sstt r fi t I 1 I I J J i 1 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure Site Plan 1 2 000204 o rra, f NL7RrHWE9T f rRAFF7C EXPERTS Y a SE 1391h PI Project �:. s Site SE 74Isc.w M CD s M { SE 142nd Si 1` ��19 SE f d2nd St i CP A PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 20 Exit 11 Total 31 M Acxess! 156th ave 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic -*-• 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 3 000205 n�'.. 9f EX NOMrHWCSr t TRAFFIC EXPERM u: 1 Project . Site SE 141.4 SSE 142rxt St..:. } SE.142nd st SE 1 O n SE 1.43rd St...' e^- T t►�l crr Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project 0 f� IiI IL 0 --0p A . 4 f���1 ti:J "4 rr o 1 r � 0 rr 2 f r r 2 o 10 o a cq r M N AOMSS/ 156thave N Access/ 155 h ave N A=s/ 155th ave N Access/ 166th ave N fti C} — r[ O N 1- 60 ti / j `� 0 `--4 0 F `�4 Q I rr0 t rr 0 t rr, 1 t re, 1 w o ti O c*7 M, cn S Access! 156th Ave S Access! 1561h Ave S Access/ 15ft Ave S Access/ 1561h Ave Ln W00 CD C4 309., { 328-o 41 332�' t lop 106", t 0'� f 106-" t " t9 CS tO OD M 1O O N q= 4� C2 tD 156thA%W SE142PI 15MAve/ SE142PI 1561hAvel SE142 PI 156thAve/ SE 14 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 000206 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000207 Plopaled fm Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phwta(2$3)92&5009 PAX: (2$3) M-7211 E-MAI: TWn§TWW—mm WBEIDBE lerviodomr 156OAreSt &SLt42.dPI Deb of Count 7105t2l1712913 adba: ft=mo, wad"Pm Chord Br. Jan rww Rom Mainthion of Fmm whao ) From tom(WB) Fwmwmtao ) to" Ietatwd 156th M+e SE 1567E Ave SE 0 SE Mad PI Tow Eading at T I L I S R T L S I R I T L I S R T L S R 4:15f 1 0 16 116 D V I I 0 0 0 a 0 0 70 0 is 263 400 P 6 0 13 112 1 14 12 0 D 0 0 9 0 1 70 0 27 309 4:45P 2 a I8 156 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 99 9 29 34S 3:00 P 0 0 19 179 2 22 19 0 0 a 0 a 0 70 0 20 328 5:15 P 1 0 19 1IR n t7 9 0 D 0 0 0 711 0 24 306 530 P I 0 20 1 146 —L 0 1 19 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 26 297 5:45 P 0 9 29 111 0 16 t9 0 0 0 D 0 0 93 a 29 339 6:00 P 0 0 24 144 2 IS 14 0 D 0 0 0 I 74 0 17 291 6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a D 9 0 0 0 a 0 0 Ik30 P 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 a n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6-43 P 0 0 0 p a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:09P 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p D 0 0 0 D 4 0 TOW 1 T Sure 12 0 157 1124 6 179 117 0 0 0 0 9 t IO2 249'I f ak f 10ur: 4:15 P61 to S: I S PAI Told 9 1 0 1 6R 1555 1 4 1 92 1 63 0 To I 0 1 0 1 0 9 1 309 0 1100 1207 Apprcmch 723 I55 0 409 1237 7GHV 1.2% 1 2AS da era 1.0% PfIF 0.93 1561L Ave SE 1095 t.,0.....�Bae SE 142od Pi 6s5 66 =Pcd la7 Peal 0 B1iL 0 [IS6 309 409 4:15 PM W 5:t5PM Ian eFA. A—k S E W FW 7r2 6} 1360 IAPI1FPeakllweV0hmw 4 61ke:0__� Pt1F li11R INT02 a en TOP Wi 05 D 169 153 chca W D nh 0 In: 1247 NO 2.6".' arr 03 0 323 Out: 1297 68 1.2% 0rl DB NO PEDS 0 156th Ave SE T Jut, 0.93 1.0K tfR Or 0 Epgolr {iota SB .._.... _ i I i .. 0 OR 01 i a 54 i ... tt:r O MrQ i I _ _ 0 ISt Orri 1 I I, 0 W03 ._ I -. ..0 15+ Orr it i_....J D ..... ! WTat . 0 ISt err 12 1 1 1 0 INT 05 — 0 840 Of OFD reT 05 —No i m; 0 6-10 5 ma Nuep1 ��....... _. t t:r m 0 &10 Rollins 0-- SB - At amm thm off as 9 1 D 54 **m 54 vdAcks ativa0y stoppa tier OC t5+signiOm Taflog gugmas far m I eaald see my 10 wr ti WT 12 p 0 0 D D 0 0 0 0 TRA13184M U1 000208 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd Pf & 156th Ave SE IM612013 � N 4� t 4 4/ Lane Configurations Y 4 1� Sign Control SOP Stop Stop Volume (vph) 309 100 92 63 68 655 Peak Hour Factor 0.93. 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 332 108 99 68 73 704 Volume Total (vph) 440 167 777 Volume Left (vph) 332 99 0 Volume Right (vph) 108 0 704 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.75 0.30 1.12 Capacity (vehlh) 572 526 679 Control Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach LOS D B F Delay 62.9 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Gapaoily Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 000209 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12/26RO13 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 328 106 98 67 72 695 Peale Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0,93 0,93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 353 114 105 72 77 747 Volume total (Vph) 467 177 825 Volume 4 (vph) 353 105 0 Volume Right (vph) Hadi (a) , 114 0.03 0 0.12 747 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.7 5.3 Dawes Uf ma6on, x 0.80 0.33 1.22 Capacity (Vehlh) 571 518 665 Control Delay (s) 29A 12.9 133.2 Approach Delay (s) 29.8 12.9 1332 Approach LOS D B F Uetay 85.8 HCM Level of Service F )nfe►sectian Capacity Utilisation 90.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline ICU Level of Service E Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000210 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE IM/2013 -1, -V 4N , 1 Lane Conti urations �y Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 Volume Total (vph) 471 180 828 Volume Left (vph) 357 105 0 Volume Right (vph) 114 0 749 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.7 5.4 Degree U6rrzeti0n, x 0.81 0.33 1.23 Capacity (vah/h) 571 516 662 Contra) Delay (s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach Delay (s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach LOS 0 B F DelaY 88.1 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 903% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (rain) 15 Baseline Syrnchro 7 - Report Page 1 000211 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Volume (ve") Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (4) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, confllcling volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single,(s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % CM r HN* (ye"). Volume Total Volume left Volume Right cSl1 Volume to Capacity . Queue Length 951h (ft) Control Delay ($) Larne LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS ,(- k t r 4 Y to 4 2 4 177 3 7 774 Stop Free Free 0% 00/0 0% 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 2 4 190 3 8 832 None 1039 192 1039 192 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 99 99 256 855 6 194 840 2 0 8 4 3 0 481 1700 1392 0.01 0.11 0.01 1 0 0 12.6 0.0 0.1 B A 12.6 0.0 0.1 B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity utilization 56.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 None 194 194 4,1 2.2 99 1392 ICU Level of Service B 121262013 Basskne Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 000212 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SF 12128/2013 'e- 4- t Lane Configurations V to It Volume (vem) 1 4 176 3 7 769 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0,93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Houdyflow rate (vph) 1 4 189 3 B 827 Pedestrians Lai Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (lt) pX, platoon unblocked vG, conflicting volume 1033 191 192 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2- conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1033 191 192 tC, single (5) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3,5 3.3 2.2 po queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 258 856 1399 Volume Total 5 192 834 Volume Left 1 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 585 1700 1393 volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11,2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS i3 Average Delay 0.2 intersection. Capacity Udfrzation 56.1 % IOU Leval of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 000213 EXHIBIT C Y ♦ POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS \� ��' FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 - 9:00) or PM (3:00 —6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site -generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format. The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assi nment: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site -generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM -PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area. 000214 EXHIBIT C Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi -phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site -generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Anal Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary, the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage, these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report, Revised 31IM008 )4:Tivision.slDeve1up.ser\PJan,revl'r1A GUIDEL NESIGUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 000215 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ExHIBIT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT t_ '._1` 1 t' _I I ; ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE March 31, 2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Number. • LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager. Ail Ding, Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156`h Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 3e Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: 14038 15e Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 Project Summary. Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 SF Toted Building Area GSF: N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). Project location Map ERC Report 14-000241.d4ocx 000216 City of Renton Department of Community & tconomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE: ENaAVEAT BROLE JUDGE LUA24-0=41, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION f BACKGROUND The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences. The project site is located within the R-4 (residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density (111-0) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The surrounding properties to the north, south, and east of the project site are also zoned R-4. The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in king County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA144)00250] was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat.,An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel. The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future, separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.80 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication). The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots, the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and B). Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention. Tract B would be located at the northwest comer of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots Is proposed via a new "looped" public stri§et (Roads A and B) with two access points off of 15e Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 150 Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials, which identified 303 existing significant trees. Of the 303 existing significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees. There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained; however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention. Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City s tree retention requirements. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14-=241.rfoar 000217 Chy of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE ATBRIDLE RIDGE wA14-ooml, ECF, PP Report of Error! Reference source not found. B. Mitigation Measures Page 3 of 11 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared byTraffEx, dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February 5, 2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared byTraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) Exhibit 13 Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic . yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented during construction ERC Report 14-WO241.docx 000218 Gty of Rearon Department of Community & ewnomk Development EnWronmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUAl f!W 1241, ECF, pp Report of March 3L 2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study, the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of field grass, trees, and blackberries. The Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site. Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff. They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) were excavated across the project site. Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits (TP-1, TP-3, and TP-6) at depths ranging from 2-3 feet. According to the submitted geotechnical study (Exhibit 7) groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material; therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring, and early summer months. The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, foundations, seismic design, slab -on -grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backflll, and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content, the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found In the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February S, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red -osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present. The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERG Report 14-CW241.dorx 000219 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE ATBRIDLE RIDE LUM4-00D24I, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc (dated February 19, 2014) (Exhibit 9). According to the TIR (Exhibit 9) the upstream areas to the north and east of the project site are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible. The existing runoff from the project site sheet flows across the property towards the southwest corner of the site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the site on the east side of 156th Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SE 144u` Street. Runoff continues west across 154t' Place SE and discharges to Stewart Creek, a Class 3 stream. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the K_CSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report (Exhibit 9). The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the Ciws flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre - developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site within Tract A. The pond will discharge to the existing conveyance system in 156u' Avenue SE. Appropriate Individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The submitted geotechnicai report (Exhibit 7) identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support Infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Overall, it is anticipated there would be no impacts to stormwater as a result of the proposed project, provided the project complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the Renton Amendments_ Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts: A Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and a Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) (Exhibit 6) were submitted with the application materials. The Tree Inspection Report states that of the 305 significant trees identified on the project site, 81 are considered dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200. The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) identifies 35 significant trees for retention. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Benton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are sold as individual lots, each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in perpetuity within an easement. Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees. The 23 trees proposed for removal (identified as trees ERA' Report 14-M241.dotx 000220 City of Renton Department of Community & rconomk Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA144=41. FCF, PP Report of March 331, 2014 Page 6 of 11 5406, 5408-5415, 6181-6185, 6234, and 6229-6231) have been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6). The City's arborist will review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Gearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6) and verify which trees located along the east properly boundary are available for retention. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that an easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Mitigation Measures: An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations ' 4. Noise Impacts: Temporary construction noise Is anticipated as a result of the subject project. Based on the provided construction mitigation description (Exhibit 13) the applicant has indicated that construction of the plat improvements is anticipated to begin in September of 2014 and finish in February of 2015. The construction of homes is anticipated to begin in April 2015 and finish in April 2016. The applicant has indicated that construction would comply with the City of Renton's adopted noise ordinance. As such, the temporary noise impacts are anticipate to be minimal and limited in duration. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The project site is located within the vicinity of three parks. Maplewood Heights Park is located to the east of the project site and Maplewood Neighborhood Park and the Cedar River Trail are located to the west of the project site. It is anticipated residents of the proposed development would utilize the existing parks within the project vicinity. It is not anticipated that the proposed development would adversely impact the City of Renton parks subject to the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 6. Transportation Impacts. Access to the project site is proposed via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. in addition, a dead end access is proposed connecting to the property to the south of the project site for future development. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround is proposed for emergency access pending future development to the south. Frontage ERC Report 14-=24I.doa 000221 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THEENCIAVEATBRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-OW241, ECF, PP Reportof March 31, 2014 Page 7 of 11 improvements including paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156t' Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) (Exhibit 10) was submitted with the application materials. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding Intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156u' Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. This intersection is contra lied by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156u' Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156u' Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which resents in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10) that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12) citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142" d Place intersection. The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 7. Fire & Police ERC Report 14-OW241.doar 000222 City of Renton Department of Community & t,unomic Development tmdronmental Review Committee Report THE ENWVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE EUAI4-Ot W41, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Impacts: Police and fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required Impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." +r Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5.00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall —7a' Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY (VOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental Information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these motes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8.30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7.00) a.m, and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,DD0 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERCReponi4-CW24 docx 000223 Gty of Renton Department of Community & I )mk Development onmental Review Committee Report THEENaAVEATSRIALE RIDGE LtlA14-=244 ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 9 of 11 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). if the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed "to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 50D-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from,Water District #90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing Sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 1440 Street and ext6ending the sewer main into. the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156`h Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least Ralf street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156`h Ave SE up to the north property.line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access roar!, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance'of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0,05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. Surface water: I. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in'the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre -developed rates FRC Report 14-OW241.docx 000224 City of Renton Department of Community & ' nomic Development Ironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCL4 VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of Ma rch 31, 2014 Page 10 of 11 for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnicai report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LDS F. The result of the study indicates this 'intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53 foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 150 Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8- foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will: comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay ERC Report 14-00OZ41-d= 000225 City of Renton Department of Community & f vnic Development 'ronmenta! Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE ATBRID EWDGE LUA14-0=44 ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 11 of 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be req u i red. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural -calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report I"W241.docr 000226 x z� z 'ME MO EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 THE ENCLAVE A EXHIBIT 3 $EE ENCUVE Eg� � �� h Y Elf a5, �m r ' t '910 �R flit EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 5 „E ENCLAVE EXHIBIT 6 n orat Greer�forest Icorp eu ..:' Consulting Arbotst J 2/18/2014 RECEIVED Justin Lagers, Director of land Acquisition & Development FEB 2 7 zoi¢ PNW Holdings, LLC "y OF PENTON 9675 S€ 36th St., Suite 105 PLAMNiNG p;VISIoy Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week -and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree fs predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree -free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillarla root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs; oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Tel. 206-723-0656 000232 EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 66, 2014 'la0 1!l I lw� St en H. Ayr ' S Geologist R. cAf,,�,a a s7� SroMAL Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED ES-3220 FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RFNTOlV Earth Solutions NW, LLC PLANNiNG DIVISION 1805 -136b�' Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 . Fax: 425- 49-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 000233 awal February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC EXHIBIT 8 9675 SE 3 6th Street, Suite 105 R C C EI V r Mercer Island, WA 98040 �- ! FEB 2 7 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton SWC Job#13-187 CITY C; PEl TOti Pi.P,NfVIiaG nf1�1310V 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 15e Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). VicinityM17P 000234 EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Prat 14038156th Avenue 5E Renton, Washington A. AS O 523 DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LL_G 9675 SE 36" Street, Suite 105 Mercer island, VITA 98040 Report Prepared by D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 '?Ef9ED FE8 2 7 2014 C'TY PENToIV PLAN1Vh'yG 0�1ISION C2014 D. Fi. STRONG ConsuJiing Engineers Ina 000235 EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3& St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by rrafEX- NORTHWEST TRAFFIC iEXPERTS 11410 NE 124 h St, #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CrrY OF REIVtpN PLANN;,VG pII/ISION 000236 David Michalskd 6525 se 5" pl Renton, Wa 98059 March 21, 2014 Jill ping, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 EXHIBIT 11 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD 1 live off of SESth pi and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concem is regarding the traffic wing North and South on 156a' Ave Se. Since the buiir>ing of the bridge across Cedar River..�,a.�•.---�— traffic on L56a' ave se is unbearable. Corning.out of any of the side streets off 15e ave se_is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 35 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quids stop and accelerate -up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow assess going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down, there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible trafFc congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 1%th. I feel that an -immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anydne thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway s for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, AR� '�D " m k 4 1014 David Michalski Email: dcmichal@msn.com MON Ph# 425-271-7837 000237 EXHIBIT 12 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CEO — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ &iin entonrwao_v Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-00024 1, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5a' Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5t Place in light of,the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service . associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156`i' Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposes[ new tragic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156h and 142'd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the projects impact to 156"' north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5t�' Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 1391' Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142"d, and then only 1E the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156h north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips Ail[ Ell up any space that currently exists between vehicles), All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156'h even more difficult. 000238 The addition of ANY new trips to SE 1561' between SE 5t' PIace and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this proiect to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public hem— safety and welfare for the exist .kg residents who access 1 S6 from SE 5d' Place and the outer residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also ve y concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / 142"a intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 1561h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156`h/ 142,4 intersection itself This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156m/ 142°d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton% transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5a' Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it.has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accomm auture waste water access to the new ,er line�gg]�pft]1is project. r� While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000239 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Decause the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice ofApplication for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 20 deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22"d public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but nnl ++ those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22"d, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice ofApplication for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22"d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -pasting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 000240 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel Free to contact me at Ro erAPaulsenwcs.cam. Sincerely, Sent Electron%ally Without signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 00024'1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Mal;WApp4cation has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community t Economic Development (CED) - Planning Dlvlslon of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the apprication and the nc m"ary PublicApprovals. PATE OF NOTICE OF JIPPUCATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: 6A14-0OO241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DE5CRIFrnON: Proposed subdivillon of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and 8) ands new public street. The proposed lots would range in she from 8,= square feet to 12,586' square feet Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue 5E A lot Una adjustment (LUA14-000250) Is proposed between tax parcels 14230SW57 and 1423059UZ which will result in 30.175 square feet of parcel 1423059OS7 being removed from the proposed subdivislom No critical areas are present on the project site - PROJECT LOCATION: 14M 156L%Ave SE OPTIONAL OI:TSWINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DINS-M). As the teed Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21L110, the Chy of Renton Is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment perl,ods for the project and the proposed DN5-M are Integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period fallowing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Noa-wftance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appea I period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMrr APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COWLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 APPUCANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lajers / PN W Holdings, LLC / 9675 SE 36d'atreetSuite IDS, Mercer Oland, WA 2MMO/ ENIL• Justin@amrlidandassichomes.cam Permits/Review Requested: Ertvironrrtental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which maybe required: construetlori, BuRding, Fire Reynettied Studies: Drainage Report, GeotecWcal Report, Traffic Study Location whare applimdon may be reviewed: Department of Cornenunity & Economic Development (CED) - Planning Division, Sixth Flow Renton City Hall, %OS5 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBUc ]TEAR WG: Hearinat Exantinar in Benign Council Chambers at 1DJ0 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at105S South Grady way. If you would like to be made a party of re=4 to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO- Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Kame/File No- The Enclave at Bridle Rldge/LUAIAI-OWi41, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: Crty/StaleMp:. TELEPHONE NO.: 000242 City of" r CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Restderttial Low Density (COMp•RLDI on the Ciry Of Renton ComprehertsNe Land Use Map and R4 on the Citys Zoning t,Iap. . Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project; Environmental (5EPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the Toys SEPA ordinance, RMC 42-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures; The following irtftlgsitlon Measures will likely be Imposed on the proposed project, These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not cavercd by existing codes and regulations as cited above. i Project construction shall be required to comply with the subrnim-d 9teotechilkal report. e Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted rroff7c study. Comments an the above application must be submitted in writins to dill Ding, Senior Planner, CEO— Planning Division, 1095 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:D0 PIN on March 24, 2014. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on Apdf M 2014, at 10.00 AM, Coundt Chambers, Seventh floor, Renton City Hall, 105S South Grady Way, Renton. If you are Interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at 14Z5) 430.6578, If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may stIll appear at the hearing and present your comments on the pmposW before the Hearing Examiner. if you have questions about this proposal, or %vlsh to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone "o submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml: iding@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICAnON If you would pike to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete thb form and return tn.- City of Renton, CEO --Planning Division, i055 So_ Grady Way, Renton, WA M57, Name/Fife No_ The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-M41, ECF, PP NAME. MAILING ADDRESS: CttyfStatefZip: TFLEPRONE NO.: 000243 EXHIBIT E City of , QD i rl NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Manor Application has been filed and accepted with the Departmentof Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Pubitc Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March ID, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) toning designation. The proposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and 8) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 1S6th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 142305,3122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156" Ave S£ OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project- Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are Integrated Into a single comment period. There YAII be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. PERMITAPPLICA71ON DATE: February27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC / 9675 5E 360 Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 / EML• justlnPamerlcanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Penmks which may be required: Construction, Bullding, Fire Requested studies-. Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffle Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) —Planning Division, Sbah Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC NEARING: PUblls_hearing Is_tentat€ve"heduled_for April 22 W14 before the Renton Hger€ne Examitler in ftenttln Council 0 at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED —Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/Flle No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.:.-. 000244 Cr�4f� CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site Is designated Residential Low Density (COMP-RI.D) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Developmertt Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the Gigs SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed MitlgatlonMeasures: The following Mitlgat€an Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulationsas cited above. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnlcol report. • Project construction shall be required to comply with thesubmitted traffic study. Comments an the above application must be submitted in writing to fill Ding, Senior Planner, CED — Planning Divislon, 2055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on March 24, 2014. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing an April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are Interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430.6578, If comments cannot be submitted In writing by the date Indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill ding, Senior Planner, Tel: (425) 430-6598, Eml: iding(Rrentonwa.goy PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO —Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME, MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: City/State/Zip: 000245 �Y CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division + a + 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 ❑ Cash Copy Fee �CheckNo.99L43ppea] Fee Description: L)o-es- C� P—,M Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip Receipt NP 2109 Date ❑ Notary Service Amount $�� 000246 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD Applbnt EnZineer PNW Holdings LLC Maherjoudi 9675 SE 36th St,105 D.R. Strang Consulting Engineers Mercer Island, WA 98040 10604 NE 38th Pl, 232 (206) 588-1147justin@pnwholdings.com Kirkland, WA 98033 Owner - Party at Record Sally Nipert M.A, Huniu 14004156th Ave SE 6608 5E 5th P[ Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-6594 Party of Record ?arty of Record Wade Willoughby Roger Paulson 6S12 SE 5th PI 6617 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 (206]909-8505 (425)228-1589 Party of Record Party of Record Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 SE 5th PI Mazama, WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-3408 Owner Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 Party of Record DAVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE STH PI RENTON, WA 98059 (425) 271-7937 Party of Retard Gwendolyn High PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighbors@hotmaiLcom Page 1 of 1 000247 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date; April 16, 2014 To: City Clerk's Office From: Lisa Marie MCelrea Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA (file) Number: LUA `-000241, ECF, PP Cross -References: PRE13-001566 AKA's: 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Manager: Jill Ding Acceptance Date: March 10, 2014 Applicant: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC Owner: G. Richard Ouimet, Sally Lou Nipert Contact; Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PID Number: 1423059023, 1423059122, 1423059057 ERC Deter in tion: DNS-M Date: March 31, 2014 ' Appeal Period Ends: Aril 18 2014 Administrative Decision: Date: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: April 22, 2014 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Appeal Period Ends: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. Location: 14038 1551h Ave SE Comments: ERC Determination Types: DNS - Determination of Non -Significance; DNS-M - Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated; DS - Determination of Significance. 000248 Denis Law t O Mayor` _fr_l o il f�- , r 1 1 Comm unity& Economic Development Department May 22, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent,AdminMrator 'Eloise 5tachowiak 6614 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT. Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14.000241, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Stachowiak: Thank you for your comment letter: Your letter has been included in the official file for consideration by the decision maker. You have been added as a party of record for this project. A hearing has been scheduled for June 24th-at 8:00 am, you may wish"to attend and-tesitfy, The hearing will be on the.7th floor of City Hall 'inthe Council Chambers. Please contact me at (425) 430-6598 orjding@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, .Jill Ding Senior. Planner Renton City Hail 1055 south Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov 000249 Denis Law Mayor City Ofr� - � - _ a. +. W k" Comm unity & Ronomic Development Department May 22, 2014. C.E^`..`Chip"Vincent, Administrator " M. A. "Huniu 6608 SE 5th Place Renton, WA..98059 SUBJECT: Ericlave at.Bridle Ridge, LU,A14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr.. Huniu: This letter is to inform. you, as.a party of record for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, that the hearing for, the Enclave, at Bridle Ridge. Preliminary Plat has, been rescheduled for June 24th at 8:00 am" . The hearing will be held on the 7th floor of City Hall in the Council Chambers. Please contact me at (415) 430-6598 or jdi ng@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, - Jill Ding 'Senior Planner Renton Erty Hall • 1055 South Grady Way . Renton-, Washington 98057 re ntonwa.gov - 000250 Denis Law - City0�r Mayor \'TL May z2; 2014 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip'Vincent, Adrninistrator Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT Enclave,at.Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, PP, EC1E Dear Mr. Willoughby: This. letter is to inform you, as a party of record for the Enclave at Bridle .Ridge, that the hearing for th-e Enclave at Bridle fridge Preliminary, Plat has been rescheduled for June 24th at 8:00 am. The hearing will be held -on the 7th floor -of City, Hall in the Council Chambers. Please contact me at (425) .430-6598 or jding[larentonwa.gov'if you have any questions. sincerely, Jill Ding -Senior Planner Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 000251 City Df ti l b ���-� 0l�Cj� r I NO C OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING WUANCE OF A DETERMINATION 00 N0N-S11iNIRCANCE- MMGAITED {DNS-Mj TIFY I Pa5w To NONTEIIESTEo PERSONS OF AN ENV1R mzxTAL ACOOII PRDTECTAA TM L,l _ M Il,lFea RNEr AtIKCTNUMYh LUAiscwwaa, ta, Pr EDUTIM wFF ISE-Rr SLa—,"ism R5Rw1IS10R, P- 6 aWaWtw M r Y rw..Mael /s boW .we eh. FJ O�w+IH ati.ASN re/b Maa1 .Jq/adUwtln�TM PAPd-__..—m A,w vaaDeeY u bo+ee tl�iAa4AW Ma aewrrnA4 Rwl. Th. T,gaM leo w n Mabr 4— RAN —%.w 1;SAF YnIa.a.AmMOwwa-Iah.w4Lw nwldaaaY •nor PeJh_ r w xmq A-_> .lee Ilr VN�+Qwlefppgi b MM�� Hewn. W _EQ.WSMST aei IrriO _ ~ ww —ft b 5Un b&d r-,-sF ft- Ow P, pR A tfT . N. HEr 4 wa.wr4 M.ehVd wM we abLFla hroYr.wdia.va ae�i a r_ _ . Eaw M � e�lFaan Y Iarren.I w ,-,..h w PvcaW 1AL051EEE, Aa W,u atnebaAa an PrePwni ae M Mead flre'epe Ilr aeEiM4, 1� Ha vkkal anY w'wwiRw eM ProSq eNa THE OTf OF RSNTON EkVMOHMEWX AEVREW CUMMDTEE IERCI HAS DETEWINED TRAY THE PR0IR)5C0 ACTION DOES NOT MTE ASIGNIFlCAW ADVERSE IMPACT M THE ENVWOWMENT. AP➢e4a ea wraaMrenmamd drSaranlheehn moat pr ry W M w.MiE rR ew E.we.sHN p.Ir, en Twr E, EInA, IYErlher with Ihr r kw Er m1m. 9q kq EumWew, CAT M MMAw, 5YF5 Swth 6Wy Wry, RURny WA fEaST. Appmh b LM Enr*h wTiwwmea by ah r AMC 4M219wW MftmdN TRy"M R4,eyed INwaa AwR>w+whoa haw vn A.emn efh, uarKa DPRer.lasl oFaesc. A MWC HEARING NAIL AE HELD Er THE RENTON HEARING WiFthER Al Ho REGULAR METING IN THE COONCR oiAMEERS ON THE TTH FLOOR OF CTY H_ 5055 SD1RH GE WAY. RENY011, WASHINGTON, ON PANE 24, EE14 AT E'00 AM To CONSIOEA-THE PRELRAKW PLAT IF THE WW ONMENTAL DI umv,ATON SAPPFJNAD, rwAPMEAL WEL eE HEAIIDAS PARE OF TCS PUEIIC HEFANQ FOR FURTHER INFORMATN]EV PLEASE CONTACT THE CRY OF RENTON. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY i ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT rl251430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AVMOF ZAT10N PLEASE INCLUDETHE PRLT2ECT NUMBER WHEN CAWN4 FOR PROPER FILF IDENTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION I. 1_0 GtJi rn'i hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted in �_ conspicuous places or nearby the desc 'bed property on Date: _22 _/ Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that &_ W : r1-A��rv-\ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his1her/theiY free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Date�.� VA jo .Y" _ '44 Cis yip Alieu -A11-0 Qe W P, N blic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): My appointment expires: 52 Denis Law Mayor � C1 y of Community & Economic DevelopmentDepartment May 22, 2014 C.E"Chip"Vincent, Administrator Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, 1NA 98059 RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat / LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr.' Paulsen: As part 6f the:review of your Reques.t.for Reconsideration, the City conducted an.independent study of the 1S6t, Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. The study concluded that the 156tn Avenue SE/SE 1429d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City'has added and is. prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Tra'risportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated"through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at- the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection, the City's Environmentaf Review Committee (E'RC) has decided to require the developer to. pay their fair share -for the installation of -the traffic signal as an.additional mitigation measure through SEPA: It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of.this project, but would occur -at a later date as additional funding, becomes available: If'you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, a.t . (428) 430 6598 or via email at-Ldinp,@rentonwa.goy. Sincerely, C.E. "Chip., Vincent CED Administrator Attachments . cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin Lagers, Applicant Sally Lou Niper, Owner G. Richard Ouimet; Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall 1o55 south Grady Way : Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonma.gov 000253 } PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT p ��2�In M E M- O R A N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes; Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142" d Place at 1561h AVenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142°a Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmail.com? 'Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This prop6sed location meets Warrant 1, Interruptiffi on of Continuous Trac for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant on for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have Deed five recorded accidents on 1. 6a' Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents, h:ldivision.s\tra nspor tat\o peratio`ron�tom\tom9645a.doc 000254 Page 438 2009 Edition Standard: r The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the Jollowing conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or' . B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on ` the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: os If the posted or statutory speed l imit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Guidance: 06 The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is riot satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only afler an adequate trial of other alternaljres ., that could cause less delay and hiconveodeonce to traffic hasfailed to solve the traffic problents. Standard: 07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist oti the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, `he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A --Minimum Vehicular Volume Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street {total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) MajorSireet MinarStreet t00%- 80%° 70./ 5656° 100 60%° 70%� 56%° _.. '` 1 50 - 4t7,0 2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 2 armore - 2,oro�e 6b0 460 42t7 336 200r 1fi0 440 112 ' 1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition B---Interruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 1009a' BO%° 70"4` 56%° i0{�,;° 00°k° 70-16` 581,10 2 or more 1 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42 2pr more .: 2 or more 900 720 63t] 504(}0 `80 70 i S6` 1 2 or more 750 8110 557 420 ..100 80 70 56 J • Basic minimum hourly volume ° Used for combination of Conditions A and B attar adequate trial of other remedai measures May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 ' May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 0 lfa. th 'tr 5i Sect. 4032 ❑cttnrie? Page 440 2009 Editi Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume 500 400 MINOR STREET Soo HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 115, 80• 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET --TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note. 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume fora minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 300 MINOR STREET HIGHER- 200 VOLUME APPROACH- VPH 100 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE ,1 LANE & 1 LANE 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 MAJOR STREET --TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Nate: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. 80. 60, 1000 Secl. 4C.04 EkL embcf 2v. 0002 r .11 - 1W. . IN91, ?009 Ed i i iori 500 MINOR STREET 400 HIGHER - VOLUME 300 APPROACH- VPH 200 i0o Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES il LANE _-I LANE& 1 LANE PaL,0e 441 150, 100* 440 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 17010 18M MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. ' Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor). (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET 300 HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH - 200 VPH 7 100 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES I I I I 2 OR MORE LANES & I LANE '1 LANE& 1 LANE im, 75* 300 400 Soo 600 700 Boo 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. �­D%r Zooq 000281 Signal Priority Ratings: A = Number of correctible accidents in a 12 month period AR = Accident Dating =100 / 5 x A Vm = Average of the 8 highest hours of main main street volume in veh/hr (total both directions) Vs = Average of the 8 highest hours of side street volume in vehlhr (total both directions) Note: right turns on red and/or free right turns are subtracted from the side street volumes. K = reduction factor = (0.97 In (Vm I Vs)) - 0.32 Cv = Capacity constant Note: When the 85th percentile speed of main street is >40 MPH, MUTCD volume warrants are reduced therefore, reduce Cv so that Cv = 0.49 x Cv Number of Lanes Main Side Street Street Cv 1 1 750 2+ 1 900 2+ 2+ 1200 1 2+ 1000 VR = Vehicular Volume Rating = (Vm x Vs) / (K x Cv) Pm = Average of the 8 highest hours of main street pedestrian in ped/hr (total both directions) Wm = width of main street in feet Cp pedestrian constant = 78000 PR = Pedestrian Volume Rating = Vm x Pm x Wm 1 Cp Total Rating = AR + VR + PR Intersection A �AR-: Vm Vs =:::;it<;; Cv Pm Wm :::P-R::::. etat SW 41 st ST/Oakesdale AV SW 5 ;1:GG 615 407 ;:;:0.08: -: 900 0 56'J;C:3SQ S 4th ST/Williams AV S 0 ;:::b:::: 442 35T ;.:=0; :1: 1Q0o E�:345&10: 12 43 :;2;8 :::�1.3NE 44th ST11-405 NB Ramps 3 :ftQ:• 539 476 :•:c0.20 900 0.5 40 :;0.1:4.:: :-:# O. SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 :f2O: 783 306 ::::0: 9 : 1 000 0.5 51 :0: 6:::`45$ : S 7th ST/TalbotRDS 0.3 ::&;= 990 315 900 %'4388< 9 74 NE 12th ST/Union AV NE 0 :: 0 :: 449 220 ::::037 :; 750 ; .354.0=: 6.25 45 SE 31 st StA3enson RD S 2 ::.40.: 1221 270 .::'t x 4 :: 11 D0 -:,26T-04::: 0.33 51 ::o.26:::.:302:. NE 4th ST/Ho clam AV NE 2 :::4R 1899 153 1':-2:.12 > 588 :-:232:744 0 62 <0:00 . --:273. S 55th STfralbot RD S 3 :;$l ; 898 174 ?; f;2:::: 750 ::1. 0.37 36 ;;t) F i:: N 44th ST11-405 SB Ramps' 3 :':O'l 4601 179 D_17 56 NE 12th ST/i{irkiand AV NE 6 :_i2(l: 5421 120 :; 900 :=;:3:25:::: 5 38 2';::;:::1$ SE 142nd PU156th AV SE 0 0 976 167 ::3;3', . 75D :::1a8titT:< 0 39 ;;Q;QO;:::;j:': S Eagle Ridge DR/Benson RD S 3E-4.0 1148 93 ::'2 539 ::93:5 : =: 0 39 :fl t]Q:: •:::i5d: N LandingLN/Garden AV N 0 504 158 :::t}_8 f:;:: 750 : "T3i 87::: 16 41 ::4 4::::;136— NE Sunset BUHo ualm AV NE 2 838 69.5 .;30 ;: 368 ::=:7.5:65.:: 1 37S Carr RD/Mill AV S 1 1887 44.5:<:57.4 =:: 1 49 :1#NE 4th ST/Bremerton AV NE 2 2035 20 :4 6:. 441 .:•:2 :}0.,,; 4 58 c;5;$4:::;:;�8':• SW 34th ST/Lind AV Sw 2 ::4Q; 1161 49 �'`-2,7 0 58 ::O;OQ::::::•07::: . NE 21 st ST/Ouva11 AV NE V ::20:. 13101 37 ':8: (d : 441 :::;3ra:t7Q "' 0.5 53 NE 12th ST1Duvall AV NE 1 .0, 994 37 ;:2w87 .: 441 ::=: ,04 ;: 7 51 :A.-S ::-:$4:_; S 26th STfBenson RD S 0 :':•fi'•; 1008 27 ::3=#� -• 368 ::::::4•Z:::= 15 47 NE 6th ST/DuvalI AV NE 0 :='Q:- 949 38 ::2:;St3 ' 441 _:?79-.W7 2 58 NE I Oth ST/Duvall AV NE 0 ::'0 458 48 1:87. 441[:::2B•:68::: 6.38 58 2.17 NE 4th STfLiueen AV NE 0 :::Li : 1641 16 ;�7` ' 441 .2.7::. 0.16 fib 0:2::..": /Janie] done done done done done done 000258 TOM 9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142ndPlace/156th Avenue Southeast WARRANT 1 Meets warrant — volumes meet Condition B for eight hours. WARRANT 2 Meets warrant-- four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-1 for seven hours. WARRANT 3 Does not meet —this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. WARRANT 4 Does not meet —the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. WARRANT 5 Does not meet — this is not a school crossing. WARRANT 6 Does not meet —there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. WARRANT 7 Does not meet — there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. WARRANT 8 Does not meet -- We classify 156th Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142nd Place as a residential street. WARRANT 9 Does not meet —This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. FN: 713MI62M 000259 Sheet1 TOM 19645W 156th AV SE 1 SE 142ND PL NB SB NB+SB WB EB EB+WB 4.... :TOTAL HOUR i END t__. _0 4 100 .... 7 ,_ _ 13 2Q 28 26 54 74 100 200 6 8 14 14 17 .. _ 31 45 200 j 300 4 2 6 8- . 13 21 27 300 400 12 3_......... 15 8 13 ! 21 36 40-0 504 ... 38 _ 3 41 12 __50 30 ... _ . 42 83 500 60Q .:.._ _ _.. 89.. _ 18 107 188 2'!$ ; 3z5 600 ....... 700 _... 145 _ . 82 227 . 128 -. fi3Q � 758 985 700 :.._�-228...._ 800 ._..�1.37 ......365 .._. 259 fi92 ...... . ...... 951 _.... 1316 800 900 165 67 232 282 947 1179 900 1000 136 .. 85 - 221. 217 -665 442 659 ' 866 1600 1100 132 _._ ... 92 224 208 310 518742 1 00 1200 124 9fi 220 248 293 541 761 1200 1300 113 110 223 265 269 534 757 1300 1400 108 135 243 308 288 596 839 _ 1400 1500 186 147 333 453 316 769 1102 ..;_ 15Q0 _. 1fi00 167 176... ,� _ 343 _. 606 ; . 454 1060 ...�_' _.__... ..:__ _ --.1403 1600 1700 ._'._ 155 175 _ _.._ -330- 725 441 1166 i 1496 1700 1800 161 . 192 353 723 465 1188 1541 1800 i 1900 13b 165 295 578 389 967 1262 1900 2000 99 119 218 343 266 609 827 _ 2000 ..1 2'1 q0 ...... _... 7 108 178 231 223 454 632 2100 2200 47 77 124 170 151 321 445 2200-- 2300 21 45 66 102 104 206 272 2300 .. 2400 ; ....._ 13 ...__ , ....__36 49 56 64 ... 120 169 1 2356 2091 4447 6022 6729 12751 Page 1 Denis Law Mayor Cl O l' r C May 22, 2014 Community & Economic Development Department C.EThip Vincent,Administrator -Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 477Q3 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL SEPA -THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is 'a copy of the Environmental Determination Memo of . Reconsideration for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 19, 2014: SEPA'DETERMINA_ TION: 'Determination�of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: ..The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241,'ECF, PP Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p:m. on June b, 2014, together with the required fee with;.Hearing1Exam iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,'WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC. 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City'Clerk's Office, (425) 430 6510: Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental. Determination for complete details. Ifyou.have questions; please call meat (425) 430-6598. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jill Ding Assistant Planner Enclosure cc:. King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, MuckleshQot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert; Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program U5 Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 000261 Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 9867 - rentonwa.gov Denis Law GI O Mayor Z* May 22, 2014 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, -LLC . 9675 36th St , Ste, 105. Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION The Ericlave at Bridle Ridge, EUA14-000241i Pp, ECF . Dear Mr Lagers: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the request.for reconsideration and have -retained the existing threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measure. Please refer to the enclosed ERC memo,'for detail of the Mitigation Measure. Appeals of the environmental deierminatlon must be filed in writing on or before 5-00. p.m..on June 6, 2014,.together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055'South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed. by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process maybe ,obtained from the City Cie rk's:•Office,..(425).430-6510. If the Environmental -Determination is appealed, a public hearing -date will beset and all parties notified. Also, a public hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers,on the seventh floor of City Hail on June 24, 2014-at 8:00am to consider the . Preliminary Plat.:The applicant or representatives) of the, applicant is required to be present at thepublic hearing. A copyof the staff recommendation.wiil be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any further questions, please call me at (42-5) 430-6598 For the Environmental Review Committee, Renton City Hall loSS south Grady Way . RenZDn,washington 98057 • rentonwa.goy 000262 OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP LOCATION: 14038 156b' Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the RA (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range In size from 9,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA34.000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 2423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence Is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE {ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals'to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and Information regarding the appeal process may be obtalned from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 24, 2014 AT 8:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL. WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. 000264 CITY OF RFNTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22 day of May, 2014, i deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA reconsideration /determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Applicant Sally Lou Nipert Owner G. Richard Ouimet Owner See attached Parties of Record See attached Agencies (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON `( P041, ill, Ss COUNTY OF KING } 41 i .� . I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante Wit%,, 'Qv■�\0 z O ' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for�e2�9noses mentioned in the instrument. +'?p Tyr h Dated: ZZ a014 Notary (Print): My appointment expires: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, PP, ECF ry Public in and for the State of Washington A,j �f a , d-al? 000265 LUA 14 o00241 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE ,..,)GE OWNER/APPLICANT/PARTIES OF RECORD M.A. Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI Wade Willoughby 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE 5TH PI 6512 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulson Richard Ouimet PNW Holdings LLC 6617 SE 5th PI 2923 Maltby Rd 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 14004156th Ave SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 5E 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 000266 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 —172"d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172"a Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp, of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Sox 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Rev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Jack Pace 35030 SE Douglas St. #210 Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Snoqualmie, WA 98065 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98056 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Kathy Johnson, Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt 355110`' Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Mailstop EST 11W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98004 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 «Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: seoaunit(@ecv.wa.eou ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sevacenteKwdnr.wa.¢ov 000267 template - affidavit of service by mailing CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 20 da of May,, 2014 I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA F Y Y,. p P g reconsideration Idetermination'd'ocuments. This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Applicant Sally Lou Nipert Owner G. Richard Ouimet Owner Parties of Record See attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Ss 1 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vol mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 4 Notary (Print): My appointment expires: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Hot CIA . T .rn rL rta �' us nd purposes Notary Rubiic in and for the State of Washington 000268 M.A. Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE 5TH P1 Renton, xx" 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 Justin Lagers ;Roger Paulson PNW Holdings LLC ,-6617 SE 5th PI 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Renton, WA 98059 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sallv Nipert Jason Paulson 14004 156th Ave SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln Renton. WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98333 Wade Willouehbv 6512 5E 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 000269 Denis Law Mayor - City Of - � , 'ate 'ii = a « -• Community & Economic Development Department May 19, 2014 .. C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator Roger Paulsen 5617 SE 5r0 Place Renton, WA 98059 Subject: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: -Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary. Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP; ECF Dear`Mr. Paulsen: The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) held a meeting on. May 19, 2014 to consider your Request for Reconsideration, submitted April 16, 2014.. Please find attached to this letter a copy of the &:vision of your Request far Reconsideration signed. by the .members of the ERC including one new SEPA mitigation measure. It you have any questions, please contact the project manager, Jill Ding, at (425) 430-65.98 or via email at jding@rehtonwa.gov. Sincerely, Gregg. Zimmerman Environmental Review Committee, Chair Attachments cc: Bonnie waIto n, City Clerk Justin Lagers / Applicant Sally Lou Nipert / Owner G. Richard Ouimet/ Owner Parties of Record 000270 Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98051 . rentonwa.gov cit of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Q o j j Y AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). The DN&-M was ubllshed on, A ril 4 2014 with an a p p ppeal period that ended on 2014. A request for reconsideration of the SEPA determination was received on April 17, 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 201.4). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 155th Avenue SE/SE 5tn Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. After conducting the additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed hAcedlplanningkurrent plarminglprojects114-000241.jilllerc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot_docx 000271 Environmental Review Corn - Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 156th - , Avenue SE/SE 142"d S#reel intersection; it dldriot include a LOS analysis for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 51h Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item # 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development". The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 51h Place intersection currently operates at a L05 C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15-8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:leedlplanninglcurrent planninglprojects%14-000241 jiillerc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdoex 000272 Environmental review Com• Page 3 of 4 May 19, 2014 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing, Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the existing DSN-M with one new mitigation measure as follows: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510, hAcedlplanningcurrent planninglprojects114-000241 jilllerc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot.docx 000273 Environmental Review Com e Page 4 of 4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: Gregg Zimm r a Administrator Mark Peterson, Administrator Public Works epartment Date Fire & Emerge n y Services Date ------------------------------------------------ Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department t 6�— 'e, �/ k !e>-/IT( ( +— C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development h:lcedlpIanninglcurrent planninglprojeets114-000241_jilllerc reconsideration recommendation nemo.doLdocx 000274 Traff� April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36t' St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: Naar,'-1WZ-S7" 71�AF i'c ExR rS 11410 NE 124lh Sl�5a90 KirMaml WA 986 Phone: 425,522.4118 FAx; 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156' Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analvis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 PI/156" Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"l Pl. SE/SE 156 h intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5t` Pill 56t' Ave SE and 142" d PI. SEISE 156u' intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8.15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page I 000275 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M• O R A N. D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager i FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 156u' Avenue l Southeast l Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142" d Place and 155t' Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne ofcmhayne@gmail.com? . Recommendation: I We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a -new signal. Background; We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d place and 15e Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Contiol Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Coniinuous traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Vniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and -a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 156`h Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer - Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 150' Avenue Southeast. The other fouraccidenjs cccur�ed at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enfflrcement reports of the five accidents. h:Vivisionsktran sportat\operatio\ror3\tomjtun-6645a.doc 000276 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Of ��kw M E M O R A N D U M 'I DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Tran$portation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142'�O Place at 156t' Avenue Southeast Issue, Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of crnbayne@gmail.com? Recommendation: We should place this inters_ ectian ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 15e Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Light Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C=4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 150 Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast. The other foUr accidents occurred at least -two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law en.forcement reports of the five accidents. h:ldMsionsltranspor.tat\oper b9VD6\tomjtom964S&doc 000277 COMMUNITY & D c1 of �CW� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT, Traffic Concurrenty Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrenty Test per RMC 4-6-070.1) as follows. Traffic Concurrenty Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed rowth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off -site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrenty Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrenty requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: 000278 Transportation ConcurrencyTest -TI -lave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 2014 1. Test Required. A concurrency test shalt be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shalt determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required. Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as pail of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shalt apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit_ 3. Failure of Test If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LO5-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 000279 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: M E M O R May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Southeast 'Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 15e Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbaype@gmaii.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156"' Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 156e' Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the Other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156' Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h:\divisions\tra "spor.tat\operatio\ro n\tom\#om9645a.doc 000200 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D - M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: [veil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.1) as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project_ Proiect subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by Proiect?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off -site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: 000281 Transportation Concurrency Test ndave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 2014 D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS_ 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 000282 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by rra NORTHWEST TRA FFlc ExPE-HTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 r11 4;4' 000283 IV©RTHWEBT TRAFFIC EXPERTS 1141 O NE 124th St, #590 Kirkland. 0 98034 rraffay Phone; 425.522.4118 Fax; 425.522,4311 April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analvis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 PI/1561h Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. The 142"d PI. SEISE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 51h PI/156th Ave SE and 142nd PI SEISE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 7 000284 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rraft:f queues were observed to back up from the 142"d PI. SEISE 156th intersection to SE 5ffi Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 'I shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE I AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 51hPI/ 1561h Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16A) South Site Access / 156th Ave. SE, NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142" PI1 th Ave SE 156 Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (l= 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5th PI./156"' Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all -way stop controlled intersection (SE 142"d11561h Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 000285 The Enclave at Bridle Ride rraay PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 51h PI/1561h Ave SE and 142"d PI. SEISE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4.15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142"d PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 51h PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5'h PI. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th Pl. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING 2A15 WITHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT 5E 5 PII SE Ave SE WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) North Site Access / NA NA WB (C 15.2) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access 1 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 13.3) SE 142" PI ! 1561h Ave SE Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 000286 dle Rid FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156th Ave. SEISE 142nd Pl. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142" d PI. SEA 56th Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 000287 The Enclave at Bridle Ride r'lrafa, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures. • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156�' Ave. SE. Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince nwtraffex.com or larU@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx Page 5 000288 {1 SE 5th PI �, Nam rrrwFsr 7'k,4FF'/C EX**E�4T.5 } T `=r Projec ' Site sIr ti a �i.. ,T,t, Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic Project % with Project of Total N ao O N N 4 0 4 r7 CV M N O nn 4-V t rr 0 LO O N P! N Accessl 156th ave CO N O 1 0 i 3 f t r 0 Ln v IN S AccaccJ 159th Ava c•') � ti N to 620, 40' 4 156th Ave! SE142 PE 156th Ave! 5E142 PI 156th Ave/ 5E142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Q N N D 4 0 00 0 1 r'1 O C r ;e SE5th! 156th Ave N AcCPCR/ I%th avP. 0 chi v 1 0 i 3 t "0 rn v S Access/ 156th Ave v v o 0 ; �� 0 0 0 0 1 r{ 0 o N O SE 5th! 156th Ave N Access/ 156th ave S Access/ 156th Ave 1091 1088 1084 1223 oM v c4i CV 0 ' `�- 4 o00 0 t r` 1 o a .- __J oa h SE 5th/ 156th Ave N Access! 156th ave N CD 00-S N 0 0- t r 3 v S Access/ 156th Ave N [+7 N f-- 859-0 4 42~, 1 C h Ave/ SE142 PI Figure 1 000289 5th PI rr4*AffEXSE TRAFFIC Expnvrs site-- o S.E Al. TTT . SE 14;4*} b`( i 4 l Ws Future Project Future Existing Without Project Traffic Project% With Project OfTotal ti ti ► �3 M el- It. �3 r 0 I l 22 m t- 1214 13 (D 0, @ (Dr 1.t31 % I r t r 2 t r � 0 t r 2 pp r IMPj p r CO CO N] CO O 00— C1 SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE Sth/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave tin r- o I L `� o + I t o 00 27 I` � 4 12Q9 � t rr0 I rr0 I r`2 2.23% 1 rr2 rn o r o c*a LO M N Access/ 1561h ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave I t I tl i t 4 20 I t 4 � Dr ( }r \t�r 1202 I r o t`� r r 0 r O7 O mmr 0 M M [IL) 7 M S Access/ 156th Ave S Access! 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave W GO fQ I N N 1+ h I N � I (CJ C) ti ti 9 4 279,.d 4 o 296.,"t �, 4�� 4 3001 19 sa 0 111 `, 1 11&�, t 0 , t o.s5�o 118� , 1 co to f+ CO _a o 47 CA N _ CO CM 156th Ave/ SE142 PI 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl 15601 Ave/ SE142 PI 156th Ave! SE142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2 000290 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000291 717 TRAP7:7C DATA GA77iWHh O TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:15 AM TO 8:15 AM Peds = 0 284 728 IU U-Tums c 41 0 Y 282 2 L HV PHF / 724 1 1 c'4 m SB 5.6% 0.77 0 c m NI3 4.8% 0.95 U-rums ¢ t WB 1 0.0% 1 0.63 283 1 1 1 725 1 tN iNTRS. 1 5.0% 1 0.96 1 1 1 Peds = 0 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor COUNTED BY: CN REDUCED BY: CN REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22/14 SE 5th Place 4 5 1 0 a u N U-Turns d 3 156th Avenue SE @ SE 5th Place Renton, WA INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 1,014 OUT 1,014 DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/22114 TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM WEATHER: Rainy 000292 LOCATION: .1 54ttAvenue SE a SE 5th Place Renlor, WA w77FAFF7117 QATA 4GA7hWJW®V[>'i INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET DATE OF COVNT: Too. 4rM14 TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM - WOO AM COUNTED BY: CN WEATHER: Rainy TIME INTERVAL- ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON 156th Avenue SE FROM SOUTH ON 155th Avenue SE FROM EAST ON SE 5kh Place FROM WEST ON INTERVAL TOTAL$ Pella HV UTurn Left Thru Matti Pods HV UTum Left Thru RI ht Peds I4V VTum Left Thru RIght Peels XV UTum Ls1t Thm Right 05:15 AM 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 05:30 AM 0 0 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 05:45 AM 0 D 0 C 0 0 - 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 a 0 a-- D 0 a a 0 0 06:00 AM 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0-- C a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 06:15 AM - 0 O 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 06:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 t 0 1 0 0 0 0 06:45AM 0 0 a 0 0 0 a- 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00AM 0. 0 - 0 0 1 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 C 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:15AM 0 5 a 0 37 0 0-- 2 0 0 123 1 0 - D 0 0 0 0 1 D 01' 0 a a a 161 07:30 AM 0 5 0 1 0 92 0 0' 6 0 D 162 0 - 0 a 0 1 0 1 a- - 0" 0 0 0 0 256 07:45 AM 0` 3 0 2 61 0 0 4- 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 254 08:00 AM 0 5 0 0 73 0 0 13 0 0 189 C a 0 D 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 08:15 AM :' 0 3 a 0 56 a 0 12 0 0 183 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 a a 0 0 0 241 09:30 AM 0` 2 0 0 51 0 a B 0 0 167 0 0 D 0 2 a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 I a 220 08:45AM 0 3 t 0 a 57 0 0 11 0 tl 7$4 0 0 0 C 0 ❑ 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 I 0 241 08:00 AM 0" 4 0 0 50 0 0 13 a 0 176 0 0 -- 0- 0 i 0 0 D D LLLO a 0 227 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 16 0 2 Z32 0 0 - 35 a 0 7Z4 1 D a 0 1 0 4 0- a 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEM F NTS 294 726 5 a 1 D14 % HV 5.6% 4.8% 0A% MA 5.a% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.77 OAS 0.53 #N)A 0.86 PHF - Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: CN 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 1 7:15 AM TO 815 AM ROLLING HOUR COUNT DATE OF REDUCTION: 412MO14 FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM FAST ON FROM WEST ON 155th Avenue BE 156th Avenue SE SE 5th Place INTERVAL TOTALS TIMEINTERVAL Pads HV VTum Left I Thru I fftht P-d. I HV I UT.Left I Tlw nlit, Peds I HV 1UTum Left Thru R ht Pede I HV I UTum Lot I Thru R1 M 5:00 AM - 5:00 AM a 0 a 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 a 0 D 0 0 0 D C a 0 0 0 a 0 0 000293 L�Jt■l�.l TRAFFIC DATA 4MA77AL=RBWG TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:15 AM TO 8:15 AM = 0 w 729 a� crns w L [21q367 310 �----�— UI Tums I rn — u 0 620 sso 40 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 1,146 OUT 1,146 �] COUNTED BY: SN REDUCED BY: CN REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22114 (nX107206 09 HV PHF m SB 6.1% 0.96 a' NB 1.9% 0.59 I EB 5.3% 0.92 Peds = 0 11 INTRS. 1 4.9% 1 0.92 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor 156t1h Avenue SE @a SE 142nd Place Renton, WA DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/22/14 TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM - 9= AM WEATHER. Raiff 000294 W7 ALFFIG DATA d2A77AEFZ V0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 156th Avenue SE ASE 142nd Plate DATE OF COUNT: Tua. 4122114 Renton, WA TIMEOF COUNT: 7;Q0 AM -9:00 AM COUNTED BY: SN WEATHER: Rainy TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT 05:15AM FROM NORTH ON 156th Avenue BE FROM SOUTH ON 156th Avenue 9E FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON BE 142nd Place INTERVAL TOTALS PZ. Q HV 0 UTurn 1 0 left 0 Tt,. 0 RI t 1 0 Palo 0 HV -.0 UTurn 0 Lek 0 Thm 0 RI ht 0 Ped6 0 HV D UTum i 0 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Pods] 0 HY 0 UTurn 0 Loft 1 0 I Thru 0 I Right 0 0 05:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 a- 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 O 06:00 AM 0 D C 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 a 0 D 0 0 0 06:15AM 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 06:30 AM 0- 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 06:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q7:00 AM 0. 0 p 0 0 0 0 - 0 a 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 :0 0 0 a 0 0 07:15 AM O 5 0 0 25 1 28 Q'�' 2 .' 0 15 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 108 0 15 214 07:30 AM 0 6 ❑ 0 25 46 a" 0- 0 35 22 0 0 0 ❑ D D 0 a 7 0 136 0 13 277 07:45 AM 0 2 0 C 16 51 0 1 0 26 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 144 0 10 311 08:00 AM 0 5 0 0 14 59 0- 1 a 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 9 0 171 0 6 276 Q8:15 AM 08:39 AM Q 0 4 1 D 0 0 0 10 10 57 44 0 0 -2 1 0 0 23 2a 14 10 0 a 0 -- 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 14 7 D 0 161, 165 0 0 9 10 282 259 08:45AM 0 3' 0 0 9 52 0 0 0 28 7 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 12 D 171 0 9 276 09:00 AM 0 4 0 0 9 39 0- 3 a 26 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 C 143 0 6 241 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 17 0 0 67 213 0 4 0 97 109 0 0 Q Q 0 0 0 O 35 0 620 0 40 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 280 206 p 660 1146 'HV 6.1% 140% NNIA 5.3% 4.9% PEAKKHOUR FACTOR 0.96 OS9 #WA CA2 0.92 PHF s Peak Hour Factor REDUCEDBY. CN 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:15 AM TO 0:15 AM ROLLING HOUR COUNT DATE OF REDUCTION: 4722/2014 FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON 156th Avenue BE 165M Avenue 9E BE 142nd Place INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Pads HY UT-- Le11 Thru RI ht Peda HV UTurn Lek Thnr ht Palo HV UTurn Loft Thru Rf ht Peds Hy UTum Left I Thru I Right 5;00 AM - 6:00 AM 0 1 0 1 Q 1 0 1 a a 0 0 p 1 Q 1 0 1 0 a D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p ❑ a 000295 37TARAP77-C DATA 412A 77MRINO TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM Peds = 0 uaw760 361 ums �Dc +753 t- LLJ HV PHF �/ 358 1 1 w m SB 2.1% 0.96 0 NB 1.7% 0.91 U-Tums a s w WB 0.0% 0.63 75511 359 INTRS. 1 2.0% 1 0.94 1 1 1 Peds = 0 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor COUNTED BY: CN REDUCED BY: CN REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22/14 SE 5th Place 3 5 2 0 0 n U-Tums tZ 8 156th Avenue SE a@ SE 5th Place Renton, WA INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 1,124 OUT I 1,924 DATE OF COUNT: Tue, 4/22/14 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Rain 000296 lira TRAFFIC pATA QA771F-F Kf." INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 156th Avenue BE 0. BE 5th Place _ DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 422114 Renton, WA TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM • 6:00 PM COUNTED BY: CN WEATHER: Rain TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON 1561h Avenue BE FROM SOUTH ON 156th Avenue BE FROM EAST ON BE Sth Place FROM WEST ON INTERVAL TOTALS Pads Hv UTum Leh ThrujRIqhj Pods HY UTurn Left Thm Right Pads HV UTurn Left Thru Rlight Peds HV UTurn Left Thru FU ht 02:15 PM p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 D 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 Q 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0- '-- 0 0 D 0 0.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 D 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 -- a 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 1] 0 0 04:15 PM 0, 3 D 0 181 0 -0 2 0 0 90 0 p 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 271 04:30 PM 0- 3 0 0 198 0 --p_ 2 0 0 96 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 298 04:45 PM 0 4 0 2 191 D - 0 2 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 05:00 PM 0 1 0 5 162 C 0 1 0 0 83 0 0. 0 0 1 0 D 0 0 0 0 2T2 05:15 PM 0 8 -` 0 tl 782 0 0 1- 0 0 B8 0 Q 0 0 0 C t 0 0 9 0 0 272 05:30 PM 0 2 0 1 171 0 -- 0 2 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 271 05'45 PM 0 4 0 1 192 0 0 �' 4 0 0 87 0 p 0 ❑ 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 281 06:00 PM 0 1 0 1 1 154 0 0 2 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 24T PEAK HOUR T AO 0 - 10 O 7 753 0 0 6 0 0 358 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 O 0 0 O 0 0 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEM ENTS 760 359 5 0 1124 %HV 2.1% 1,7% 0.0% #NlA R.0% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.96 0.91 0.63 NWA 0.34 PHF - Peak Hour rector REOUC£D Br: CN 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM ROLLING HOUR COUNT DATE OF REDUCTION: 4I2212014 FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON 156th Avenue SE 156th Avenue BE BE Sth Piece INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Pads HV UTum Left Thru Rf M Pods HV UTurn LeR Tluu ht Peds HV UTum Left Tt u R ht Petle HV UT-r- Lett I Thru I Right 2:00 PM .3 00 PM p 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.1 0 p 1 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 000297 TRAFFIC DATA GA7751FF_RAVG TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM mac Peds = 0 w 750 364U) U-rums 0 r682 SE 142nd Place 0 U-Tums d 0 279 390 114 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME LIN 1,301 OUT LE COUNTED BY. VT REDUCED BY: CN REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22114 cA HV PHl` SB 2.8% 0.95 5.0% 0.91 [;APeds=0 NB 2 EB 1.0% 0.88 INTRS. 2.5°/a 0.93 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor 156th Avenue SE Q SE 142nd Place Renton, WA DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4122/14 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Rainy 000298 37 77TAPP:70 MA M 413AMEAWWO INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 156th Avenue SE 0 SE 142nd Place _ DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 412214 Renton, WA _ TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM COUNTED BY: VT _ WEATHER: Rainy TIME FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON INTERVAL ENDING 15SthAvenue SE 156th Avenue SE SE 142nd Place INTERVAL TOTALS Pads HV UTum Left Th. Right Pella I KV �UT.ml Lett Thru Right Peds HV UTum Left Thru Right Peels HV Ufurn LeR Thru Right AT 02:15PM - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tj -" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 92:45 PM 0 . d- 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 03:00PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D -0 0 0 0 D p 03:15 PM 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 C 0 0 D 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 03:30PM 0 0 p I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 .O - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0- 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00PM 0 0- 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D '0- 0 0 C a 0 04:1S PM 0 3: 0 0 16 155 0 3 0 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 76 0 29 314 04:30 PM O- 5. 0 0 27 166 0 4 0 is 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1 0 78 0 33 348 04:45 PM 0 4 0 0 14 183 0 0 0 18 20 D 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 72 0 20 327 Will) Pm 0. 2"'' a 0 10 167 0 4 0 24 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 24 $01 03:16 PM 0 10 0 0 17 166 - -0 --- 0 0 15 20 0 0 4 O 0 0 0 73 0 34 325 05:30 PM 0- 3 0 0 7 171 - 0 3 0 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 19 316 05:45PM0 3 0 0 14 176 0 1 0 19 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 goA 0 00 0 36 3S$ 0 C p 75 139 0 2 0 15 37 06 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 19 3pg PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 21 0 0 68 662 p 8 0 TS S5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 279 0 111 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 750 181 0 390 1301 %HV PEAK HOUR 2.8% 5.0% NWA 1.0% 2.5% FACTOR 41.95 0.91 NWA OU36 1.93 PHF - Peak Hour Factor RFOUCED BY. CN 4:00 PM - 6:0 PM PEAK HOUR: 1 4:15 PMI TO 5:15 PM ROLLING HOUR COUNT DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/=014 FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM YVEST ON 155th Avenue SE 1561M Avenue SE SE 142nd Place INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Pads HV UT.. Lail Thru Right Pede HV UTum lefl Thru RI ht Peels fry UTum Left Thru RI h! Ped, HY UTum Leh Thru Right 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 I D 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ID 0 0 000299 AM EXISTING PROJECT 1 Q: SE 5TH PIL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 f k Lane Configurations Y to ot Volume (vehm) 1 4 724 1 2 282 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0%, Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 4 762 1 2 297 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1064 763 763 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1064 763 763 1C, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 cM capacity (vehnt) 248 408 859 Volume Total 5 763 299 Volume Left 1 0 2 Volume Right 4 1 0 cSH 061 1700 859 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.45 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.1 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 15.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.29b ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 000300 AM EXISTING PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 -,11 -V 4\ f # Lane Configurations Y 4 ;, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 620 40 97 109 67 213 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 646 42 101 114 70 222 Volume Total (vph) 688 215 292 Volume Left (vph) 646 101 0 Volume Right (vph) 42 0 222 Hadj (s) 0.23 0.11 -0.38 Departure Headway (s) 5.7 6.5 5.9 Degree Utilization, x 1.08 0.39 0.48 Capacity (vehlh) 625 546 602 Control Delay (s) 83.1 13.5 14.1 Approach Delay (s) 83.1 13.5 14.1 Approach LOS F B B Delay 53.7 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 11111 111 AM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 412612014 Lane Configurations T+ Volume (vehlh) 1 4 768 1 2 299 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 4 808 1 2 315 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1128 809 809 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1128 809 809 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 227 384 825 OMEN Volume Total 5 809 317 Volume Left 1 0 2 Volume Right 4 1 0 cSH 337 1700 825 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.48 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control delay (s) 15.8 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 15.8 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C k Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 000302 AM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 ---* -)� 4N l Lane Configurations Y 4 T+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 658 42 103 116 71 226 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 685 44 107 121 74 235 Volume Total (vph) 729 228 309 Volume Left (vph) 685 107 0 Volume Right (vph) 44 0 235 Hadj (s) 0.23 0.11 -0.38 Departure Headway (s) 5.8 6.5 5.9 Degree Utilization, x 1.17 0.41 0.51 Capacity (veh/h) 618 543 599 Control Delay (s) 113.4 14.0 14.8 Approach Delay (s) 113.4 14.0 14.8 Approach LCS F 8 B OWN Delay 71.4 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.5°/o ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000303 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 Ir k 1 /0". t Lane Configurations Y t+ 4 Volume (vehlh) 1 4 780 1 2 303 Sign Control Stop Free Free G rade 0% 00/0 00/. Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 4 821 1 2 319 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1145 822 822 VC1, stage 1 conf Vol vC2, stage 2 conf Vol vCu, unblocked Vol 1145 822 822 tC, single (s) 6A 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 222 377 816 Volume Total 5 822 321 Volume Left 1 0 2 Volume Right 4 1 0 cSH 331 1700 816 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.48 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.1 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 16.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C 0.1 Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 000304 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 Lane Configurations ► �, Volume (veh1h) 2 6 775 1 2 302 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 6 816 1 2 318 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1138 816 817 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1138 816 817 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 98 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 224 380 820 Volume Total 8 817 320 Volume Left 2 0 2 Volume Right 6 1 0 cSH 324 1700 820 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.48 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.4 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 16.4 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 000305 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 Lane Configurations will NONE #' Volume (vehfh) 3 6 770 1 2 302 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Flour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 6 811 1 2 318 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1133 811 812 vG1, stage i conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1133 811 812 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 98 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 226 383 824 Volume Total 9 812 320 Volume Left 3 0 2 Volume Hight 6 1 0 cSH 311 1700 824 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.48 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 17.0 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 17.0 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 000306 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 412612014 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 659 42 103 117 73 229 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 686 44 107 122 76 239 Volume Total (vph) 730 229 315 Volume Left (vph) 686 107 0 Volume Right (vph) 44 0 239 Hadj (s) 0.23 0.11 -0.38 Departure Headway (s) 5.8 6.5 5.9 Degree Utilization, x 1.17 0.41 0.52 Capacity (vehlh) 617 542 599 Control Delay (s) 115.6 14.0 15.0 Approach Delay (s) 115.6 14.0 15.0 Approach LOS F B C MIN W-M-M-WN Delay 72.5 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000307 EXISTING PM PEAK 10. SE 5TH Pf_ & 156TH AVE SE 4r'2612014 %< k I # Lane Configurations 'fir Volume (vehlh) 2 3 358 1 7 753 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 3 373 1 7 818 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walling Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1206 373 374 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1206 373 374 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 CM capacity (vehfh) 203 677 1185 Volume Total 5 374 826 Volume Left 2 0 7 Volume Right 3 1 0 cS H 350 1700 1185 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.22 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.4 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 15.4 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 000308 EXISTING PM PEAK 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 * ! i Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 279 111 76 85 68 682 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 294 117 80 89 72 733 Volume Total (vph) 411 169 805 Volume Left (vph) 294 80 0 Volume Right (vph) 117 0 733 Hadj (s) -0.02 0.14 -0.50 Departure Headway (s) 6.1 6.5 5.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.70 0.30 1.14 Capacity (vehlh) 574 536 695 Control Delay (s) 22.1 12.2 100.4 Approach Delay (s) 22.1 12.2 100.4 Approach LOS C B F Delay 66.4 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.60`0 ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000309 PM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 Lane Configurations Y 1+ 4 Volume (veh/h) 2 3 380 1 7 799 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 3 396 1 7 868 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type (done None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1279 396 397 vCt, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 con# vol vCu, unblocked vol 1279 396 397 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 184 657 1162 Volume Total 5 397 876 Volume Left 2 0 7 Volume Right 3 1 0 cSH 324 1700 1162 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.23 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.3 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 16.3 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 0003'10 PM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 3., SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 -V 4N t 4/ Lane Configurations ►, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 296 118 81 90 72 724 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 312 124 85 95 76 778 Volume Total (vph) 436 180 854 Volume Left (vph) 312 85 0 Volume Right (vph) 124 0 778 Hadj (s) -0.02 0.14 -0.50 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.75 0.33 1.24 Capacity (vehlh) 573 528 680 Control Delay (s) 25.0 12.7 139.3 Approach Delay (s) 25.0 12.7 139.3 Approach LOS C B F Delay 89.9 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000311 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 10., SE 5TH PL. & 156TH AVE SE 4/2612014 Lane Configurations, Volume (veh/h) 2 3 388 1 7 813 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 3 404 1 7 884 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1303 405 405 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1303 405 405 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 1F (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 178 650 1154 MIN NOR I NOMMM"m Volume Total 5 405 891 t: Volume Left 2 0 7 Volume Right 3 1 0 cSH 315 1700 1154 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.24 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.6 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 16.6 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.4% ICU Level of Service 8 Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 000312 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 Irp k It. l Lane Configurations Y T 4 Volume (veh/h) 2 4 385 3 7 808 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% fl% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 4 401 3 7 842 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1259 403 404 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1259 403 404 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 169 652 1165 + Volume Total 6 404 849 Volume Left 2 0 7 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 359 1700 1165 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.24 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.2 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 15.2 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Ublization 58.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 [01111IK-1 K] PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 I t Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) 1 4 384 3 7 803 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 4 400 3 7 836 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed fts) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1253 402 403 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1253 402 403 1C, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capac�ity (vehlh) 191 653 1167 Volume Total 5 403 844 Volume Left 1 0 7 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 440 1700 1167 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.24 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 13.3 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 13.3 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 000314 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/2612014 Lane Configurations► Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 300 118 81 92 73 726 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 316 124 85 97 77 781 Volume Total (vph) 440 182 857 Volume Veit (vph) 316 85 0 Volume Right (vph) 124 0 781 Hadj (s) -0.01 0.14 -0.50 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.6 5.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.75 0.33 1.25 Capacity (vehlh) 572 526 677 Control Delay (s) 25.6 12.8 143.5 Approach Delay (s) 25.6 12.8 143.5 Approach LOS D B F Delay 92.3 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000315 From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:26 AM To: Jill Ding; Vanessa Dolbee; Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning; Lary Warren Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Environmental Determination Attachments: Req for Recon-Enclave pp.pdf Attached is copy of a Request for Reconsideration filed in this office yesterday by Roger Paulsen. Once the response to this request has been issued, and I receive copy, then I will be checking with Mr. Paulsen to see if he wishes to proceed with his appeal, currently filed, but on hold pending the RFR. Bonnie Walton City Clerk X6502 1111111411 April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITYQz: RE,NTON CsIL ' APR 16 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant -- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in -line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. SIMdi As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`' Place/ 156" AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at -risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 000317 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re -sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identi% ation of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (I'IA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013), The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: 'q he scope of this anaysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Denton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for.New Development': By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 000318 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committec states: 'The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhihit 10) also includes a Level of Semite (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity... " This report goes on to conclude that: "...the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) unth the exception of the southhound approach to the 1.564 Avenue SE/ SE 14Zd Place intersection. " Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156'/ 142"d Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156 h Ave SE/ 142"d intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment infornung city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE S' Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17`t' ), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156`h at SE 5`h Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's 'Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156 h, but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may `;..impose 1ft turn restrictions at that intersection. "(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156t / 142"a intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will 3 000319 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156", further degrading the Level of Service at the 156ffi/ SE 56 PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156`s Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156t , the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `2t is not anticipated that the proposed project signzycantly adversely impact (sit) the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156t"/ 142"d intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 55.17 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156`h/ 142"1 or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie., the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from. Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any impmvements are warranted (if any)... ". This confirms that work is on -going at this time (April 15`h) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 000320 This a -mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir FrWW Steve Lee Sant Tuesday, April 15, 201411/4 AM To: C4<rerk Records CC )an 11fian; Jiff Ding; Neil R_ Wads; Jennifer T. Henning: Rohini Nair Subjlct RE. New Public Records Request - PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) Aftachmmn- 7ranspoConcPalicy14041S,pdf See attached files that are related documentation an the City process for cotttu"t cy, standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. 1 believe this is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeking. -The information, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Platt, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test - Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurreruy can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place atthe time of building permit issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per4-6-070 A.1, or a financial commitment is placed. Afinancial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid (ar the new development and is generally aced by the City for improvements t`sroughout the City_ Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord. 5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (arid on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible t4 provide additional access. Widening 1405 (which the State Is pursuing ) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road." Thanks. -Steve lee, PE, MS, CESCL City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425-430,7299 s1ma re ntonwa.¢nv Concern #G Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), l remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concerts, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misrepresented the actual o ortuni.ties for pubhc engagtment in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Heating on April 22°d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 000321 until April 22°d, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application...' } As a result, the record now shows that only, two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determnation being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"d, and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5`h Place and 156`s Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156 h Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re -started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record. shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, .I� Ro aul 6617 SE 5`s Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 000322 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -- SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B — Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C — Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D — Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E — Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Nan -Significance -Mitigated 000323 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jding(a rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-00024 1, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. 1 also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5t' Place. 1 would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5t' Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156 h Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142"d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156 h north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5ei Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 1391h Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only 1F the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 15601 north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 1560' even more difficult. 000324 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to 5E 156`h between SE 51h Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this r,rniPrt to he implemented without adequate mitigation has siunificant notential to threaten public istina residents who access 156' from SE 5' Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156`h/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 1561h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156`h/ 142"' intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156`h/ 142" d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 51h Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 000325 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 240' deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22"d, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22"d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 000326 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RoszerAPaulsen9cs.corn. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000327 EXHIBIT B THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36 h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by IVIuuRRHw.- EX TRAFFIC EXFE'RTS 11410 NE 1241" St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax; 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 000328 Trams December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Traffic impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: Nr RMWEOr rNWIF '!O EXPZNr8 11410 NE 124th 5t. #590 WA.9$li i4 Ph=: 425,522.4118 Fax 92 .522.4311 We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 1561' Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Pglicy Guidelines for Traffic I mpect.Analysis for New Develo ment. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156t' Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156t' Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. pap 000329 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Exciting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50°Io 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 25 75 0 23 PM Peak Hour 1.01 63 % 37 % 31 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site -generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDMONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156th Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142'd Pl. Residential Access Page 2 000330 The Enclave at Bridle Ridoe nia.1kr 15e Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156' Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156d' Ave. SEISE 142"d PI. is an all- way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156"� Ave SE or SE 142"d Pi. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDMONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 1561' Ave. SE and the 15e Ave SEISE 142"d St. intersections. Per the CityofRenton PQUc Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156d' Ave SENSE 142ndPl. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Caaap& Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: 000331 The Enclave at Bridle Mae n!�ftx TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F Signalized ` 10. >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. 0 <20.0 <35.0 — <5v.0 <80.0 — 0 Stop Sign Control `a >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 15e Ave. SEISE 142nd PI. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future oonditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Tg1ble for Public St is a d Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft. from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 000332 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge__r affay approximately 250 ft north of the 1561' Ave, SEISE 142"d PI, intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156t" Ave. SE. Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince0nwtraffex.com or Iarry ZDnwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx C�A�Q 4r sit- b /&HAI 1 / ?_ +� Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx Page 5 000333 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION E7CIST7MG 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access f 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access 1 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 15fi th Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) 5E 142"d PI. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway,Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SS southbound approach ftge s 000334 Trafrf, TRArF'rc EXP--R79 ., X. A I r „+ atw Ina PI M 'SE2hd PI -SE 1360i S6 SE I! " d I E r �� 5f13GlhLn � 1 >E `°1. Terrace o, o SE:13Tth St ;; tn SE 7 37th St, SE .. SE 9rd Pl sEath St 5E$thSt- a ate+, SE 1391h PI 1 rn 1 SE 1410 PI " Project 5E .g2na st ... _ , ... SIB . S E 10nd st".;. . apt LrI j , SE.143rd 5t .. .. 1 m f sE 144rh St SE m ., SE cn 3 .SE 145k }' y,PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map I 9 000335 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Site Plan Try`. TRAFFIC EXPERTS Figure 2 000336 Q t 6 'EE 00 S' SE 139Sh PI Project Site CD SE i 42nd SI SF ward Sa till t rr2 -Rr en N Access✓ 156th ave S Amass/ 1561h Ave PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 20 156t 11 Total 31 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution ZJ:AJffJUx TRAFFIC' EXPERTS Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic +-- 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 3 000337 CO M 139th 1, ^n Project site. c*7 [a 5E 142nd St" `. aia AD .yV� X lot c $E 143 Future Project Existing without Project Traffic ..A ave N Aocessl 1561h ave In W A 32$-P 106 , CO f+ � Ca N Access! Mth ave N 4-, C7 N 156th Ave The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future with Project -10 ave Ave Figure 4 000338 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000339 prepfV4&r. Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Photta: (253) MMO PAX;(2SS) M-72fl E Mall: TmnQTC04r orn WBFi ME 1560t Avc SE& SU 142ud PI Dim of Count: Toes 17JI7,1013 Reno, Wabiepmn GMdmd by: /m rww IabYval From Mort an (B91 1366 Ave SE From $out 136th an (ND) A1s SE From Eat on 13 0 Flom Yvnet on ( ) SE F4+Ad M Otterv0l TOW EndmA at T 1 I. 1 S R 7 L S R I T L 5 R T L I 5 I R 4:15P 2 0 16 126 0 32 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 to 20 4a0P 6 D 13 172 1 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 27 308 4A5 P 2 0 it 156 0 28 15 0 a a 0 0 0 99 0 29 34S SM p 0 0 Ip 179 2 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 20 32H 5:15 r 1 0 19 148 1 28 17 0 0 a 0 a 0 70 0 24 306 $:30 P 1 0 ZO 149 0 1 19 10 D 0 0 a 0 D 72 0 2R 297 3A5 p 0 0 29 I51 0 is 19 D D 0 0 0 0 93 0 29 M9 6-06p 0 a 24 144 2 IS t4 0 D 0 0 0 1 14 p 17 291 6:15P D 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6745P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00p o 0 0 O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Taal (1 WE 618 1 0 i 2D'_ l 2497 I ) P=L lla - 4:15 PM lu 3:11 PM I 9 0 68 655 4 92 63 0 0 0 4 0 0 309 0 mo L287 4Ab 723 155 D 409 1297 1.2% 2 % Na 1.D% OM 156th Ave SE lugs 3 T2 ' 1 T^O��— �Hikc SE 142nd P1 fiss sa L-,_ ]Pcd 717 pwi Q i noc; 0 i136 309 409 4:I5"1 m 5:151'M 100 I'FA a N S E w Pcd 0 93 63 1350 1.0 PI1F Peak !four Volume Nr at i 0 Li Mej _ 0_-- P,1F IWI V enr G2 D INr G3 0 ..� .... L68 ISS Check J[3 w6 are wa 0 In: 1297 Na 2.6% 0iT 05 _ 313 Out: 1297 S8 €.2 € T06 _ "PPEt3S 0 156thAveSE Tlal 0.93 1.0% WT 07 ypira AarC aSB a !let e17r 0i9 0 --. _ E WTOz '.. _. 4 3•B 0 t5+ II+T 1 .,..,.,.€.. i i 0 MTt1. II 0 -... .. Orr 03 1 WT04�.__.._., 0 0 15i ISt o4T 12 i I 1 D 0 INT n5 _ . _ .... WT05 NOM[KI;S 0 8-10 0 8-10 iolLu' g qurue Jreydcd SE3 -u mwt there woo v4sz•5.8.ihi01es1wrialilydappcA. 5+ aignifcs rolling queue at Fr or I awld we. _. NTas I �.. 1 0v€ 10 -- - 3 q 0 Wit wT a _.. D 4 0 0 00 4 0 0 a 000340 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd PI & 166th Ave SE 12126t2013 t 4 Lane Configurations Sign Cortaro! Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 309 100 92 63 68 655 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0,93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 332 108 99 68 73 704 Volume Total (vph) 440 167 777 Volume Left (vph) 332 99 0 Volume Right (vph) 108 0 704 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree Utiftdon, x 0.75 0.30 1.12 Capacity (vehrh) 572 526 679 Control Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach LOS 13 B F Delay 62.9 HCM Level of Service F Intersectlon Capacity Utilization 85,r/C ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchm 7 - Report Page 1 000341 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12t2612013 � � 4� t 1 41 Lane Configurations ►lir 4? It* Sign Control Stop Stop Slop Volume (vph) 328 106 98 67 72 695 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flaw rate (vph) 353 114 105 72 77 747 Volume Total (vph) 467 177 825 Volume Left (vph) 353 105 0 Volume Right (vph) 114 0 747 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.7 5.3 Degree UnlrrapoQ, x 0.80 0.33 1.22 Capacity (vehlh) 571 518 665 Control Delay (S) 29.8 I M 133.2 Approach Delay (s) 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach LOS D S F Delay 85.8 HCM Level of Service F Irtersedon Opacity Utilizabon 90.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (ruin) 15 Basel'Me Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000342 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd Pi & 156th Ave SE 12l2612013 t 4 W Lane Configurations 4 1� Sign Control Stag Stop Stop Volume (vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 Volume Total (vph) 471 180 828 Volume Left (vph) 357 105 0 Volume Right (vph) 114 0 749 Hadj {s) 0.03 012 -011 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.7 5.4 Degree U9lixation, x 0.81 0.33 1.23 Capacity (veWh) 571 516 662 Control Delay (s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach Delay (s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach LOS D B F Delay 88.1 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) i5 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 000343 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12l262013 r k t io '* � Lane Configurations Y '* 4 Volume (YOM) 2 4 177 3 7 774 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Faclor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 4 190 3 8 832 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f /s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Nave None Median storage veh) Upstream slgnel (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, confrdng volume 1039 192 194 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vot vCu, unblocked vol 1039 192 194 tc, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 chit cape* (veW 256 855 1392 Voluma'Tbtal 6 194 840 Volume Left 2 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to Capacity ul 0,11 0.01 Oueue Length 95th (it) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Aplxw*c Delay (s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS 3 Average Delay 0.2 )ntersecbon Capeedy Lrdhzatlan 56.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 000344 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12f26120t3 t /0 N , Lane Configurations Ei Volume (vem) 1 4 176 3 7 769 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0,93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 4 189 3 8 827 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Flight turn flare (veh) Median We None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume 1033 191 192 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC4 stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1033 191 192 IC, single (s) 6.4 62 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 cM Wddy (vehlh) 258 $56 1393 Volume Total 5 192 834 Volume Left 1 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 CSH 585 1700 1393 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th (f1) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS 8 A Approach Delay (s) 11.2 0,0 0.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 intersection Capacity LZIization 56.1% ICU Level of Service 8 Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 000345 1W1:111-I1SO s m # POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS No FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 - 9:00) or PM (3:00--6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should 'include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic - generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site -generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format. The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assi ent: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site -generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM -PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area. 000346 EXHIBIT C Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi -phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site -generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating_ Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary, the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage, these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/12/2008 H;\Division.s\DevelopserT]an.revlTIA GUiDELINESUADF.LINFS FOR TRAFFIC TIWACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc Oq 000347 Ci of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EXHIBIT D AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: March 31, 2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Number. • LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager. Jill Ding, Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156`h Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 ApplicantJContoct: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 5E 36a' Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: 140381.56`s Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 Project Summary., Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 sq,jare feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. Exist. Bldg, Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area {footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 SF Total Building Area GSF: N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map FRC Report 14-000241.docx 000348 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Ewnomic Development tuvironmentol Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT WDLE RIDGE LUA14 4=4L Eta, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122,142-3059023, and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences. The project site is located within the R-4 (residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan land Use designation. The surrounding properties to the north, south, and east of the project site are also zoned R-4. The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat..An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel. The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future, separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.86 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication). The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots, the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and B). Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention. Tract B would be located at the northwest comer of the project site and Is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new "looped" public street (Roads A and B) with two access points off of 15& Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156e` Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials, which identified 303 existing significant trees. of the 303 existing significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees. There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained; however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention. Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I Irt compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14-OW241.doex 000349 CO of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLA VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000244 ECF, PP Report of Errorl Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 S. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared byTraffEx, dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Cutting and land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February 5, 2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Exhibit 12- Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) Exhibit 13. Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts. The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented during construction ERCReport 14-OW241.docx 000350 City of Renton Department of Community & tconomk Development environmental Review Committee Report 774l: ENCLAVE AraRJDLERIDGE cuar4 oovza�, FCF PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface gradin& and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study, the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of field grass, trees, and blackberries. The Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site. Alderwood soils formed In glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff. They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) were excavated across the project site. Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits (TP-1, TP-3, and TP-6) at depths ranging from 2-3 feet. According to the submitted geotechnical study (Exhibit 7) groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material; therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring, and early summer months. The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore,groundwatervolumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, foundations, seismic design, slab -on -grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backfill, and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content, the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February S, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red -osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present. The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERC Report 24 DOW4ldocx 00035.E City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development EnWronmenta! Review Committee Report THE ENUAVEA7BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-MM44 ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water impacts: The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. (dated February 19, 2014) (Exhibit 9). According to the TIR (Exhibit 9) the upstream areas to the north and east of the project site are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible. The existing runoff from the project site sheet flows across the property towards the southwest comer of the site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the site on the east side of 15e Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west at the intersection of 156"' Avenue SE and SE 144`h Street. Runoff continues west across 154u' Place SE and discharges to Stewart Creek, a Class 3 stream. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review it accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report (Exhibit 9). The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre - developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site within Tract A. The pond will discharge to the existing conveyance system in 156t' Avenue SE. Appropriate Individual loft flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Overall, it is anticipated there would be no impacts to stormwater as a result of the proposed project, provided the project complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the Renton Amendments. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts: A Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and a Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) (Exhibit 6) were submitted with the application materials. The Tree Inspection Report states that of the 305 significant trees identified on the project site, 81 are considered dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200. The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) identifies 35 significant trees for retention. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are -sold as individual lots, each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in perpetuity within an easement. Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees. The 23 trees proposed for removal (identified as trees l RC Report 14-0D0241.d= 000352 City of Renton Deportment of Community & tronomic Development ensftnmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA,14.0=41, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 6 of 11 5406, 5408-5415, 6181-6185, 6234, and 6229-6231) have been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6). The City's arborist will review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6) and verify which trees located along the east property boundary are available for retention. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that an easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Mitigation Measures: An, easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations 4. Noise Impacts: Temporary construction noise is anticipated as a result of the subject project. Based on the provided construction mitigation description (Exhibit 13) the applicant has indicated that construction of the plat improvements is anticipated to begin in September of 2014 and finish in February of 2015. The construction of homes is anticipated to begin in April 2015 and finish in April 2016. The applicant has indicated that construction would comply with the City of Renton's adopted noise ordinance. As such, the temporary noise impacts are anticipate to be minimal and limited in duration. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 5. barks and Recreation Impacts: The project site is located within the vicinity of three parks. Maplewood Heights Park is located to the east of the project site and Maplewood Neighborhood Paris and the Cedar River Trail are located to the west of the project site. it is anticipated residents of the proposed development would utilize the existing parks within the project vicinity. it is not anticipated that the proposed development would adversely impact the City of Renton parks subject to the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 6. Transportation impacts: Access to the project site is proposed via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156t` Avenue SE. In addition, a dead end access is proposed connecting to the property to the south of the project site for future development. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround is proposed for emergency access pending future development to the south. Frontage ERCReport 14- ww241.d= 000353 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-MM42, ECF, PP Report of Lela rrh 31, 2014 Page 7 of 11 improvements including paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) (Exhibit 10) was submitted with the application materials. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2. seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10) that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the ChYs transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12) citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156`h Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus; N/A 7. Fire & Police ERC Report 14-"241_d= 000354 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Demlopment ca*onmentul Review Cammlttee Report THE ENCLAVEArswDLE RIDGE LUA2411MUt ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to famish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.2LC.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Anneal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. an April 18, 2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 71h Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental Information provided In conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as informotion only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3.30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., -Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report 14-W241.docx 000355 Gty of Renton Department of Community & r xnk Development 'ronmentar Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE ATBRIDLE RIDGE WA14-=241, ECF, PP Reportof March 31, 2014 Page 9 of 11 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 54nch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed 'to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate'from.Water District #90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156' Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144t' Street and ext6ending the sewer main into, the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156`h Ave SE up to the north property.line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main -in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance'of the construction permit. 4. This parcel fails within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. Surface water. 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project Is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre -developed rates ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000356 City of Renton Deportment of Community & ' lomic Development •4ronmentol Review Committee Report THE ENUAVE AT ARlDLE RIDGE LUA24-000241, EQ, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 10 of 11 -"a forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to Delp mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnicai report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,340.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LO5 F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Menton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-"60. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an a- foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench, restoration will comply with the City's Trench restoration and overlay Requirements. ERC Report 14-000241. docx 000357 City of Renton Department of Community & ' lomic Development dronmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA1"0041, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 11 of 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural -calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report 14-000242.do" 000358 ME ENO f � 3 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 THE ENCLAVE air-_--r i �! '1 ni �� � � �y I I � � � ,= 1 I�� i �� F SY I �t � _ •R� ! �. r• TT�� 1�• E I j 1 1 �# 1 j {}i1 14 fur TT�� I It 1 4 �`-,,` ; ,••'� 1 {(qi1 ,•'r� � � .i'r ^ `�� • .' i f:.'i�� 1rij� •• �r f r—. —*—�. r 4 PCA` -. �:' Ifs y rx -, r: a..N`�% 1 ! • ��, Y ��: •: �j'{R�I F _ r-rj �1p ..; 8 �-'. �••• • 1 �+¢A 1 • � rr K 1 _�� f R�' • �� k -ice - - Y _�,y` :•Ih 1;I__•_..:r i• I {y! ♦; r miq I 1 j 8 ... I ,; r 1 ,1 • I �..K-'-' I s'�+ C i f •% •1+ i :� k� I t i 1 n r•ll ..r 1 _ PA 1: 5 F; F: 1 r�p • 1 •y if!� „ 1 r x= F ��, -4•-- --1 _PP B 4` � [ r !may �1• r F so PRO i `,, s'• r E i r y' yQ i 1 r f 1 �Z�. '.I�1p ap rine .oaoa p �g aaaaaaa I It �p p iiiii g t i It Z M t S It THE ENCLAVE I if; I X ii i; S E EXHIBIT 3 I EXHIBIT 4 THE ENCU EXHIBIT 5 Greenforest Incorporateu Consulting Arborist 2/18/2014 EXHIBIT 6 RECEIVED Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Developments 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC C Y OF pF%,TON 9675 SE 36th 5t., Suite 105 PLANNING QVtSI01,4 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week -and inspected the trees indicated on -the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECI-ION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (blear tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree -free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed roatcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armiilada root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhixomorphs; oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 000364 EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Ste#en H. Avr S�j Geologist . CAA�,,�a^ Ewa � ti• �'?, C� S10NAL y <1 itA Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 •-166th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVE ES-3220 FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PtANNiNG DfvjSK)U 1805 -136t' Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 426- 49-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 Cctar=l February 3, 2014 EXHIBIT S Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 RECEIVE Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton FEB 2 7 2014 SWC Job##13-187 CITY 0- RENTOA1 PLAfVrVri�G DrVi.ilQN 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (91423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156t' Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site'). Vicinity Map 000366 EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 150 Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 361h Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7t' Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 RECEWED IEe 2 7 2014 i'TY OF RENTON PtANN{N%" DIVISION 02014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc 000367 EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3e St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by MAW fEw'ol , . — . NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124" St., ##590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB Z 7 2014 pOF REW01v lA71iN1NG D"SION 000368 David Michalsia 6525 se 5"* pi Renton, Wa 98059 March 21, 2014 Jill DIng, Senior planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 EXHIBIT 11 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/EUA14.=241/ECF/P0. I M off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concem is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156* Ave Se. Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River they,,,;, ._r.._ traffic on i5e ave se is unbearable. Coming.out of any of the side streets off 15e ave sWis sometimes Impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles da a quick stop and accelerate "up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down, there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs far additional development In the future on the West side of 1566'. I feel that an -immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought'about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Rdad? Sincerely, _D mLDJ A David Mkthalski Email: danichalOmsn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 EC,Ff l r �R � f V �'f� � 2014 c Or AtNTOA1 C`ksn; LhV�H I 000369 EXHIBIT 12 March 22, 2014 Ms- All Ding Senior Planner CEO — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdingu renlorrwr�Pov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. ring and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-00024 1, ECF, PP My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"'. 1 also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5t' Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5 h Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156t' Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142n° intersection during the morning commute to Help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156111 and 142`a that the project won't snake it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the prejecVs impact to 156a'north of this intersection_ Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5�' Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139'h Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142d, and then only 1 the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 15e north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning tragic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to I561s even more difficult. 000370 The addition of ANY new trips to SE 1560' between SE 5"' Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to bg implemented with out ade uate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access l56'h from $E 5 Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. 1 am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 f 142d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156d' during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic steady also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156' t 142°d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of fiarther analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156te! 142ad intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5 h Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it_has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accomm lure waste water access to the new project While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. L.efs get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project 000371 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper tear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform, the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 20 deadline, that it CAN be, provided at the April 22'd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before Apri122"4, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken be] ief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 000372 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsQn@,cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000373 City of . 4 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master AppNcatlon has been tiled and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the appocation and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LANO USE NUMBER: L IA14-000241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME; The Enclave at Bride Ridge PROJECTO SIMMMON: Proposed subdivision, of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) toning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and 8) and'a new public street. The proposed lots vrould range In size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 155th Avenue SE. A lot fine adjustment (LUA14400250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30.175 square feet of parcel 14230M7 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14M 1560'Ave 5E OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED JONS-MI: As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that grdk ant environmental impacts are unilkely to result frorrh the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the ACW 43.71C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional ONS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is Meiy to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period faAowing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14•dayappeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMrr APPLICATION DATE: February 17, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PRQJECTCDNTACT PERSON: Justin Lnem/ PNW HmkPnj* LLC/ 9MSE3eStreetSuite 305, Merterliland, WA 9g040/ Mf IL-jusWn@amerimndassishomes.corn Permits/Review Requested: Emrironnlental (SPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building, Fire RequedW Studies: Orainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study Lathan where appilcadon may be rerieweck Departmentof Community & Eiomadc oov.elopment (CED) -- i�arming Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1e55 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9RQS7 PUBLIC NEARING; Public hearine is tentatii&* rduied {niAorii 22. 2WU before the Rennin Hearinr Examiner in Awtarr Cound Chambers at IMAM on the 71h floor of Renton City Hall located at 10S5 South Grady. Way. if you would Ilke to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton. CED — Planning OWision,1O55 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No- The Endave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-=241, EQ. PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/5tatemp:. TELEPHONE NO.: 000374 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land use: The subject site is designated Res;derttiaf Cow density (COMP-Rtn) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the ClWs Zoning rdap. _ Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) checklist Development Regulations Used For project Mitigation; The project wig be subject to the CWs SEPA ordinance, RNIC 4 2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures;, The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project Impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction sholf be required to comply with thesubm/tted geatechnicul report. ■ project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application trust be submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, CEED- Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Stay, Renton, WA 980571 by 5:00 PM on March 24, 2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing an April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AK Cound Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady way, Renton. if you are Interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has nor been rescheduled at 142Sj 43M578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or viish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically became a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTAU PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 43G-6598; Emi: 'din rentonwa. ov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would Ilke to be made a party of retard to receive further Information an this proposed project, complete this form and return m: oty of Remmn, cm -Planning 0h ision,1055 So. Grady way, Renton, WA 92057. Name/Me No.- The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-0DM241, EC, PP NAM E: MAILING ADDRESS_ TFLEPRONE NO- C.rtyJstateJiryr 000375 EXHIBIT E City of t NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals, DATE OF NMCE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LLIA141000241, ECF, PP PROJECT• NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECTDESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The p,oposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts {Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,S66 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-0002S0) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 140381W' Ave 5E OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the city of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DN5-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed ONS-M are integrated Into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2,014 APPLICANT/PRCJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC / 9675 SE 38"i Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 99040/ EMIL: justln@amerlcanciassichomes.cons Permlts/Review Requested. Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building, Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 99057 PUBLIC HEARING. P1ihshar n1t is terttatiniyscheduled _for Anril2t. Z014 befQr Renta3 Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chamhers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED --Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: City/5tate/2ip: 000-376 City of, rT))] r) I CONSISTENCY OVERVtEM Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential low Density(COMP-RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City s zoning Map. . Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Protect: Environmental (SEPAj Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation., The project will be subject to the City's 5EPA ordinance, AMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mltigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed an the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnicai report: ■ Project construction shag be required to comply with the submitted trafflc study. Comments an the above application must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, CED — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 99057, by 5,00 PM on March 24, ZKC This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Halt, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-6576. If comments cannot be submitted In writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Nearing Examiner. If you have questions alaout th€s proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; >"ml: iding0rentonwa.gvv PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUM13ER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO -- Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at bridle Ridge/WA14-=241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS; TELEPHONE NO.; City/state/zip: 000377 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sword on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on April 4, 2014, The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $126.00. '-'Linda M, Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 4th day of April, 2014. Q ;44hleen C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Otesiding in Buckley, Washington `A���rti•U`�Ct'::Yt9 i i i t 410, f tt1t1 O1NS�s0 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAi, REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINCTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determi- nation of Non Significance Miti- gated (DNS M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA 14 000241 Location: 14038 156th Ave SE Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designa- tion. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The propnsed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1421059057 being removed from the pro- posed subdivision. No critical ar- eas are present on the project site. Appeals of the DNS M most be filed in writing on or before 5.00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4 8 110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425 430 6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on April 22, 2014 at 10:00 am to consider the submitted applica- tion. If the DNS M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing Published in Renton Reporter on April 4, 2014. 41019794 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant .:_r., amA�:.. .. PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com Owner 3. Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Pang of Recoid � � � � ;9 71 Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-1589 x MaherJoudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38th PI, 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 1'arryo�Reca...��s.•�.:�r�.oY5,:9s.f_.i�._�� .��..__.°__����. M.A. Huniu 6608 SE Sth PE Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-6594 Par"off Hepnrd f w a. Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Mazama, WA98333 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 PaftX Qit l�@COf�. a a�.� � r a DAVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE 5TH PI RENTON, WA 98059 (425) 271-7837 Page 1 of 1 000379 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology *` WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 2D1 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 —172°d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 17fd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 9 8133-9 710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street K5C-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. "*Department of Ecology is emalled a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: seoaunit@ecv.wa.eov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter(&dnr.wa.eov 000380 template - affidavit of service by mailing CITY of �t'i NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AC17ON PROJECT NAM£ Enda,s 0 Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14,0D0341, ECF, PP LOCATION; 14094 250' Ave SE DESCRIPTION: Propmd subdlvbinn of en 64 am pml@ct she Jowled wkhfn the RI [Reslderrtial4 dweinng units per aerej sonlna designadom The proposal would result In the [matron of 31 ion and 2 b'e6n (Tracts A and B) and a new pubikstreeL The proposed lots would range In alre from 4,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet Aecess to the maw lots would ire provided via a eew publk street 0 of 1S6th Avenue SE. A lot Jim adjustment [LVA34-00mW Is proposed between tar parcak 14ZM9057 and 14Z309911Z which will resuit In 30,175 square het of parcel 1423059M7 being reawved from the Proposed sridhrlslan. The site IF currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing midente is proposed to remain on parcai 1423059057. AR ether rtnKWres we propased to be rene nod Uvoogh the subdivision process. No critical area an presem on the Project sits THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IERCI HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ODES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. APpet[s of the envitonmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. an April Is, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Emminer, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Rentw, WA 98057. Appeals to the Ewtminer are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City C1erV1 Offlce, j425I 430.6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WII1 BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE TTH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 22, 2024 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE "CONDIT4ONAL USE PERMIT, SHORT PLAT, ETC.`. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBtSC HEARING, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMU N7Y & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425; 430.7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. I,A17Trar,Ihereby certify that �_ copies of the above document were p sted in conspicuous places or nearby the descr' property on Date: 7 ` Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON } 1 SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: eta' 1%, Notary P in and for the State of Washington �fl r Notary (Print): ff f7i 7��2i:,V ash — u�iolntment expires: A.p r a _ City off, OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP LOCATION: 14038 256' Ave SE DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.3 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and Bj and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provlded via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 14Z3059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence Is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to he removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIG NWICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be fled in writing on or before 5.00 p.m. on April 18, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerles Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 22, 2014 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE *CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SHORT PLAT, ETC.*, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. April 2, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Lagers: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report, for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014, together with the required fee, with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Also, a public hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall on April 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM to consider the preliminary plat. The applicant or representatives) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff recommendation will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-6598, For the Environmental Review Committee, - Ding Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Sally Lou Nipert, G. Richard Quimet / owneris) Party(ies) of Record 000383 Denis Law City of � Mayor 00000 r", t - +1r i % .r April 3, 2014 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 31, 2014: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5;00 p.m. on April 18, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details, If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, i 1 Ding Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 000384 Renton City Hall • JOSS South Grady Way 0 Renton, Washington 98OS7 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 40 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D. DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. Are existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156th Ave SE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8.00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 000385 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: I The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5- inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-tan vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from Water District #90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 1441h Street and ext6ending the sewer main into the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 1S61h Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. Surface water: ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes 000366 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2_ A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840,00, 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: I. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LDS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156t' Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8-foot ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes 000387 planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection Alan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes 0 388 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � C «9 ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156`h Ave SE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: April 4, 2014 DATE OF DECISION: March 31, 2014 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department Date Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department n 0 J , 3 �( 1 Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services Date C, A - �� &_ _Y _�111 1� C.F. "Chip" Vincent, dministrator Department of Comm pity & Date Economic Development 000389 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNE CY City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE.' March 31,2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager: Jill Ding, Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: 14038156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 Project Summary: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 14230S9057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area {footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 5F Total Building Area GSF. N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERC Report 66 City of Renton Department of Community & t—gnomic Development environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUR14-000241, ECF PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND I he proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences. The project site is located within the R-4 (residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The surrounding properties to the north, south, and east of the project site are also zoned R-4. The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat. An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel. The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future, separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.80 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication). The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots, the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and B). Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention. Tract B would be located at the northwest corner of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new "looped" public street (Roads A and B) with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156th Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials, which identified 303 existing significant trees. Of the 303 existing significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees. There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained; however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention. Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report I4-000241. docx 000391 C4 of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Enviror„rental Review Committee Report THE ENCLA VE A T BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000243, ECF, PP Report of Error! Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February 5, 2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) Exhibit 13 Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented duringUrffl"Mn ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community & L,.,nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study, the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of field grass, trees, and blackberries. The Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site. Aiderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff. They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) were excavated across the project site. Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits (TP-1, TP-3, and TP-6) at depths ranging from 2-3 feet. According to the submitted geotechnical study (Exhibit 7) groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material; therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring, and early summer months. The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, foundations, seismic design, slab -on -grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backfill, and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content, the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red -osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present. The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required 000393 ERC Report 14-"241.doex City of Renton Deportment of Community & t:,,nomic Development environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLA VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. (dated February 19, 2014) (Exhibit 9). According to the TIR (Exhibit 9) the upstream areas to the north and east of the project site are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible. The existing runoff from the project site sheet flows across the property towards the southwest corner of the site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the site on the east side of 156th Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west at the intersection of 1561h Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. Runoff continues west across 154th Place SE and discharges to Stewart Creek, a Class 3 stream. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report (Exhibit 9). The site is located within the tower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre - developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site within Tract A. The pond will discharge to the existing conveyance system in 156th Avenue SE. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Overall, it is anticipated there would be no impacts to stormwater as a result of the proposed project, provided the project complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the Renton Amendments. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts: A Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and a Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) (Exhibit 6) were submitted with the application materials. The Tree Inspection Report states that of the 305 significant trees identified on the project site, 81 are considered dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200. The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) identifies 35 significant trees for retention. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are sold as individual lots, each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in perpetuity within an easement. Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees. The 23 trees proposed for removal (identlfi d as begs ERC Report 14-000241.docx 6 JJ 94 City of Renton Deportment of Community & r—momic Development Environmental Review Committee Report rHE ENCLA VE Ar BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 6 of 11 5406, 5408-5415, 6181-6185, 6234, and 6229-6231) have been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6). The City's arborist will review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6) and verify which trees located along the east property boundary are available for retention. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that an easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Mitigation Measures: An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat, Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations 4. Noise Impacts: Temporary construction noise is anticipated as a result of the subject project. Based on the provided construction mitigation description (Exhibit 13) the applicant has indicated that construction of the plat improvements is anticipated to begin in September of 2014 and finish in February of 2015. The construction of homes is anticipated to begin in April 2015 and finish in April 2016. The applicant has indicated that construction would comply with the City of Renton's adopted noise ordinance. As such, the temporary noise impacts are anticipate to be minimal and limited in duration. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A S. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The project site is located within the vicinity of three parks. Maplewood Heights Park is located to the east of the project site and Maplewood Neighborhood Park and the Cedar River Trail are located to the west of the project site. It is anticipated residents of the proposed development would utilize the existing parks within the project vicinity. It is not anticipated that the proposed development would adversely impact the City of Renton parks subject to the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 6. Transportation Impacts: Access to the project site is proposed via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156th Avenge S.E. In addition, a dead end access is proposed connecting to the property to the south of the project site for future development. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround is proposed for emergency access pending future development to the south. Frontage 000395 FRC Report 14-000241.docx City of Menton Deportment of Community & K-t)omic Development :nvironmentaf Review Committee Report THE ENC[AVEAT BRII}r£ RIDGE LUA24-000241, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 7 of 11 improvements including paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) (Exhibit 10) was submitted with the application materials. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10) that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12) citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 7. Fire & Police ERe Report 14-00241.docx 000396 City of Renton Department of Community & t—nomic Development environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLA VE A T BRIDLE RIDGE CUA14-OW241, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 page 8 of 11 Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff Indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory !Votes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination A eal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they ore not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7.00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., -Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m, and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3_ Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Eire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 000397 ERC Report 14-00241.docx City of Renton Department of Community & ' -)omit Development "nvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-040241, FCF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 9 of 11 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-tan vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Wntar- 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from.Water District #90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and ext6ending the sewer main into, the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156ih Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00, Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0,05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. Surface water: 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre -developed rates l ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000398 City of Renton Department of Community & - nomic Development "nvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLA VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-OW241, ECF, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page ld of 11 for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8- foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. ERC Report 14-000241. docx 000399 City of Renton Department of Community & r r7omic Development ^nvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT ERIDLE RIDGE L UA14-000241, EQ, PP Report of March 31, 2014 Page 11 of 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000400 H TOWHSNIP 7J N RANGE S VEAT BRIDLE A smom [�77 ' ASw" 0� j CITY OF c� c�wsu�Riavo RENTON ram. wn.w wMn.r i-.:.�. i NOl�• rt.�wv „w u ..s w .xr Rw .wmuam. ws aYe mwry aw. THE ENCLAVE AT 6ROLE RIDGE PREUM NARY PLAT NEMNEORM= OETAL MAP ORS PROJECT No. 13117 awv�c rxe EXHIBIT 2 i x THE ENCLAVE Ilk ®� V$f °� jy' I ilk+ SwIS". J ` I .'/ 1 I ' 1 MnI 1 I �� .•ram j Imo. I I.=� L s t r- f ; C l Outoillow ti d " • __ t _ _ _. r k S V .• Ir 1 �VI I q � I f��� II -1"��Ir �___ �� �. 9'•� -1 i roil •.-.I I oil - 1 i M �A I � I� I� 1 �tq� 7 r Jr it /• - M i� I l l f „ '• 'A�.r d' I I � 'jot. Q1-- -I ti P C� 9 _ i 1 4-15 - ,r - I 1 u U WIM IR� k I � 1:Y �•. F y - SLif �y 1 I I aGia 1;4� I I I \ rr a on ilye ram' I .�- '7 JOAN -`f�`�Fr' RI FF M r Raj f'I vl ;a- tl.• r:�y ;Ca Imo}- \p ®� E 7ro w lilt 6 dV a a�a Y I� m 1~ co x W 9 1 +lall-'i� I D L BL 7ftMgIWEEx a....r .+.ww T : c , a � ! ! Its I ~—�-- ��`�' CITY OF #� RENFOi, O O PRELIA MARY MTE UIfE CALGVL/17it i5 aw w,wr ssra,n ar v ioc wry u {ap) �qy �,�®® Ri �Yt p01m p M wwWolls�s/Fl Yborm � NTm aR��WltRK®:�a� THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDG PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMMAL ROAD ARD GRWM PLAN DIM PROXCi ND. UIlY 14kl— Z-1 SE 114 SEC77CW 14, TOMSHiP 2j N, THE ENCLA VE A T BRZ oy kl-- 41 -,rE 29 j• 28 -- -------- ----------- 22 4 24, 5 T fS f4 r JHAG D.R. STAtvw i I CDNSLLTM EMQAIEL-IS F 5 & W. M. RIDGE j, PY bm-7 41Q ------ ---- � P�T 10 '71 N mrx%w6 c OF ITY T'll rIlMILVE AT BRIDLE RIDGI PRELJMINAFtY PLAT RENTON DPAKAGE COMMA. KW DRS PROJECT NO. 13117 1 I—lKJMK AiAJAJ r ,' ►; �,: •fir.. . `� 7. 9+y 1 v` +i3 Al �� I � +� i � 'r 1�l��•'r - — ray '��m,�,��. ��.iawG� � �d��; �r�■���.. � a . gyp. �� ` ~Nam" 1Af�r+t'r+�rr�e ns.+i�swrras>r �{� j rT _.vr• mh h �l M { a. •f• CfTY ON BRIDLEit EXHIBIT 6 Greenforest Incorporateu 2/18/2014 RECEIVED .Tustin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC CITY :i r,ENTOU 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105CA'J�,.rtvG Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree -free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 00040E EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Ste en H. Avr S Geologist' Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED C ES-3220 L1 FEe 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pt.ANNr?VG DM510F4 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone:425-449-4704 Fax:425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 000407 Raxami February 3, 2014 EXHIBIT S Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 REC Mercer Island, WA. 98040 y RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton FEB 2 7 2014 SWC Job#13-187 CITY C I' 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the .proposed "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156ch Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity !Clap EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156 h Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. OwnerlApplicani PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 RECFI VED FEB 2 7 2014 C'TY F RENTON PLANWN- DIVISION 000409 Q2D14 D. R. STRONG Consufting Engineers Inc_ EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by NZ0qffL=X: TRA F-F-1c Exz7E"R Ts 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED IEB 2 7 2014 C'Ty OF �ZAN^aiF,�� D��QO�IV 000410 EXHIBIT 11 David Michalski 6525 se 5"' pl Menton, Wa 98059 March 21, 2014 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUAIAHM241/ECF/P©. I live off of 5E5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156'h Ave Se. Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the_,_,. traffic on IS& ave se is unbearable. Coming out of any of the side streets off 15e ave se Is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down, there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development In the future on the West side of 15e. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, QR David Michalski YQ'P4 AIT PIANEmail: dcmichalPmsn.com Nrnl �IV/31ON P h# 425-271-7837 t 000411 EXHIBIT 12 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdingkrenton wa go v Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5"' Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of 5E 5`h Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156�' Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 1561h and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse_ While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156a north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5a' Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139a' Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142' d, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156`h north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156 h even more difficult. 000412 The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156"' between SE 5"' Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this nroiect to be implemented without adeauate mitiaation has significant notential to threaten public ina residents who access 1.56"' from SE 5' Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself: This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156'/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes — particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accomm a future waste water access to the news er 1 d as art project. r- While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000413 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-254 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot 44. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-01 I. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 241h deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22°d public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22"a, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22°d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 000414 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at Ro erAPaulsen cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Eleetroriically Mthout Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000415 City of RentL -)epartment of Community & Economic Devei. ient ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:%{A}'4,, 6 � COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2014 D -; APPLICATION NO: LUA14-000241 DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 20, 2014 APPLICANT: PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding X PROJECT TITLE: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge PROJECT REVIEWER: Rohini Nair SITE AREA: 328129 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): n/a Ull LOCATION: 14038156rh Ave SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 tots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animofs Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housin Aesthetics Li h Glare Recreation Utilities Trans rtation Public Services Histaric/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 1gOQO Feet 14 OOD Feet C CODE -RELATED COMMENTS --'�-i1i�.a-.L� �ryli�� '✓. `r6i ;ir y�fw�� �1��1 L.." _I' ,.,.I4vu" 17L'�1 i•1"Ci , �•�Lri.`L �-(,t'rr.Y � <•�,t �:c.�.=C r7 '�r�.!�.. ��.;�s.�:-�.,s::t i .,'f.�� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we hove expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where dditional information is n d to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized R presentative Date 041 6 ;Tt LL Cj Lij Ll L -u If Z' LQ v A all 4L W7 HJWl -Xxx j 30ald 3lQUE3 IV MVIDN3 31111 PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS (L 04-000241) � � City of PLAN ADDRESS: 1403E 156TH SE AVE RENTON, WA 98059-7419 APPLICATION DATE: 02/2712014 DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street The proposed lots would range In size from 8,050 square feet to 12,%6 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result In 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. Community Services Review Leslie BeVach Ph: 425-430-6619 email: LBettach@rentonwa,gov Recommendations: Parks Impact Fees per Ordinance 5670 applies. Engineering Review Rohini Nair Ph: 425-430-7298 email: mair@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: I have reviewed the application for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038 —156th Ave SE and have the following comments; EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER Water service will be provided Water District 90. SEWER Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There Is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Ave SE. STORM There is a 12-inch storm pipe in 156th Ave SE to the north. STREETS There are no frontage improvements In the area. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. A water availability certificate from Water District #90 was provided. 2. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 3. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. SANITARY SEWER 1. Sewer service Is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and extending the sewer main into the plat The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE upto the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration for atieast half street The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE upto the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south will require pavement restoration at a minimum of overlay for at least A. the street. 1.2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the intemal access road, to the east property line (with a 10 feet sewer easement). A man hole Is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed Internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 2. System development charge (SDC) fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot The current fee per lot lased on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit 3. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District Fee calculated as of =412014 is $438A 6 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee Is paid. 4. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. SURFACE WATER A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D,R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM. Chapters 1 and 2_ All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the repot The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County will also be provided a copy of these plans and reports that could impact King CounVs Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project Is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 tow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condltlon extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest comer of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project 2_ Appropriate individual lot Flow control BMPa will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review will be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required.3. A geotechnical report dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the sour a�sand. April 16, 20114 Page i of 4 Fire Review - Building directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for prellminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the 'LEGEND' block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do Include in said 'LEGEND' block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owners block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block, Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessors Office. Provide signature lines as required. Do not make references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing_ If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same an the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thersof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat- The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will he recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. There needs to be language regarding the conveyance of the Tracts (A & B) created by the plat; please check with the Stormwater Utility to see if they will require that the City be the owner of Tract'A' If not and if there Is to be a Homeowners' Association (HOA) created for (his plat, the following language concerning ownership of "Tract A' (the detentionlwet vault area) applies to this plat and should be noted on the final plat drawing as follows: Upon the recording of this plat, Tract A is hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Name of Plat Homeowners' Association (HOA) for a detentionlwet vault facility, All necessary maintenance activities for said Tract will be the responsibility of the HOA In the event that the HOA Is dissolved or otherwise falls to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract prevlously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwise, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 31, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership Interest In'Tract A'. The foregoing statements are to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat or reference to a separate recording Instrument detailing the same. Similar language Is required for Tract'B'. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process. include a current title report noting the vested property owner. Corey Thomas Ph: 425.430-7024 email: cMomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: f. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire Row requirement for a single family home Is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). if the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Exlsdng fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with =-psi point loading. Access Is required wittdn 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long, Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. April 16, 2614 Page 3 of 4 Police Review Cyndie Parks Ph: 425-430-752 nail: cparksCrentonwa.gov Recommendations: Minimal impact on police services. Estimated CFS Annually; 29 April 16, 2014 Page 4 of 4 glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Doe to the high moisture content, the geo) -ecommends site grading be limited to the summer mono 4. The current surface ti if system development charge (SDC)fee Is $1,228.00 per r . lot Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 5. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. TRANSPORTATIOWSTREET 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is 51,430.72 per new lot The transportation impact fee that Is currant at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SEISE 142 Place was done to determine what, If any Impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This Intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continua to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the Internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the Citys complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new Intemal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking_ As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may Impose left tum restrictions at that Intersection 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an &foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6- 060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 4. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 5. Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. Alt construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rookeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection Is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protaction plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. Technical Services Bob MacOnie Ph: 425-430-7369 email: bmacot ie@nentonwa.gov Recommendations: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA14-000241 and LND-10-0511, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the lies have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAG 332-130-150. Provide tot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the comers of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, If any, The lot addresses will be provided at the time of final plat submittal. Nate said addresses and the street name on the final plat drawing, On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not April 16, 2014 Page 2 of 4 -k'-w4re d � b A � � NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) AM aster Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) --Planning Alvislon of the.Clty of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NoTicE Of APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER. WA14-000241, ECF, PF PROJECTNAME, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site. located within the RA {Residential 4 dwelling units per Aire) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and'a new public.street. The proposed tots would range In size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 ,square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public strget off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA34-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059D57 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed. from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present an the Project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 1403E 156" Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION dF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M). As the lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental imparts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a l?NS- M is Ilkely to be Issued. Comment periods for the Project and the proposed DNS-M are.integrated Into a single comment period. There will be no comment Period following the issuartce of the Thresfwld Determination of Nan-Signiflcanct:- Mit'igated (DAIS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance.of the DNS-K PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION. March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON. Justin Lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC / 967S SE 35y' Street Suite 105, Mercar Island, WA 98040 / EMU just[n@americancWsichomes.com Permits/Review Requested. Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preflminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be.requlred: Construction, Building, Fire {k:ques+ed 5tudlest Dralnage;Report, Gentechnlcal Report, TtaffJc Study . Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic development (CEO)— Planning Division, Sixth'Fiour Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 8805T PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearlag Is tentatively LrWuled for April 23. 2014_before th Renton Hearing Examiner in iienjon Counol Chambers at.10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City. Halt located at 1055 South Grady Way. a you would like to be matte a party or record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this Form and return to-, City of Renton, CED--Planning DWslon,1055 So. Grady Wayr Renton, WA 98057, Name/Flle No.,. The Enclave at Bridle Aklge/WA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME) MAium TELEPHONE NO'.. !:to % , Q 0 `t —'d S 0 5 Jill Ding From: Jill Ding Sent Thursday, April 17, 2014 1132 AM To: jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 This email is to let you know that a reconsideration/appeal has been filed for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge. As such, the hearing scheduled for April 22"d at 10:00 am is cancelled. We will reschedule the hearing at a later date when the City has had time to review and respond to the appeal. As a party of record, you will be informed when a new date and time has been scheduled for the Hearing. Thank you! Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton iding@rentonwa.gov 000423 Jill Dingy From: Jill Ding Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:20 AM To: 'highlands_neighbors@hotmaiLcom'; 'Roger Paulsen'; 'DAVID C MICHALSIG' Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 This email is to let you know that a reconsideration/appeal has been filed for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge. As such, the hearing scheduled for April 22"0 at 10:00 am is cancelled. We will reschedule the hearing at a later date when the City has had time to review and respond to the appeal. As a party of record, you will be informed when a new date and time has been scheduled for the Hearing. Thank you! Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton jding2rentonwa_gov 000424 Denis Law CityQr Mayor I � STY � Apri1,17, 2014 Department of Community and. Economic Development . C.UChp" Vincent,Admin'istrator- M. A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Place : Rehton, WA 98059 'SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge, .f_UA14-p00241, PP- ECF . Dear Mr.'Huniu: This letter it to.inform you, as. a party of record for th lave at' Bridle. Ridge, that an appeal/reconsideration request has been filed and a hea ing originally scheduled for April 22 at' 10:00 am, has been cancelled to all th City. time to review the reconsideration/appeal and prepare a response. ill be informed when a new hearing date -has been scheduled. . Please contact me at (425)-430-6598 or jding@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, , Jill Ding Senior Planner Renton City tlall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 48057 • renfonwa.gov 000425 i �u�9iU-ooL-INl LU i4 1 `%Qao 000426 u March 17, 2014 Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Enclave @ 8ridleRidge LUA14-000241 The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a Preliminary Plat located at 14038 and 14004 1561h Ave SE. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 or fax to (425) 430-7300, by March 31, 2014. Elementary School: Maplewood Elementary Middle School: McKnight Middle School High School: Hazen High Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes X` No Any Comments: Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-6598. y5incely,g Senior Planner Enclosure 000428 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED — Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ :6gq 7a�enton wa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-00024 1, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22od. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5t' Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE Yh Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156 h Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156t' and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 1560' north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5`s Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139 h Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142" d, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156d' north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156"' even more difficult. 000429 The addition of ANY new trips to SE I56th between SE 5t' Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156`h from SE 5`' Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / 142"d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 15e during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the I56`h/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142"d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round -a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -- particularly for those furthest east on SE 5'h Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up -sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents_ Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000430 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side -yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear -yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-411. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your alteration to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 20 deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22' public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22"d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re -posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 000431 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RoP,erAPaulsen2cs.com. Sincerely, Seat Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000432 Lisa Marie McEirea From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 6.09 AM To: 'Roger Paulsen' Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair, jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Thank you for your comments, they will be included in the official land use file. Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7.46 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair; jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Please find attached an electronic copy of my comment letter for the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I'm sending this via e-mail while traveling in order to meet the March 24"' comment period deadline. I'll be entering an area of the country (southern Utah) where Internet access is unreliable. I'm copying my son, Jason Paulsen, on this is so he can address any questions or issues you may have if I'm unable to respond. Jason can be reached at Lsonrnp.aulsen@gmail.com. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication via e-mail to both Jason and me. ThanksH Roger Paulsen ---Original Message ---- From: Jill Ding <JDin Rentonwa. ov> To: Roger Paulsen <roaeraaaulsen(a)cs.com> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbeeaRentonwa.gov7; Lisa Marie McElrea <LMcElreaQRentonwa.gov>; Rohini Nair <RNait@Rentonwa.gov> Sent. Mon, Mar 17, 2014 6:38 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Thank you for your email. Could you send us your mailing address so that we can add you as a Party of Record? The plan reviewer assigned to review the Enclave at Bridle Ridge for utility compliance is Rohini Nair. I have copied her on this email. I do not have her direct line, but she can be reached by contacting the front desk at 425-430-7200. 000433 I primarily work remotely. I do go into Loe office once a week on Thursdays from 1uam-2pm. I will also be happy to answer any questions you have on this project via email. I will let Vanessa respond to your request for public records, as I am not sure if we grant them electronically. Thank you, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [rogerapaulsen@cs.corn] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:41 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Fwd: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Jill, I'm forwarding an e-mail I had copied you on -- but had your address incorrect. Hopefully this one works!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message ---- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(ZD_cs_com> To: VDolbee <VDolbeeaRentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <idin_qCcD_renton_wa,gov>; jasonmpaulsen <iasonmpaulsen(egmail, com> Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 10:37 pm Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, This is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence regarding the project named "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", file number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP (see below). Now that the project has officially been posted, I request to become a party of record. Attached is an electronic copy of the required form, with my contact information. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, I am traveling out of the area, and won't return until after the end of the comment period on March 24th. I am an adjacent property owner (parcel 9425200080), and this project is of vital interest. I had arranged for my son (Jason Paulsen) to watch for official notice of the proposed development, and have been copied on Jason's correspondence with Jill Ding, of your department. Apparently Ms. Doing is out of the office on vacation until March 20th, and was unable to assist Jason in obtaining an electronic copy of information on the project. I'm writing you in the hope that you can help. if possible, I'd like to receive an electronic copy of application materials and supporting studies pertinent to the SEPA decision so that I can comment prior to March 24th closing date. I am especially interested in reviewing the traffic study. I am quite willing to pay the reasonable cost of providing this information. Let me know the best way to provide payment. Now that the project application has been officially accepted by the City, I'd like to pursue my question regarding sewer service. Can you tell me who I can/should contact to determine whether this project will provide an opportunity for adjacent properties to connect to the Renton Sewer system?? Thanks for any help you can provident Roger Paulsen -----Original Message ---- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDalbee(a_Rentonwa.aov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogeraoaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:28 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 000434 Roger, Yes you are correct, as long as you are the property owner. The City uses the King Co. assessors data to mail out to the 300 ft, surrounding neighbors, so whatever address the assessor have for tax purposes is where the City will mail the notice. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430, 7314 From: Roger Paulsen mailto:ro Era aulsen cs_com Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:33 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for the update!! My wife and i will be away from home for the next 6 weeks, so I won't be able to watch for the pink notice posters. Based on my conversation with Chris on Monday, I understand that we'll also receive a letter in the mail because we are within 300 feet of the development. is that correct?? Our property actually abuts the development. We're having our mail forwarded, so I should receive the notice in time to become a party of record, and submit comments on the project. I'm assuming my question about access to the Renton Sewer system will need to wait until the City has actually accepted the application. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message ----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(&Rentonwa.gov> To:'Roger Paulsen' <rogeraAaulsen@cs.com� Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 12:25 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, The name of the project based on your photos is "156t' Ave. SE Assemblage" This project did go through the City's pre -application process but has not been submitted to the City as an official application. The developer is required to install these public notices signs prior to application to the City. At this point in time we do not have an official application to add you to as a party of record. Please keep an eye on the big white sign, once you see a bright pink "notice" poster stapled to the front of the sign, the application has been submitted to the City for review. At this time please contact the identified person at the City that is noted on the pink "notice" sign requesting to be added to the party of records list. Please let me know if you have any other questions. 000435 Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerap-auisen(a-)cs.comi Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for getting back to me!!! Attached is a zip file with photos taken of the "Proposed Land Use" sign recently posted on the property. The address is 14038 156th Ave. SE. I believe the project number is 13117. Does that help?? Roger ----Original Message ---- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee &Rentonwa.gov3 To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 5:23 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, have searched the City's permit system for a project with the title "Enclave at Bridle Ridge" or a variation of this title. We do not have any records of a project with this name in our system. Can you please provide me a site address or tax parcel number so I can identify what project you are inquiring about. If you would like to become a party of record for any project, the City has to have an application to assign "you" to. In order to do this I need to identify what application you would like to become a party of record for. Thank you for the additional information. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 000436 From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapa,,senAcs.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:09 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, By way of introduction, my wife and I live on the East Renton Plateau, adjacent to the NE corner of proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I had some questions about the development, and met yesterday with Chris in your department. He suggested that I forward one of my questions to you. Our property has a 50-year old septic system. It's currently functioning correctly, but I anticipate it's life is limited. I wonder if the new development will provide us an opportunity to connect to the Renton sewer system?? If you're not the right person to address this question to, please direct me to someone who can. Although we haven't yet been formally notified of the development, I would like to become a party of record_ Can I do that via this e-mail?? If so, the following is my contact information: Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th PL Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 RoaerAPaulsen(fts.com Thanks!!! Roger 000437 Lisa Marie McElrea From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6.39 AM To: Lisa Marie McElrea Subject: FW: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lual4-000241/ECF/PP Lisa, Could you please include a copy of this email in the LUA14-000241 land use file? Thanks! Jill From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:38 AM To: 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' Cc: Rohini Nair Subject: RE: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Dear Mr. Michalski, Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review. The City is aware of the delay at the 156"' Avenue SE and SE 142"d Place intersection. Unfortunately, the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project. According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 2.3 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development to the City of Renton street system. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22, which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. if you have further comments or concerns, 1 encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again for your comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner From: DAVID C MICHALSKI f mailto:dcmichal@msn.coml Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lual4-000241/ECF/PP 000438 Lisa Marcie McElrea From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:39 AM To: Lisa Marie McElrea Subject: FW; concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Lisa, Could you please include a copy of this email in the LUA14-000241 land use file? Thanks! Jill From: ]ill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:38 AM To: 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' Cc: Rohini Nair Subject: RE: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Dear Mr. Michalski, Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review. The City is aware of the delay at the 156ti' Avenue SE and SE 142"d Place intersection, Unfortunately, the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project. According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 2.3 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development to the City of Renton street system. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22, which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. If you have further comments or concerns, 1 encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again for your comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner From: DAVID C MICHALSKI fmailto:dcmichal@msn.comi Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP 1111111 ICE David Michalski 6525 se 5`h pl Renton, Wa 98059 March 21, 2014 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. 1 live off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156th Ave Se. Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the.., _. traffic on 1S6"' ave se is unbearable. Coming out of any of the side streets off 156,h ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down, there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156th. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, David Michalski Email: dcmichaf@msn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 "6C& V,F,) CITY OF �'tan,,V„N�oE ooN 000440 y7�7 ty off r _ v NOTICE Of APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A M.W ApPlkathm ho been filed and auepted wldh the Oepartnerrt of Cammunhy A E4enomk DMloPmem {CEO) - planning Division of the CRY Of Rentnn, The following briefly descrIbee the appRcatlon and the mansary PuNk APprerala oATt OF KOTIQ OF APPLICATION: March 10, I1314 LAND USE NUMBER: IUAt4-0012241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCJUPTION: Proposed subdMslen of a BA acre project site located within the R-4 [Resldentlel 4 dweinng units per acre] zoning designation. The proposal would result in the emawn. of 32 cols and 2 tracts (Tract, A and B) and a new publk sireeL The proposed lots would range In size from 3,D50 square feet to 12,566 square IeeL Access to the new lots would be provided via a new publk siseet Off of 1551h Avenue SE. A lot line Adjustment (LUA14-0BD350) is proposed between tea poreels L423059aS7 and 14ZM59122 which Mil result in 30,17S square feet of parcel 141-VMM7 being removed from the PfOposed suWMsion. No cdth Al area' are present or The Project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156' Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED [IONS-10): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has detemtined that signlfkant envlonmental Impacts arc ungkey to result ham the proposed project Therefore. as permitted under the KW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton U uslrq the 017I01471 DNS-M Process to 1W notice that a DNS- M it likely to be Issued. Comment periods for the project and the p oPomd ONS-M are Integrated Into a single comment period. There WW be no comment period following the luuance of the Threshold Determination of Na SignBancr Mitigated [ONS-M). A 1"ey appeal period will follow the Issuarnca ofthe DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 20I4 NOTha OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 JLPPUCANT/PROIECr CONTACT PERSON: Justin Laws/ PNW Haldirim LLC f 9675 9E 36' Street Suite 105, Mercer IsLxn* WA 9g04D f EML' justSnpamer+candasskhamesxwm Pennita/Revlew Requested: Fnviranmantal (SEPA1 Retrieve, Pngminary Mat Revl4w Otter Permlb which may be squired: Conftructton, SmUdinL Fire Requested Studies: Dnlnmge RepOM Geateshni"I Rapmt, Traffic Study Location where application may M nvlewed: Oepartntem at Community. Ecorromlc Devdapment (90)-Planning DlvWon, Sixth floor Banton City Hall, 1055 South Gndy, Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: `hc "'"_ "t'^"rt"It, "n.n„i.n nnr aerR x2 2D14 before the Renton Hit.prbw Examiner In Renton [curet Chambe[s at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton Gty Hail located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would Rfre to be made a PW%Y Of record to reecho further information on this proposed project, com9lere this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO - Plermbhg Olvlsim 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA M57. Name/Rle Na- The Enclave at It Ie RidgeAUA14-D00Z41, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADORM: C1ty/%PftMP: TELEPHONE NO: COrasIETMCY OVERVIEW: 2oningfland Use: The subject site Is designated Residential Low Density 1COMPALD1 on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 ortthe City', Zoning Map. Emhvn mental Documents that Evahaft the Proposed Project Environmental [SEPA) Chec%Pst Oavolopment Reguworts Used For Prajaet R9tlgadon: The project will be subject to the ❑ty`s SEPA Ordinance, RMC 4.2.11 Raeldexlal Ilevcfopmene and otter applicable codes and rqulaunns i appropriate. PT_`eMltlgnti.n Mansura': The fallowing Mitigation Measures will likety be Imposed on the propane d prefjem These recommended Mitigation Measures addmsa project Impacts ry covered by existing codes and regulations as creed above. • Prcyed cgnstrtrctfonshoff he mqufmd to coma dY wfth the wMrftted geotechekaImport • prof ell constrcrctfon shag be re9tdred to cnmoy with else sufrfrtfeeed braRk sbWy. Comments an the above applicetion must be submitted lo writing to JIB Ding, senior Plvnnrr, CEO - Ptannhrg Divisia 1053 south Grady Way, Renton, WA 58057, by 5:00 PM On March 2e, 2014. This matter Is also tentaHrey schedule fa a public headn8 On Apra 77, 2014, at 10;W AM, Council Clamber, Seventh Floor, Renton CRY Hen, 1055 Soot Grady War, Renton. H you are Interested In attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure th the hearing ha' riot been rescheduled at (4251 430-6578, If cormmeats cinnot be submitted In writing by the da lndicated above, you may still appear at me hearing and pms&M your comments on the propoa4l before the Heart Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and realm addition information by mall, please contact the project 1Tan4ger. Arrrrma who orbmtts written Comments win autornatical become a party of record And will be na0fhd of any decision an thisproject. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-65W Entl: Iding0rentgriwa,Roy PLEASE INCLUOE THE PmEcr NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION if you would glee to be made a party of record to receive further information On this proposed project. complete It form and retum to: City of Renton, CEO - Plenning OMslon, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/FTle No.: The Enclave at Bridle Rldge/WA34-1=41, ECF, PP NAME: MAKING AOURF_S5: TELEPHONE NO.: - CERTIFICATION cty/StaiiiiMp: r I, ►^� hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted in _ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on r Date: ?—%D Signed:�CHIVLAA STATE OF WASH INGTON ) 5S COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that I horn 0_5 ly )a--, r, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: o V 1 Notary F Notary (Print): n and for the State of Washi 71 Q r4p, ;. I -`" z n A� O ALiA�vr AS R A..........,.-,+vv.,v.vs+ n 'Frnc• A. .. -,I nn I --I of ENTOV4. ,J K A:w.a;;' ��DEPAR�ME147OFCD MLfN ���y�NO ICppE .EVEiQPI1AENF' NN N �ii 151flNf �f T • +PZ '�Sf'eq`,.',C'i' f� A1F IT: # SE 1C{i E�8�f IUI�41 ��`,'z'. l,�';='�'e .. 1•'%.�, 4`!,6?.`. _IX On the 10th day of March, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance and Notice of Application documents. This information was sent to: Agencies See Attached Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC Applicant, Contact Richard Ouimet, Sally Lou Nipert Owners See attached 300' surrounding property owners (Signature of Sender): s F atr- STATE OF WASHINGTON } ����tiN11lf�� Ss 1�11 COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa M. McElrea ,cr signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the us f�nd�Q mentioned in the instrument. .` `<<r, 8-29" Dated: MdAl 10 -� a(L.f Notary (Print): My appointment expires: -10 The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge t_UA14-000241, ECF, PP ,. O;r W A1:" N4ar)y Public in and for the State of Washington ,4�L'sj ao 1 000442 template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015--172°d Avenue 5E Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way 5W Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172°d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred 5atterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa_gov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@d,n,r.wa.eov 000443 template - affidavit of service by mailing 5336700010 1463400075 1463400079 NEVE MARGARET E PAWLIUK JAMI L TARWATER FREDERICK C 14045 156TH AVE SE 14235 156TH AVE SE 14229 156TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059-7400 RENTON, WA 98056 1397500040 1397500050 1397500080 ISHII KAY+WILKINSON DAVID COYLE ROBERT W+KLUG MICHA M OBERENDER DALE C+MONICA 1 15822 SE 143RD ST 15812 SE 143RD ST 15710 SE 143RD ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1397500110 1397500090 1463400080 KING COUNTY-WLRD ADM-ES-0800 MCGAHA RONNIE D SMITH JOHN F+SHARON L 500 4TH AVE 15616 SE 143RD ST 12216 164TH AVE SE SEATTLE, WA 98104 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1463400078 1423059091 1423059013 FORSELL KATHY L LEX TIM+GINA MARGITH SUMPTER DONALD J 15451 SE 142ND PL 13116158TH AVE SE 1215 182ND AVE E RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98059 SUMNER, WA 98390 5336700030 1423059113 1423059030 BAGGETT BRIAN L+KELLY C YOU EVERETT ROBERT P III+BRIGID PENCE ALAN D+DENISE 15436 SE 142ND PL 6716 SE 8TH ST 15812 SE 142NO ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 5336700005 1463400070 1423059041 THORN BURY JAMES D MCCORKLE ROBERT L+SUSAN M THOMPSON DONALD L 14041 156TH AVE SE 14040154TH AVE SE 6715 SE 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 980S9 RENTON, WA 98059 1463400069 1463400067 1463400064 HARSCH PATTI J C/o HARSCH FAMILY DENADEL GARY L+BRENDA 0 FRANKFURTH ANTHONY D TRUST 14013 156TH AVE SE 14009 156TH AVE SE PO BOX 2344 RENTON, WA 98056 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1423059037 1423059050 1463400068 PENARANDA JOSEPH ANDERSON ROGER R+SHIRLEY A DUNNING ROBERT W+DONNA J 6714 SE 7TH ST 15813 SE 141ST ST 16445 SE 16TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 BELLEVUE, WA 98008 1423059028 1423059057 1463400062 MAHONEY JAMES P NIPERT SALLY LOU OVERA ROGER+LINDA J 14011160TH AVE SE 14004156TH AVE SE 14010 154TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 9425200012 9425200080 9425200060 BECK SHAWN M+ERIC A PAULSEN ROGER A MURAYAMA PEGGY H 13928 156TH AVE SE 6617 SE 5TH PL 15649 SE 139TH PL RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 000444 9425200059 9425200050 9425200040 FERENCJOZEF MICHALSKI DAVID C HEMNES VALERIE K 15643 SE 139TH PL 6525 SE 5TH PL 6519 5E 5TH PL RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 9425200030 1423059104 6084200160 HENRICKS SYDNIE M BRYANT VIRGINIA LI PU+QI CHENG 6513 SE 5TH PL 6705 SE 5TH PL 15919 SE 139TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1423059088 1423059090 1423059044 STACHOWIAK C R HUNIU MARY ANN MCCULLOH JASON+JENNIFER 15652 SE 139TH PL 15642 SE 139TH PL 15636 SE 139TH PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1423059087 1423059086 1423059027 FRANK REIKO M JENSEN JUSTIN+COLLEEN WILLOUGHBY WADE V+NANCY PO BOX 2461 6518 SE 5TH PL 15612 SE 139TH PL RENTON, WA 98056 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98056 1463400060 1463400081 1397500100 PHAN TRI HARRISON THERESA CROW SCOTT MATTHEW 2109 BREMERTON AVE NE 14207156TH AVE SE 15606 SE 143RD ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98056 1423059046 6084200180 1397500070 MISHLER BRIAN DAVID TONG JEFF J BARKER SHARON " 13908 156TH AVE SE 67315E 5TH ST 15718 SE 143RD ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 5336700020 9425200010 5336700025 CONNOR MICHAEL & BARBARA WILLETT CAROL+DAVID MACEY TONY LEE+SHIRLEY D 15446 SE 142ND PL 13922 156TH AVE SE 15440 SE 142ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 5336700015 6084200170 1397500060 LINS JOSE ROBERIO S VUE YER+VANG LA MAY RONALD G 10516 172ND CT SE 15925 SE 139TH ST 15802 SE 143RD ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98056 1423059023 OUIMET G RICHARD 2923 MALTBY RD BOTHELL, WA 98012 000445 ] City of� NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) —Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156" Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43,21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nan -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC / 9675 SE 36' Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 / EML: justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building, Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 99057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 22,2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way, If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED— Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 980S7. Name/File No,: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: _-OQ0446 cl.iyv OFF- �Y CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density (COMP-RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the Citys Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the Citys SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The fallowing Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, CED —Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on March 24, 2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22, 2014, at 10.00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 43D-6578. if comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing . Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6S98; Eml: iding@rentonwa.eov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED— Planning Division, 1055 So, Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Rldge/LUA14-W0241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: City/5tate/Zip: 000.447 Dena Law Mayor - - City Offit. Department of Community and'Economic Development March 10, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent; Administrator Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE,36th Street suite 105_ _ Mercer Island,. WA 98040 Subject: Notice of Corn lete Application. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241,.ECF, PP Dear Mr: -Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is. complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore; is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environhi6ntal Review'Committee on March 31, 2014. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continueprocessing your application. :In addi.tio.n, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public. Hearing on April 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM,, -Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055.-South Grady Way, Renton: The applicant or representative(s) of:the applicant are required to be presentat the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 434-6598 if you have'any questions. Sincerely, Jill Ding Senior.Planner. cc G. Richard Oulrnet, Sally Lou NiOrt / owner(s) 000448 Renton City Hall .' 1055 South Grady Way ► Renton;Washington 98057 - rentonwa.9ov City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME. G. Richard Ouimet - as to Parcel B ADDRESS: 2923 Maltby Road CITY: Bothell ZIP: 98012 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 481-5862 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: PNW Holdings, PLC COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-1147 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Justin Lagers COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: 253-405-5587 Justin@americanclassichomes.com PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECTIADDRESS(S)ILOCATIQN AND ZIP CODE: 14038155th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 1423059122 - Parcel A 1423059023 - Parcel B 1423059057 - Parcel C EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RDL - Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NIA EXISTING ZONING: R4 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R4 SITE AREA (in square feet): C R E C 328,129 sq.ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWA TCS E�'J 4 DEDICATED: 79,419 sq.ft. CITY OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCEff 'IAA` IENTS.: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4.45 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 31 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 31 H:10ED1Data\Forms-Templatc$\Seif-Help HandoutsTlanninglmasterapp.doc - 1 - 000449 "' i PROJECT INFORMAT NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 2- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2800 - 3300 sq.ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL I,_1009F• BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): None-9$ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): None NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): None NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A ION continued PROJECT VALUE: $3,000,000.00 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach le al descriltion on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION _L, TOWNSHIP _M, RANGE 5E , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 1, (Print Namels) G. Richard Ouimet , declare under penalty of perjury under.the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) Y the current owner of the property involved in this application or "'-- the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) Signature of Owner/Representative Date ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify That I know or have satisfactory eviden4cc*ei 2&, oaF. u, �1tsigned this instrument and acknowledge it to ber/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. ��1 tit f Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Wash' gton s , 3. i Notary (Print): 70j'y►f',) s;0 J* My appointment expires: r�trt��t���'''�� H:ICEDIDatalForms-TemplateslSeI clp an%dout`sT]anninalmasteravp.doc - 2 - 03/11 000450 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Sally Lou Nipert - as to Parcel AtParcel C ADDRESS: 14004156th Avenue SE CITY: Renton ZIP: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 271-5581 F PLICANT {if other than owner) W Holdings, LLC COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 TELEPHONE NUMBER; 206.588-1147 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Justin Lagers COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: 253405-5587 Justin@americanclassichomes.com PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECTOR DEVELOPMENT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECTIADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 14038156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 1423059122 - Parcel A 1423059023 - Parcel B 1423059057 - Parcel C EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RDL - Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) N/A EXISTING ZONING: R4 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R4 SITE AREA (in square feet): -• 328,129 sq.ft. FEB 2 7 cif ja. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROAPWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 79,419 sq.ft. CITY OF RENTW4 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4.45 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 31 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 31 H:ICED\Data\Fotns-TernplateslSelf--Help HandoutsTlannin&gstempp,doc - I - 000451 °I'll PROJECT INFORMA NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): I. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2800 - 3300 Sq.ft, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 11,10OW-11 TO REMAIN (if applicable): None 4A5 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): None NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): None NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NIA 1 TION continued PROJECT VALUE: $3,000,000.00 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq_ ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. © SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal descri tion on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 14 _, TOWNSHIP _M, RANGE 5E , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 1, (Print Names) _ Sally LoLl Nipert _ , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) X_ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Representlive Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ' / _/_0 u / 1,(R5S W-_7— signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hi a eir free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the�instrument� t O ff Notary Public in and for the Sw of wa ngton N 4 f7�� a i s+ i ry Notary (Print): i '4 jtic My appointment expires: ���►f�'f SFl ` G, 0�4��- H:10ED1Dat&Wo ms-TemplateslSelf=Help Handouts\Pianninglmasterapp,doc - 2 - 000452 U3/11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal descri tion on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 14 _, TOWNSHIP _M, RANGE 5E , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 1, (Print Names) _ Sally LoLl Nipert _ , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) X_ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Representlive Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ' / _/_0 u / 1,(R5S W-_7— signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hi a eir free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the�instrument� t O ff Notary Public in and for the Sw of wa ngton N 4 f7�� a i s+ i ry Notary (Print): i '4 jtic My appointment expires: ���►f�'f SFl ` G, 0�4��- H:10ED1Dat&Wo ms-TemplateslSelf=Help Handouts\Pianninglmasterapp,doc - 2 - 000452 U3/11 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS •. •I lil�ir i}F44F.ii��• ::�•f�i�. �'. �':' .. � �:�7�'.f •4:'� :::::.5. Plat Hama Reservation 4 . . [''�-j7+ } Public Works Approval'1-etter2 Screen€ng Detail 4 Stream or Lake Study, Standafd4 �'I6 Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 !: Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Traffic Study z Urban Design Regulations Analysis4 GW 0. Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 Wetlands ReporMelineatfon 4 :.,.:. .K Appficant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites a AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions SAND 3 Map of View Area 2 AW 3 Photosimulations 2AND3 This requirement may be waived by. 1.. Property Servioes 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning PROJECT NAME: C--C�5, S DATE: �f L06'Z R FEE 2 7 : — CITY f)F PEN i'ON a PLANNING QIVISION WAIVER OF -SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS' FOR -LAND USE APPLICATIONS •"�lii�� `e'�J�,::::::::Ei c ?i�J�•`•i;eii;_;i,cMR chic Calculations 1 k� _ �._ . . � . �;i;ii=r,5:c� i=i:i7i: i�::iici :i::::::::: ;=:7: ::;:.• onstruction Mitigation Description 2A� 04 # y� �y�•{�.��{ :• .[PC Density Worksheet 4 Ec{c?�i:ii:i:i=�=:=i:i: c:2:d;i: i:::fi:•:-:;•r:•:•: •. - Drainage Report2.....- .:.... - i{ '/:+►>I.T�Nt J`�y{ .�'�• '•c�i::. �•[ �•�;•'• .', _ •ram':- . � .:^5''•' y�f•t "=Y- �%o-, ..�•i' ^.•.. K i• i�ryi:='.+! i•h.•i-`}�:4-1 ,.:i::�f'� _ S'. ' :'•.ti. . Envitonmdntal Checkiist 4 ••'r Usting Easements (Recorded COPY) 4 �1� I. Floor Plans sANaa Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 amt.." Habitat Data Report 4 €`72 - Irnigation Plan 4 Landscape flan, Conceptual ..lam. Legal Description 4 Master Application Form 4 Neighborhood Detafl Map,4 This requirement may be waived by: 9. Property Services - 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning PROJECT NAME: PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat 14038156th Avenue SE PRE 13-001566 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division November 26, 2013 Contact information: Planner: Vanessa Dolbee, 425.430.731.4 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Rohini Nair, 425.430.7298 FEB 2 7 ?r,1, Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430.7024 CiTy Cyr w Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430.7290 ,; ;\.,,,�;r't', Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for (and use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting is informal and non -binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). 000455 Fire & Emergency Services ityO Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 11/18/2013 12:00:OOAM TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plc1n Review/Inspector SUBJECT: (156th Assemblage Preliminary Platy PRE13-001566 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. It appears only a dead end 6-inch main is available in this area currently. 2. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 3. fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Dead end streets exceeding 500-feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system, Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not allowed and will not be approved without secondary access roadways being provided: Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. DEPARTMENT OFCOMMUNRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ©� �Li,L�1� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 22, 2013 TO. Vanessa Dolbee, Sr. Planner FROW Rohini Nair, Plan Review SUEUECT: 156a' Assemblage Preliminary plat Preapp 14038156a' Ave SE PRE13-001566 NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non -binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision -makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes j required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above -referenced proposal. The following comments are based on the pre -Application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant - WATER The proposed development is within the Water District 90's water service area. Water availability certificate from the Water District 90 must be provided to the City during the land use application. Approved water plans from the Water District 90 must be provided during the utility construction plan review. SANITARY SEWER 1. Sewer service shall be provided by the City of Renton. 2. The project can get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156`" Ave 5E near the intersection with 5E 14e Street, up to the north property line (on 1561' Ave) of the subject development site. Applicant will extend 8-inch sewer main on the internal public streets and on the private access easement in Lot 7, extending up to the north property line. 3. Each lot can be served by individual side sewers from the sewer main. 4. The development is subject to a wastewater system development charge (SDC) fee. The SDC fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the new home on each lot. The sewer fee for a %-inch or 1-inch meter install is $1,812.00 (2013 rate) or $2033.00 (2014 rate). 5. The Central Plateau Interceptor Special Assessment District.fee (SAD) fee will be applicable on the project. The SAD fee rate when it was established in 2009 was $351.95 plus interest per lot. As of 000457 15611, Assemblage Preliminary Plat Preapp PRE13-001566 Page 2 of 3 November 22, 2013 1112212013, the SAD fee rate per lot is $431.93 plus additional interest per day of $0.05112. The rate that will be applicable on the issuance day of the utility construction permit will be applicable on this project, SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage report complying with the City adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City Amendments will be required. Based on the City's flow control map, the site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Site Conditions). The project is required to use the Flow Control Duration Standard (forested conditions) as the existing pre -developed condition- Refer to Figure 1.1.2.A — Flow chart, for determiningthe type of drainage review required in the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment. Storm drainage improvements on 15e Ave SE may be applicable. Stormwater BMPs applicable to the individual lots must be provided. The drainage report must account for all the improvements provided by the project. 5tormwater improvements based on the drainage report study will be required to be provided by the developer. 2. A geotechnical report for the site is required, Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options with typical designs for the site from the geotechnical engineer, shall be submitted with the application. 3. Surface water system development (SDC) fee is $1,120.00 (2013 rate) for each lot. The SDC fee for stormwater will become $1,229.00 per lot. TRANSPORTATION 1. Payment of the transportation impact fee is applicable on the single family houses at the time of building permit issuance. The current transportation Impact fee rate is $717.75 per single family house. The impact fee for this type of land use will increase on January 1, 2014, to $1,430.72 per single family house. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied, payable at issuance of building permit. 2. 156e' Ave is a Minor Arterial with an available right of way (ROW) width of 60 feet- Based on the Transportation plan for the 156v' Ave corridor, the street will be a Vane roadway with a 12-feet wide center two way left turn lane,11-feet wide thru travel lanes, 5-feet wide bike lane on both sides, gutter, 0.5-feet wide curbs, &feet wide landscaped planters, 5-feet wide sidewalks, storm drainage Improvements, and street lighting. This will require half street right of way dedication of 55 feet (subject to final survey) on the project frontage on 156"' Ave 5E, The half street frontage improvements will be required to be built on the 15e Ave 5f frontage by the developer. 3. According to RMC 4-6-060 section H.2, two means of access is required if the length of the dead end street is greater than 700 feet. The dead end street appears to exceed 700 feet to Lot 18, which is not allowed by code. Dead end street, turnarounds, and secondary access must meet with fire approval and must meet the requirements of section H of RMC 4-6-060. 4. The proposed internal public street that dead ends at the south property line is offset from the existing public street south of the site. A street that will align directly with the existing dead end street south of the site must be considered. S. The internal access is proposed via public residential streets of ROW width 53 feet. The public residential street must have 26-feet paved width, gutter, 0.5-feet wide curb, S-feet wide landscaped H:\CED\Planning\Current Plarming\PREAPPS\13-001566Vanessa\Plan Review Comments PRE13-001566.doc 000458 1561hAssemblage Preliminary Plat Preapp— PRE13-001566 Page 3 of 3 November22, 2013 planter, and 5-feet wide sidewalk as per RMC 4-6-060. Access to lots 7, 8, and 9 is proposed via a 26-feet wide private access road. The private road can have a paved width of 20 feet in the 26-feet wide private access easement. 6. Street lighting is required to be provided on 156u' Ave SE and on the internal public streets. 7. A traffic study is required. The study must include the analysis of the stop sign controlled intersection to the Immediate south of the project, the proposed new roadway Intersection on 1561', and any potential conflicts between these two intersections. Traffic Impact analysis guidelines is attached. 8. All utilities serving the site are required to be undergrounded. 9. Maximum width of single family driveways for two car garage is 16 feet. Refer to RMC 4-4-080 regarding driveway regulations. 10. A minimum separation of 5 feet Is required between driveway and the property fine. 11. Informational comment --traffic safety guidelines include a minimum spacing of 20 feet between driveways. GENERA! COMMENTS 1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, the permit application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and the application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. H:\CED\Planntng\Current Planning\PREAPPS\13-001566Vanessa\Ptah Review Comments PRE13-001566.doc 000459 5d 0�m st DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 26, 2013 TO: Pre -application File No. 13-001566 FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulatioris are available for purchase for $100.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal., The subject property (APN 1423059023 and 1423059122) is located on the east side of 1561h Avenue SE and is addressed as 14038 156 h Avenue SE. There are no mapped critical areas on the subject property. The total area of the subject site is 372,290 square feet (8.55 acres) in area and is zoned Residential —4 dwelling units per acre (R-4). The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into 27 residential lots and two tracts, one drainage tract and one access tract. The residential lots would range in size from approximately 8,050 square feet to approximately 17,442 square feet. Access to the 27 proposed residential lots would be via a new public street dead ending in a cul-de-sac extending from 1560' Avenue SE with an access tract extending off the new road in the northwest corner of the site, proving access for proposed lots 6 — 9. Current Use: There is currently a single-family house on the subject property, which is proposed to be removed. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is zoned Residential-4 dwelling units per acre (R-4). There is no minimum density in the R-4 zone and the maximum density is 4.0 dwelling units per net acre (dufac). The area of public and private streets h.\ced\pianningjcurrent planning}preapps`13-001556.vanessa\pre0i3-001566, assembiage pp, 27-iots, r-4.doc 000460 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat, PRE13-001566 Page 2 of 4 November 26, 2013 and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the "net" site area prior to calculating density. The application materials identified a net site area of 298,821 SF (6.86 acres). Using the net square footage provided, the proposal for 27 lots arrives at a net density of approximately 3.94 du/ac (27 lots / 6.86 acres = 3.94 du/ac), which is within the density range permitted in the R-4 zone. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-4 standards" herein). Single family residential development is permitted outright in the R-4 zone. Minimum Lot Size, Width and Depth — The minimum lot size permitted in Zone R-4 is 8,000 square feet except for small lot cluster development where R-8 standards apply. Minimum lot width is 70 feet for interior lots and 80 feet for corner lots; minimum lot depth is 80 feet except for small lot cluster development where R-8 standards apply. The proposal appears to comply with the lot size, width and depth requirements of the zone. Building Standards — R-4 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. The maximum impervious surface would be limited to 55%.. Building height is restricted to 30 feet from existing grade. The proposal's compliance with the building standards would be verifred at the time of building permit review for the new residences to be located an all lots. Setbacks — Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required setbacks in the R- 4 zone are 30 feet for the front yard, 25 feet for the rear yard setback, interior side yards are required to have a 5 foot setbacks and side yard along a street requires a 20 foot setback. The setbacks for the new residences would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Residential Design and Open Space Standards: The Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115 would be applicable to any new residential structures. A handout indicating the applicable guidelines and standards is enclosed. Access/Parking: The applicant has indicated access to Proposed Lots would be via new public roadway extending from 156t' Ave. SE. All lots would be access directly off the new public roadway with the exception of lots 6 — 9, which would be accessed via a shared access tract. The application was not clear as to whether this access is to be a private road or a shared driveway. Below are the standards for both. A shared private driveway maybe permitted for access up to a maximum of four (4) lots. Up to three (3) of the lots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private h:\cedjpianning\current planningjpreapps\13-001565.vanessa\pre013-001566, assemblage pp, 27-lots, r- 4.doc 000461 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat, PRE13-001566 Page 3 of 4 November 26, 2013 driveway. The private access easement shall be a minimum of sixteen feet (16') in width, with a maximum of twelve feet. (12') paved driveway. Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. Private streets will only be permitted if a public street is not anticipated by the Department of Community and Economic - -- Development to be necessary for existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision or to serve adjacent property. Such private streets shall consist of a minimum of a twenty six foot (26') easement with a twelve -foot (12') pavement width. The private street shall provide a turnaround meeting the minimum requirements of this Chapter. No sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements per City Code are required, as well as an approved pavement thickness (minimum of four inches (4") asphalt over six inches (6") crushed rock). The maximum grade for the private street shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%), except for within approved hillside subdivisions. The land area included in private street easements shall not be included in the required minimum lot area for purposes of subdivision. It should be noted that the proposed public road which results in a stub at the southern property boundary is not aligned with the existing right-of-way improvements located one parcel south of the development. Such public roadways shall align in order to make the connections In the future. Landscaping, Except for critical areas, all portions of a development area not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought -resistant, vegetative cover. Development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. The minimum on -site landscape width required along street frontages is 10 feet. In addition, if there is no landscape strip within the right-of-way such as for the private street, then two ornamental trees are required in the front yard setback area of each lot. These trees would need to be planted prior to the final inspection of the building permit. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further general and specific landscape requirements. A conceptual landscape plan would be required at the time of formal Short Plat application. Significant Tree Retention: It appears that several significant trees are located on the proposed project site. Since significant trees (greater than 6-inch caliper) would likely be removed, a tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 30 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. if staff determines that the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2-inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. Critical Areas: There are no mapped critical areas on the subject site. hAceftlanning\current planningjpreapps\13-00156G.vanessa\pre013-001566, assemblage pp, 27-lots, r- 4.doc 000462 156t' Assemblage Preliminary Plat, PRE13-001566 Page 4 of 4 November 26, 2013 Environmental Review; Because this preliminary plat proposal includes more than 9 residential lots, Environmental (SEPA) Review would be required. Note: The fee for Environmental (SEPA) Review is $1,030 0n ($1,000.00 plus 3 % Technology Surcharge Fee). Permit Requirements: Preliminary Plat requests would be processed concurrently with the Environmental (SEPA) Review within an estimated time frame of 10 to 12 weeks, from the time that the application is accepted as complete. Note: The fee for a preliminary plat application is $4,120.00 ($4,000.00 plus 3% Technology Surcharge Fee). Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, impact fees are required. Such fees apply to all projects and would be calculated at the time of building permit application and payable prior to building permit issuance. The fees for 2013 are as follows: • Transportation Impact Fee - $717.75 per new single-family house; • Park Impact Fee - $530.76 per new single-family house; • Fire Impact Fee - $479.28 per new single-family house; and • Renton Schools Impact Fee - $6,395.00 per new single-family house. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Please note that all impact fees will increase in 2014. Note: When formal application materials are complete, the applicant must make an appointment with the project manager, Vanessa Dolbee, to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor public counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Ms. Dolbee may be contacted at (425) 430-7314 or vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. Expiration: Upon approval, preliminary plats are valid for seven years. h:\cedjplanningjcurrent planning\preapps\13-001566.vanessalpre013-001566, assemblage pp, 27-lots, r- 4.doc 000463 Z 4 A I UQLL J, I it J� 67 -A J. zi 10 -- IL V,3L]"Al Not I L IIA z 7 rrmp PI it T it February 25, 2014 CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NARRATIVE Project No. 13117 -- - _ PRELIMINARY PLAT OFTHE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE -RIDGE The project is a proposed single-family residential development of 8.80 acres, known as Tax Parcels 1423059122, 1423059023 and a portion of 1423059057 into 31 single- family residential lots. The property is located approximately at 14038 156th Avenue SE in the City of Renton, Washington. All existing improvements on Tax Parcels 1423059122 and 1423059023 will be demolished or removed during plat construction. Project Contact Information: Developer: PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 688-1147 Engineer/Surveyor: Land Use Permits Required: -Preliminary Plat Approval -Final Plat Approval Environmental Review D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Maher A. Joudi, P.E. -Grading Permit -Building Permit Zoning and Density: The property and adjacent properties are zoned R-4. RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 �1Ty r. L, pE,NTON Current use of Site and existing improvements: The Parcels are currently developed with two single-family residences, a garage and associated gravel driveways. All existing improvements on Tax Parcels 1423059122 and 1423059023 shall be removed. All existing vegetation and trees shall be removed on Tax Parcels 1423059122 and 1423059023 with the exception of 35 trees along the project boundary. A lot line adjustment (LLA) is proposed between Tax Parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in a portion (30,175 s.f.) of Parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed preliminary plat. 000466 Page 2 of 3 Special Site features: None Soil Type and Drainage Conditions: Per the King County Soil Survey, onsite soil consists of AgC, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with slopes ranging from 6-15%. Site runoff travels to the southwest and discharges into .existing -conveyance systems. _ Proposed Use of Property: The Project is the subdivision of two existing parcels (post LLA) zoned R4 (8.8 ac. total) into 31 single-family residential lots, per the City of Renton's subdivision process. This will result in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. Lot square footages range from 8,050 to 12,566 s.f., with no lot sizes below the minimum 8,000 s.f. threshold set by the City. Access, Traffic, and Circulation: The Project will locate its access road as depicted on the attached plan. Access to the subdivision will be from 1561h Avenue SE at two locations. Proposed Site Improvements: Half street improvements on 156 Avenue SE will provide 22 feet of pavement width from centerline of right of way to face of curb and will install curb, gutter, 5 foot sidewalk and 8 foot planter strip on the east side of 156th Avenue SE as per City requirements; this will require a 5.5-foot right of way dedication. An existing water main in 156th will be tapped to serve the proposed development. Sanitary Sewer will be extended from the south from an existing sanitary sewer manhole at 156th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. One detention/water quality pond is proposed within Tract "A" to serve the subdivision. The Project will meet the drainage requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual), as adopted by the City. The project will locate a job shack on the site as prescribed by the contractor during construction. Model homes will be built, however, the lots on which these homes will be built has not been determined at this time. Cut Materials: Approximately 4,495 c.y. of cut and 36,888 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net fill volume is approximately 32,393 c.y. Tree Inventory: Thirty-five of the existing 303 significant trees on site will be retained onsite. There was an opportunity to retain an additional 15 trees located along the site's eastern boundary; however the project arborist has deemed them as either diseased or dangerous. These trees would eventually die and have the potential of being blown over during a storm if they are not removed during construction. Additional trees will be planted to meet the City's tree retention requirements. See tree retention spreadsheet. 000467 Page 3 of 3 Estimated Construction Cost & Proposed Market Value: The approximate construction cost is typical of a subdivision of this size and nature totaling approximately $3,000,000,00. The estimated fair market value of the proposed project is approximately $6,975,000.00. 000468 February 20, 2014 Project No. 13117 CITY OF RENTON CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION REPORT PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE The following is a report of expected construction dates and times, as well as proposed hauling/transportation routes, ESC measures and traffic control plan. Proposed Construction Dates: Clearing, Grading, Utilities and Roads September 2014 - February 2015 Home Construction: April 2015 -- April 2016 Hours and Days of Operation: Monday — Friday, Hours to meet guidelines set forth by City ordinance Proposed Hauling[Transportation Routes: South on 156th Avenue SE to SE 142nd Place, West on SE 142d Place, SE 142"d Place turns into 154th Place SE to Hwy 169, SE Renton Maple Valley Road. ESC Measures: The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Design elements as listed in SECTION VIII (PART A) of Drainage Report shall be imposed to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics during Site construction. Special hours: No special hours proposed for construction at this time. Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: See attached BEER/F FEB 2 7 20 i CITY ��• ..F �.i4 0 tv 000469 City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1. 303 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 57 trees Trees in proposed public streets 46 trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 0 trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers 0 trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. 103 trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 1 200 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained°, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0. 1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 60 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retain 4: 5. 35 treT E D E D 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 26 trees FEB 2 7 Z014 (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12 for number of required replacement inches: 7. 300 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. 2 inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 5: (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. 150 trees '"Measured at chest height. S_ Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 9, Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). .. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. s. The City may require modification otthe tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. R.124131013117\3U)acumentsarportsTreliminarylTreeRetentionWarksheet13117.doc 000470 '2"' DENSITY WORKSHEET —__City of Renton Planning Division ..... ...... 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property. 1. 383,126 square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets" Private access easements"* Critical Areas" Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 79,419 square feet 0 square feet 0 square feet 2. 79,419 square feet 3. 303,707 square feet 4. 6.97 acres 5. 31 units/lots 6. 4.45 = dwellinaKL:�&V E 1) FEB 2 7 2014 C I Y 0 Nun *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be i t .fd lati" development and which are subject to the City"s Critical Areas Reguons including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. R:1201311113117131DocumentsTeports\Preliminmy\density13117,doc 000471 "'0' DRS Project No. 13117 CITY OF RENTON _.._ ENVIRONMENT -AL CHE-CKUST_. .---._... __ __..._ PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE Rlq��CFIVED FEB 2 7 2614 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: CITY 0- pEtvToN PLANNING DMS10,% The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a Proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your Proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the Proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your Proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your Proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your Proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary de- lays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your Proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your Proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. 02014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 1 of 22 City of Rentovlgr2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable. - The Enclave at Bridle Ridge 2:- - Name of applicant: PNW Holdings LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Justin Lagers 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 (206) 688-1147 Contact Person: Maher A. Joudi, P.E. D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 620 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 425 827-3063 4. Date checklist prepared: February 25, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction will start upon the receipt of all required building and construction permits. This is estimated to occur in the winter of 2014. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this Proposal? If yes, explain. Construct 31 single-family residences. 0 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat $EPA Checklist Page 2 of 22 City of Renloe"4" 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this Proposal. Critical Areas Study: Sewall Wetland Consulting Arborist Report: GreenForest, Inc. Geoteehnical Report: Earth Solutions. NW,-LL-C- - - _ .. __..... Traffic Impact Analysis: Traffex Level One Downstream Analysis: D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your Proposal? If yes, explain. None to our knowledge. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your Proposal, if known. Boundary Line Adjustment City of Renton SEPA Determination City of Renton Preliminary Subdivision Approval City of Renton Grading Permit City of Renton Final Subdivision Approval City of Renton Building Permit City of Renton Other Customary Construction Related Permits City of Renton General Construction Stormwater Permit Department of Ecology 11. Give brief, complete description of your Proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe Certain aspects of your Proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.). Subdivide approximately 8.8 acres into 31 single-family lots with a proposed net density of 4.45 du per acre. Access to the subdivision will be from 156tn Avenue SE at two locations. 0 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Prelirninary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 3 of 22 City of RentcM*U 12. Location of the Proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a Proposal would occur -over-a-.range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Project is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The Site is located at 14038 156th Avenue SE and 14004 156th Avenue SE. C 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 4 of 22 City of Rento@M " B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. Gener_W desc i tion of the site (circle ---one r-Faat- - - (ling steep -slopes; - moun al ous er. In general, the majority of the property has slopes that range between 4 to 8%. Generally, the land slopes from the northeast corner of the site to the southwest. b_ What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The northeast corner of the Site has slopes that range between 9 to 15%. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils on the Site are mapped in the Soil Survey of King County, Washington, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and has classified the Site as Alderwood Series, slopes 6-15% (AgC), gravelly sandy loam. Additionally, see attached Geotechnical Report dated d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None to our knowledge. 0 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 5 of 22 City of Rento16 e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the site grading will __.. be —to —construct —the --subdivision roads, utilities and homes. Approximately 4,495 c.y. of cut and 36,888 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net volume is approximately 32,393 c.y. of import. Select fill material will be imported as well as the possibility of exporting unwanted soils. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. There could be a short-term increase in the potential for on -site erosion where soils are exposed during site preparation and construction; however, the Project will comply with all applicable erosion control measures, short term and long term. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 53.3% of the Site will be covered by impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. A temporary erosion control plan will be implemented at the appropriate time. Erosion control measures may include the following: hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, stabilized construction entrance, and other measures which may be used Q 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 6 of 22 City of RentoOW4" in accordance with requirements of the City of Renton. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would -result from- the Proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, gen- erally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short-term emissions will be those associated with construction and site development activities. These will include dust and emissions from construction equipment. long-term impacts will result from increased vehicle traffic. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your Proposal? If so, generally describe. Off -site sources of emissions or odors are those that are typical of residential neighborhoods. These will include automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The Washington Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust. Construction impacts will not be significant and could be controlled by measures such as washing truck wheels before exiting the site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. In addition, dirt -driving surfaces will be watered during extended dry periods to control dust. 02014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Mat SEPA Checklist Page 7 of 22 City of Rento(M841M 3. WATER a. Surface. i. Is there any surface water body - --- on or --in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None to our knowledge. ii. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not to our knowledge. iii. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from sur- face water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None iv. Will the Proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. V. Does the Proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not to our knowledge. ® 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA checklist Page 8 of 22 City of Rent(00"79 vi. Does the Proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, a public sanitary sewer -system will--- be installed --to serve the residential units. There will be no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground. i. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general de- scription, purpose, and ap- proximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. Public water mains will be installed to serve the development. No water will be discharged to the groundwater. ii. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemi- cals....; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material is proposed to be discharged into the ground. The Site will be served by public sanitary sewers and a public water system. ® 2014 D, R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 9 of 22 City of Rento C. Water Runoff (including storm water). i. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quanti- ties,, if known).----Where--will this_.__.._.... water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See attached Level One Downstream Analysis Report. ii. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed stormwater system will be designed to minimize or eliminate entry of waste materials or pollutants to ground water resources and/or surface waters. Oils, grease, and other pollutants from the addition of paved areas could potentially enter the groundwater or downstream surface water runoff. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. A City approved storm drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from storm water runoff. Temporary and permanent drainage facilities will be used to control quality and quantity of surface runoff during construction and after development. @ 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checkiist Page 10 of 22 City of Rent0M 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, vine--maple;--black cottonwood other: (bitter cherry, pacific dogwood) x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, spruce, pine, other: x shrubs x grass (orchard grass) x pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: x other types of vegetation (Deer fern, blackberry, holly, scotch broom) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation within the development area will be removed at the time of development. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Zoning Code. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known or documented within the project area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. None proposed at this time. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. 02014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 11 of 22 City of Rentc 2 birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: crows mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, small rodents, raccoon, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish other: None to our knowledge. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Western King County as well as the rest of Western Washington, is in the migration path of a wide variety of non -tropical songbirds, and waterfowl, including many species of geese. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None proposed. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/or natural gas will serve as the primary energy source for residential heating and cooking within the development. Any wood stoves incorporated into the new residential units will comply with all local and State regulations. 0 2014 R. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 12 of 22 City of Remo W b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. C. What kinds of energy conservation - -- features are included in. the plans of this Proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The required measures of the Washington State Energy Code and the Uniform Building Code will be incorporated in the construction of the residential units. Energy conservation fixtures and materials are encouraged in all new construction. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL* HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this Proposal? If so, describe. There are no known on -site environmental health hazards known to exist today and none will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. i. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. ii. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Special measures are not anticipated. C 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 13 of 22 City of Rento4 b. Noise What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? -------The primary source of off -site noise in the area originates from vehicular traffic present on adjacent streets. ii. What types and levels of noise would be created by or as- sociated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term impacts will result from the use of construction equipment during site develop- ment and residential construction. Construction will occur during the daylight hours, and in compliance with all noise ordinances. Construction noise is generated by heavy equipment, hand tools and the transporting of construction materials and equipment Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increased use of the property by homeowners. iii_ Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction will be performed during normal daylight hours. Construction equipment will be equipped with noise mufflers. ® 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 14 of 22 City of RentG S. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are two single-family homes, out buildings and associated gravel - -- driveways-.. on --the site. The current use of adjacent properties is listed as follows: North: Single Family Residential South: Single Family Residential East: Single Family Residential West: Single Family Residential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. G. Describe any structures on the site. There are two single-family homes, out buildings and associated gravel driveways on the Site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, all existing structures on Parcel No. 142305-9023 (single-family home, driveway, outbuildings) will be demolished. Structures on Parcel No. 1423059057 will remain. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification is Residential, R-4. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential Single Family (RSF) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NIA 02014 D. R. STRONG Consuiting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 15 of 22 City of Rent s h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not to our knowledge. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the -completed project? Approximately 71 individuals will reside in the completed residential development (31 units x 2.3 persons per household = 71.3 individuals). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The existing residence that is to be demolished is not occupied, so no individuals will be displaced. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None at this time. I. Proposed measures to ensure the Proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed development is compatible with the prescribed land use codes and designations for this site. Per the City Zoning Code, the development is consistent with the density requirements and land use of this property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The completed project will provide 31 detached single-family residential homes. Homes will be priced with a market orientation to the middle to high -income level homebuyer. ® 2014 D. R, STRONG consulting Engineers Inc, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 16 of 22 City of Rentt 7 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One middle -income home will be eliminated. C.-Prop osed-measures-to- reduce -or control housing impacts, if any. None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The maximum building height will conform to City of Renton Standards. b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views in the vicinity are not likely to be enhanced, extended or obstructed by development of this project. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? The location of the buildings adheres to or exceeds the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district. The landscaping will be installed at the completion of building and paving construction. A Homeowners Association will maintain the landscaping and common elements. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the Proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will be produced from building lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the site. The light and glare will occur 0 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 17 of 22 City of Rento(w"88 primarily in the evening and before dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? - — Light -and glare from -the project will ------ not cause hazards or interfere with views. c_ What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your Proposal? The primary off -site source of light and glare will be from vehicles traveling along the area roadways. Also, the adjacent residential uses and streetlights may create light and glare. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Street lighting will be installed in a manner that directs the light downward. The proposed perimeter landscaping will create a partial visual buffer between the proposed units and the surrounding neighborhood areas. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Maplewood Heights Park (Approximately 0.37 miles east from the Site). Maplewood Neighborhood Park (Approximately 0.3 miles west from the Site) Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail Site (Approximately 0.3 miles west from Site) CSC 2014 D, R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 18 of 22 City of Rentc&9 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control __._.. __._impacts-- on ---recreation-,— including — recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Park mitigation fees will be paid to the City of Renton. 11 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. There are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the proposed project will be from 156th Avenue SE at two locations. 02014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 19 of 22 City of Rent o b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The nearest public transit stop is approximately 0.12 miles south of the Site at the intersection of 956th Ave SE and -SE 144th Street.-- - C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will have garage and driveway parking spaces. Each home will have a minimum of two -parking spaces per lot. The project will eliminate those associated with the existing residence that is to be demolished. d. Will the Proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including drive- ways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). 1561h Avenue SE will be improved per City of Renton road standards. A new public subdivision road will serve the development in a looped configuration and will provide a stub to the south. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)i water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 297 average daily weekday trips; 23 AM Peak Hour trips; 31 PM Peak Hour trips; Peak hours will generally be T AM — 9 AM and 4 PM — 6 PM. 02014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 20 of 22 Ci1y of Rent "'I g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. None. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, - police protection, health care, schools, other)? if so, generally describe. Yes, the proposal will result in an increase for those services typical of a residential development of this size and nature. The need for public services such as fire and police protection will be typical for a residential development of the size. School age children generated by this development will attend schools in Renton #403 School District. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. In addition to payment of annual property taxes by homeowners, the proponent will mitigate the direct impacts of the proposal through the City's traffic and school mitigation programs, if required. 0 2014 C. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 21 of 22 City of Rent VM 2 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ectrici natura! a at a us e7ic ele hon anitary sewe -- -sesystem, other-: - - - b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Water: Water District 90 Sewer: City of Renton Telephone: Century Link C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledg I understand the lead agency is re- lying on them to(nake its decision. Signature: Mae-rA. Joudi, P.E. DATE SUBMITTED 2014. ® 2014 D- R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 22 of 22 City of Rentooftjs PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: JUSTIN LAGERS 9675 SE 36TH ST, SUITE 105 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 kkif RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: February- 7, 2014 The plat name, ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE THE has been reserved for future use by PNW HOLDING LL6, I certify that I have checked the records of previously issued and reserved plat names. The requested name has not been previously used in King County nor is it currently reserved by any party. This reservation will expire February 7, 2015, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. If the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date it will be deleted. Deputy Auditor Leroy Chadwid 0 RECF �JF ..A FEB 27 CHI` -..KIA9 GOUMY 'ITY 01- !,-ENT C MN 2014, 000494 �i� alkt NfF First A Cflcav Title Team four Fax No. (866) 859-0429 ,R medcan title Insurance Company 81b �cewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phn - (206)615-3206 Fax - (425)551-4107 Kristi K Mathis Michelle Treherne Title Officer __...-- Title Officer (206) 615-3206 (425) 635-2100 kkmathis0fi rstam.com mtreherne0firstam.eom Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 Stewart Street #800, Seattle, WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC File No.: 4220-2206449 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Your Ref No.: Mercer Island, WA 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers Re: Property Address: 14004156th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 FEB 2 7 ,Gi CITY t-- �L�ftir'�{iljv 1JiV1`;IU;+J RM an 7-Ve 000495 Form No. 1068-2 imitment No.:4220-22OW9 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 2 of 10 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRSTAMERICAN TITLEINSURANCE COMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agree to issue a policy to you according to the terms of this Commitment. When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment pate shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment pate, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The General Exceptions and Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions. This Commitment is not valid without Schedule A and Section I and If of Schedule B. First American Title Insurance Company JL tz-," . Kristi Mathis, Title Officer RrstAmencan r-de 000496 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment irn tment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 3 of 10 SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: January 31, 2014 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM Homeowner's Rate ' 3. 4. TAX Standard Owners 1-011cy $ To Fallow $ To Follow $ To Follow Proposed -Insured PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company Simultaneous Issue Rate ALTA Extended Loan Policy $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow Proposed Insured: To Follow (A) The estate or interest in the land described in this Commitment is: Fee Simple (B) Title to said estate or Interest at the date hereof is vested in: Sally Lou Nipert, as her sole and separate property The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. RrMA XMdn Tide 000497 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment .imitment No_: 4220-2206449 Page 4 of 10 SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMIENTS The following requirements must be met: (A) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured. (B) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. (C)-- Documents satisfactory to us creating the Interest in the land and/br the mortgage to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorded: (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions. (E) Releases(s) or Reconveyance(s) of Item(s): (F) Other: (G) You must give us the following information: 1. Any off record leases, surveys, etc. 2. Statement(s) of Identity, all parties. 3. Other: SCHEDULES SECTION II GENERAL EXCEPTIONS PART ONE: A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. E. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (B) or (C) are shown by the public records; (0) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, far services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the escrow or interest or mortgage(s) thereon covered by this Commitment. Frstn r� 000498 form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment imltment No.; 4220-2206449 Page S of 10 SCHEDULE B SECTION II EXCEPTIONS PART TWO: Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction. -The printed -exceptions -and exclusions from the -coverage -of the policy or policies are available from th -- office which issued this Commitment. Copies of the policy forms should be read. 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2143 2. General Taxes for the year 2014, which cannot be paid until the 15th day of February of said year. Tax Account No.: 142305-9057-05 1st Half Amount: $ 626.30 Assessed Land Value: $ 62,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 79,700.00 2nd Ha If Amount: $ 626.29 Assessed Land Value: $ 62,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 79,700.00 Note: Taxes and charges for 2013 were paid in full in the amount of $1,255.68. 3. The taxes for the current year reflect an exemption as allowed under RCW 84.36 for senior citizens. Any curtailment of the exemption may result in an additional amount being due for the current year and for any re -assessment of land and improvement values. 4. Taxes which may be assessed and extended on any subsequent roll for the tax year 2014, with respect to new improvements and the first occupancy which may be included on the regular assessment roil and which are an accruing lien not yet due or payable. 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Operating Agreement of PNW Holdings LLC. According to said Agreement dated May 01, 2012, Robert Gladstein, Michael Gladstein and Joel Mezistrano is/are the manager(s) thereof. Any amendments to said Agreement must be submitted. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the property must be executed by said manager(s) as provided for therein, subject to said amendments, if any. 6. Potential lien rights as a result of labor and/or materials used, or to be used, for improvements to the premises. The Company reserves the right to make additional requirements prior to insuring. An indemnity agreement to be completed by PNW Holdings LLC, is being sent to Closing Escorw and must be submitted to us prior to dosing for our review and approval. All other matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy, Items A through E and G and H on Exhibit B herein will be omitted in said extended coverage mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage policy to be issued. Rr,7Arnakan TA* 000499 Form No. 1068-2 nmitment No.: 4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 6 of 10 7. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitied "City of Renton, Washington Ordinance No. 5465" Recorded: November 05, 2009 Recording No.: 20091105000541 Fii-rtAawkan Me 000500 Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language commitment im€tment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 7 of 10 INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. Potential charges, for the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge, as autharized under RCW 35.58 and King County Code 28.84.050. Said charges could apply for any property that connected to the Icing County Sewer Service area on or after February 1, 1990. Note: Properties located in Snohomish County may be subject to the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charges. B. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, certain format and content requirements must be met (refer to RCW 65.04.045). Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder or additional fees being charged, subject to the Auditor's discretion. C. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. D. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. PTN SEC 14 TWP 23N RGE 5E NW QTR SW QTR SE QTR, KING COUNTY APN : 142305-9057-05 E. All matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage policy to be issued. F. The following deeds affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 36 months of the effective date of this commitment: NONE Property Address: 14004 156th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 NOTE: The forthcoming Mortgagee's Policy will be the ALTA 2006 Policy unless otherwise noted on Schedule A herein. NOTE: We find no judgments or Federal tax liens against the vestee herein, unless otherwise shown as a numbered exception above. NOTE: A FEE WILL BE CHARGED UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THIS COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THIS COMPANY. RrstAmwrran Title 000501 Form No. 1068.2 ALTA Main Language Commitment tmitment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 8 of 10 CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a)"Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b)"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of according to the state law where the land is located. matters affecting the title 2. LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3. EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted In good faith to: comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section II. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this commitment and is subject to its terms. cc: PNW HOLDINGS LLC. cc: Sally Lou Nipert FrrstAnwi-an Ti&- 000502 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain language Commitment fmitment No.; 42201-2206449 Page 9 of 10 " First A. a can First American Tide Insurance Company 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, WA 98101 Piro - (206)615-3206 Fax - (425)551-4107 .� �lf"SflilllCd7'C8t? fi#.ErC prlracy Infprnmation We Ara Committed to Safeguarding Cusmmer InIcirn ation In order to better save your creeds now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certaln Information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with suds information - particularly any personal or finandaf Information. We agree that you have a right to know how we win utilize the personal Information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our subsidiaries we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal Information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information that you provide to us. rt does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from arty other source, such as Information obtained firm a pudic record or from another person or entity. first American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal Information regardless of Its source First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values. Types of lnformatlorr Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpubic; personal Information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and In other communications to us, whether in writing, In person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and a Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Infornmil We request Information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we win not release your Information to nonaffiliated parties except: (I) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such Information WKWi iftely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal puny_ such as quality antra efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide ail of the types of nonpublic personal Information rMed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies Include financial service providers, such as dtle Insurers, property and casualty Insurers, and trust and irvestrrrent advisory companies, or companies Involved In real estate services, such as appraisal canparsles, home warranty companies and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information vie collet, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affdiated companies or to other finaroal Institutions with whom we Or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Farmer Customers Even if you are no longer our Cu5torrra, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We win use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your Information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that Informattm to provide products w services to you. We will use Our best efforts to Gain and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your IMormation will be handled responsibly and In accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that campy with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. Information Obtained Througlh Our Web Site First American Financial Corporation Is se"" to privacy Issues an the Internet. We believe it Is important you know haw we treat the information about you we receive on the Internet. In general, you can visit First American or Its affilates' Web sites on the World Wide Web w'ithoel telling us who you are or revealing any information about yourself. Our Web servers collect the domain narhe% not the email addresses, of visitors. This Information Is aggregated to measure the number of vists, average time spent on the site, pages viewed and similar Information. First Anmalcan uses this information to measure the use of our site and to develop ideas to Improve the content of our site. There are times, however, when we may need Information from you, such as your name and email address. When Infarrnation is needed, we win use our best efforts to let you know at the time of collection how we will use the personal information. Usually, the personal Information we collect Is used only by us to respond to your Inquiry, process an order or allow you to access specific accountiprofile info matfon, If you choose to share any personal Information with us, we will only use it in accordance with the policies outlined above. Business Rdatiortships Furst American FYmanrial Corporation's she and Its affiliates' sites may contain links to other Web sites. While we try to link only to sites that share our high standards and respect for privacy, we are riot responsible for the content or the privacy practices employed by other sites. Cockles Some of First Amerkar s Web sties may make use of cookie" technology to measure site activity and to customize Information to your personal tastes. A cookie is an element of data that a Web site can send to your browser, which may their shore the coolie on your hard drive, FirstAm.com uses stored caokles. The goal of this technology Is to beater serve you when visiting our ate, save you time when you are here and to provide you with a more meaningful and productive Web site experience. Fair Information Values Fairness We consider consumer expectations about their privacy In all our businesses. We only offer products and seivkrs that assure a favorable balance between wnsurmer brerhetitis and consumer privacy. Public Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for society, enhances consumer choice and creates consumer upportunity. We actively support an open public record and emphasize its Importance and contribution to our economy, Use We believe we should behave responsibly when we use Information about a consumer in our business. We will obey the laws gueeming the collection, use and dissemination of data. Accuracy We will take reasonable steps to help assure the accuracy of the data we wleM use and disseminate Where passible, we will take reasonable steps to correct Inaoauate information, When, as with the public record, we cannot cared Inaccurate Iufrornmation, we will take ail reasonable steps po assist consumers In identifying the source of the erroneous data so that the consumer can secure the required corrections. Education We endeavor to edxate the users d our products and services, our employers and others In our industry about the importance of consumer privacy. We win instrui t our ernpboyees on our fair inn anarbon values and on the responsible Cdlecdlon and use or data. We will encourage others In our industry to collect and use information in a responsible manner. Security We will maintain appropriate facifities and systems to protect against unauthorized access to and corruption of the data we maintain_ Form 50-PRIVACY (811AN) Page I of 1 Privacy Information (2001-2010 First American Financial Corporation) FirstAmerkan Tfbi' 000503 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain language Cammitment amitment No,: 422U-2206449 Page 10 of 10 FIRST AMERICAN TITLEINSURANCE COMPANY Exhibit"A" Vested Owner: Sally Lou Nipert, as her sole and separate property Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: THE WEST 440 FEET OF THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9057-05 Situs Address: 14004 156th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 5PkAmeriran Me 000504 - I ,n Kn� •,5317! `0420�1- I _816 a a p951180 w 73: - :. 311 .Wl 13691 8a....� 10937 SF 10930 SF 10924 Sr 10957 S8 I091C SF 16057 5E. 9046 9027 9086 9087 9044 9090 9088 100 80 BC Ho30 H4 80 n I N 0 123.75 KCSP 481056- 8109140 F. M S.E. 139TH PL. 653.77 c 55.56 - 7 591.35 42 4 7 79.79 a c]a m 9019 SF 942520 SLOT 1 0010 ry 3 I IAM'S� SUNNYSLO ES 4.54 AC 4 g oua 0060 i i wo :� ..F �`^ N a�x 5 aoso ,`; VOL 73-73 ,7 a •, z 10'Id1 r 10309 S 10304 gh.^y '!� 805g7 SF a-N �.. - - 6 ; �12 -- i0312 S -- 00� 14C29 18-1380�010?w '10296 SEh 10899 Sj�.+� 1.8 i AC 336 a�.ti 50 00 49. �074480 t 9104 311.92 s 88-17-35 E 13. 2 ] {07-82 458.91 uno w o � m ° 9057 Z 41C N88-18-IOW 41U.VJ 1.93 AC 14960! - 0062 " OOfiB 30o H 1s4 so o« x , LOT A M 24900! 344 OOfi4 o P I 150 21641 9F 23764 S- 105, 11 ti 3i 9o5o 9037 903E SHE 80 165 24501 124501 " 0067 >try 9.27 AC a 0069 _ 15E I � 0 O 1862E2! ! �H �`: � ry� 9122 N N8H-26-49w 623. 967 z t N 89-2C-21 w - p 1C9204 ~kk N 0005 mm N 89-31-5H E �? Q n�b2 H LOT B o N 106409 >5.1g 0010� 5 h 30 w 1b i 1 i, O1 AC AC'� 1.14 AC 9048 J } 7 9041 A m]� ry ! J M.'.. !�J '170 .J- 100� 140 N s, 19 1osEbh ;� H U o 4015 +'. �i * 4 KCSP 475042 7508250475 4 -� 4 aJq• 4 (� 4.27 AC m TRCo TRA 6 ` J ,p 10500! m/h , � 1860893 unm � TR B � a�a'o 0 oum .y •,O+o �- 0020 9023 21668'. 5F 13200 s 13200 s losoo! s°, 1 m 9030 9120 NEH-28-09w 624.7.2 9113 Q02a4 �•�g4601{p 1�;.- M„^'„ 72U.36 170 + - $, P. 100 ]00 Oct '! 55 nootx%le ] 621 � �� � vo :,:.. Sep 24-V L&A {. ... George ouimet and Cathleen M, Ou.lmet, hwf °. to John C. NJ,pert and Sally Lou Nipert, htvf tMil -ad/' SAIIY Lou N1per•t being the daughterofi fp c&.8w The W 440 ftof tired 1.00 ft of thePU.j of the SWJ of the of aec 14 -2345 ew n., ezc the w Go ft tbrof, .): n ok ml to rldh, gde 000506 ,V& 8r 3 Le, z o Apr 129-56 Apr3-56 L & A (Non tdbj 211535. George Ouimet andKathleen X Ouimet„ kirk, to John C Nipert and Sally WAU NipPert, Cy andw A 30 ftofw 6o rtof N .goo ftoftheNWL of thoUk- mr t S ti a of sea 14-23-5 ewm InKCW XCNOK MI to -_ F;UySTc 512175 K i I i 1 i 000507 20091105000541.001 Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 -- _ 20091105000541 CITY OF RENTON ORD 76.00 PQGF-001 OF 015 11/95/2009 10:24 KING COUNTY, LIA Plowe print or 1.vc information WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet (RCW 65.04) Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): (all areas applicable to your document must be filled in) 1. Ordinance #5465 2. 3. 4, Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference #'s on page ` of document Grantor(s) (Last name first name, initials) 1. of Renton , _City 2. Additional names on page _ of document_ G rantee(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials) 2. , Additional names on page _ of document. Legal description (abbreviated: i.e. lot block, plat or section, township, range) These portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23. & 24. all in Township 23 north. Range 5 East, W.M., and Sections 18 & 19, both in Township 23 North, Range 6 East, W.M., all in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows... Additional legal is on page of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Number © Assessor Tax # not yet assigned 142305911901 and others The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexin& information provided herein. I am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional fee as provided in RCW 36.19.010. I understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some pare of the text on the original document. Signature of Requesting Party 000508 20091105000541.00' CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. __j45 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO AND/OR BENEFITTING FROM THE CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR PHASE II AND ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE UPON CONNECTION TO THE FACILITIES. TI IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. There is hereby created a Sanitary Sewer Sen-ice Special Assessment District tt)r the area served by the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase 11 project in the northeast quadrant of the City of Menton and -within King County, which area is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. A map of the service area is attached as Exhibit "11". The recording of this document is to provide notification of potential cormcction and interest charges While this connection charge may be paid at any time, the City does not require payment until such time as the parcel is connected to and, thus, benefiting from the sewer facilities. The property may be sold or in any other way change hands without triggering the requirement, by the ('ity, of payment of the charges associated with this district. SECTION[ 11. Persons connecting to the sanitary sewer facilities in this Special Assessment District, and which properties have not been charged or assessed with all costs of the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase 11 as detailed in this ordinance, shall pay, in addition to the payment of the connection permit fee and in addition to the system development charge, the following additional fees: CERTIFICATE 1, the ttmdersigned City Clerk of the City of Renton, Washington, certify that this is a true and correct copy of I Al- QtdaizaJ41L SubscribW mW sealed this —Aday of —,,it , 20Q± city cleric 000509 20091105000641.00: ORDINANCE NO. 5465 A. Per Unit Area Charge. New connections of residential dwelling units or equivalents shalt pay a fee -of $351.,95 per -dwelling unit. . Those..properties_ included within this Special Assessment District and which may be assessed a charge thereunder are included within the boundary legally described in Exhibit "A" and which boundary is shown on the map attached as Exhibit "B". B. Per Unit Fr nta a Charge. There is hereby created a sub -district within the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase 11 Special Assessment District consisting of properties fronting on the sewer. New connections of residential units or equivalents shall pay a fee of $5.810.34 per dwelling unit. The properties to be assessed for the per unit frontage charge are described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. A map identifying the properties within the sub -district is attached as Exhibit "B". The properties located within this sub- district are subject to both charges (Area and Frontage). SECTION M. In addition to the aforestated charges, there shall be a charge of 5.30% per annuin added to the Special Assessment District charge. The interest charge shall accrue for no more than ten (10) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. Interest charges will be simple interest and not compound interest. SECTION IV. This ordinance is effective upon its passage, approval and thirty (30) days alter publication. Z 000510 20091105000541.004 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 6 day of JulY , 2009. Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 6th day of._ July , 2009. &U LU--- Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 7/10/2009 (summary) ORD.1553:5/21 /09:scr 3 000511 20091105000541.00; ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - ... .....____... _ ...AREA ASSESSMENT BOUNDARY.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 & 24, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., and Sections 18 and 19, both in Township 23 North, Range 6 East, W. M., all in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right of way margin of SE 128"i St (NE 4"' Street) and the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, crossing 155c' Ave SE and 156`h Ave SE, to the east line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way margin, crossing 1601h Ave E and the west half of 164'h Ave SE, to the section line common to said Sections 13 and I4; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way, crossing the east half of 164`' Ave SE and 169`h Ave SE, to an intersection with the cast line of the West quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13; Thence southerly along said east line and the Urban Growth Boundary (UBG) line, to an intersection with the north line of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said north line and said UBG line, to the west line of the East quarter of said subdivision; Thence southerly along said west line and said UBG line, to the Northwest corner of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat S90S0040, as recorded in Book 101 of Surveys, Page 236, records of King County, Washington; Thence easterly along the North line of said Lot 1 and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, said Northeast comer also being on the west line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said UGB, crossing 172"4 Ave SE, to the intersection of the easterly right of way margin of 172"d Ave SE and the southerly right of way margin of SE 132"d St.; EXHIBIT A — CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE I OF 6 000512 20091105000541.00E ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence continuing easterly along the southerly right of way margin of SE 132"d St and said UGB line, crossing 173`d Ave SE, 175th Ave SE, 178th Ave SE and the west half of 180th Ave SE, to an intersection with the east fine of said subdivision, said east line also being the west line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence continuing easterly along said southerly right of way margin of SE 132d St and said UGB line;crassing the east halfof 180 Ave SE, 181 Ave S1✓ and 182 Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 182nd Ave SE; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin of 182"d Ave SE and said UGB line, to an intersection with the westerly extension of the northerly right of way margin of SE 130' St; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and the northerly right of way margin of SE 130' St and said UGB line, crossing 182nd Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of] 80 Ave SE in the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way marlin of 184'h Ave SE and its southerly extension and leaving said 116B line, crossing SE 134 St, SE 135" St, SE 136' St and SE 140"' St, to an intersection with the north line of Tract 23, Renton Suburban Tracts Division No. 4, recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, pages 74-76, said records, in Government Lot 4 of said Section 18, TIMI :e easterly and southerly along said north line and the east line of said Tract, to an intersection with titc northeast corner of Renton -Suburban Tracts Division No. 8, recorded in Volittne 69 of Plats, pages 74-76, said records, in said Government Lot 4 of said Section 19, said northcasl corner also being on said UGB line; Thencc southerly along the east Iine of said Plat and said UGB line, to the Southeast corner of said Plat at the southeast corner of Government Lot 1 in said Section 19; '13ience westerly along the courses of the south boundary of said plat and said UGB line, to an intersection with the south line of Renton -Suburban Tracts Div. No. 6, recorded in Volume 66 (If' Plats, pages 33-35, said records, in the Northeast quarter of said Section 24; Thence westerly along the south line of said flat and said UGB line, to the most Southwest corner of said Plat, said Southwest corner also being the Northeast corner of Government Lot 5 of said Section 24, Thence southerly along the east line of said Government Lot 5 and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Lot 31 of Renton -Suburban Tracts Div. No.7, recorded in Volume 69 of Plats, pages 39-41, said records; Thence southwesterly and northwesterly along the south boundary of said plat and said UGB line, to an intersection with the east line of Government Lot 10 of said Section 24, said east line also being the east line of Tract A of Briarwood South No. 6, recorded in Volume 97 of Plats, pages 68 and 69, said records; EXHIBIT A -- CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA AS$ESSMEN-r PAGE 2 of 6 000513 200911050OO541.00; ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along said east line of said Government Lot 10 and said Tract A and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said Tract A; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract A, and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said Tract A, said Northwest corner also being a point on. the _east lisle a - the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Tract C of Skyfire Ridge Div. No. 1, recorded in Volume 141 of Plats, pages 93-99, said records; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract C and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said Tract C, said Northwest corner also being a point on the east line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along said east Iine and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence westerly along the north line of said subdivision and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said subdivision, said Northwest corner also being the Northeast corner of Government Lot 7 of said Section 23; Thence continuing westerly along the north line of said GovermMent Lot 7, to the Northwest corner thereof, said Northwest corner also being the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23; Whence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the Southeast corner of Lot 9, [friar Hills No. 3, recorded in Volume 107 of Plats, page 36, said records, said west line also being the east line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence westerly along the south line of said PIat, to the Southwest corner thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of said Plat, to an intersection with the Southeast corner of Briar Ridge, recorded in Volume 113 of Plats, pages 60 and 61, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat, to the Southwest corner thereof, in Government Lot 1 of said Section 22, said Southwest corner also being a point on the west line of the East half ofthe East half ofsaid Government Lot 1; Thence southerly along said east line, to the northerly bank of the Cedar River; Thence westerly along said northerly bank, to an intersection with the east line of Tract A, Cedar River Bluff, recorded in Volume 172 of Plats, pages 53-56, said records; Thence northerly along said east line, to the Northeast corner of said Tract A; EXH1131T A — CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 3 of 6 000514 20091106000641.= ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence westerly along the north line of said Tract A, to an intersection with the east line of Maplewood Heights, recorded in Volume 78 of plats, pages 1-4, said records; Thence southerly along said east line, to the Southeast corner thereof; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the Southwest comer thereof, said corner .also being -a point on the east line -of Goverrunent Lot 6 of Section 22; -- Thence South 01 °08'21" West, along said east line, to a point 641.73 feet southerly of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 6; Thence North 55*5I'39" West, a distance of 391.81 feet; "Thence North 26°45'23" West, a distance of 494.29 feet, to a point on the north line of said Government Lot 6, said point also being on the south line of the Southwest quarter of Section 15; ']'hence westerly along said south line, and along the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 3945, to the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 15; Thence northerly along the east line of said subdivision and said City Limits, to the Northwest corner of Lot 21, Block 1 of said Maplewood Heights in said Southwest quarter of Section 15; Thence northeasterly along the north line of said Block I of said Plat, to an intersection with the wcst line of Lot 10, East Crest, recorded in Volume 87 of Plats, page 49, said records, in said SOL11liwetit quarter; Thence northerly along said west line, to the Northwest corner thereof, said Northwest corner also being a point on the south line of Tract A, Hideaway Home Sites, recorded in Volume 81 of Plats, pages 88 and 89, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said Tract A, to the Southwest corner thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of said Tract A and the northerly extension of said west line, and along the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 3143, to the south line of the Northwest quarter of Section 22; Thence westerly along said south line and along said existing City Limits and along the south line of Lot 14, Goe's Place, recorded in Volume 85 of Plats, pages 12 and 13, said records, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 14; Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 14, to the Northwest corner thereof; Thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 14, to the Northeast comer thereof; EMBIT A— CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREAASSE5SMENT PAGE 4 OF 6 000515 20091106000541.00i ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along the east line of Lot 13 of said PIat and its northerly extension, to an intersection with the westerly extension of the north line of the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and said north line and along the existing City limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 5074, crossing Duvall Ave NE, to its intersection wit"he -west line ff the Northwest uaiier of said- Section 15; Thence northerly along said west line crossing NE 2"d St, to the most westerly southwest comer of Alder Crossing, recorded in Volume 251 of Plats, pages 37 -42, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the southeast corner thereof; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat, to its intersection with the north line of the south half of the north half of the north half of the north half of said Section 15; Thence easterly along said north line of said subdivision crossing Hoquiam Ave NE and Jericho Ave NE, to the easterly right of way margin thereof; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin, to the Southwest corner of Tract 2, Black Loam Five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 101, said records; Thence continuing easterly along said existing City Limits and the south line of said Tract 2, to the east line of the west half of said Tract 2; Thence northerly along said east line, to the south line of the north 150 feet thereof; Thence easterly along said south line, to the east line of the of the West half of the West half of the East half of said Tract 2; 'thence northerly along said east line, a distance of S feet; Tl}ence easterly along the south line of the north 142 fee thereof, to the east line of the west half of the east half ofsaid Tract 2; Thence southerly along said east line, to the south line of the Northeast quarter of said East half of said Tract 2; Thence easterly along said south line, to the westerly right of way margin of Lyons Ave NE; Thence continuing easterly along the easterly extension of said south line, crossing Lyons Ave NE, to the easterly right of way margin thereof; Thence northerly along said easterly right of way margin, to the southerly right of way margin of NE 4" St EXHIBIT A-- CENTRAL, PLATEAU INTERcEpToR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 5 of 6 000516 20091105000541.01( ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, to the intersection with the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14 and the point of beginning. ExwBiT A- CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA AssesSMENT PAGE 6 OF 6 000517 20091105000641.011 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - -A EA "A" - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot I and Tract B, Carolwood, recorded in Volume I 1 I of Plats, pages 99-100, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot 11, Carolwood No. 2, recorded in Volume 114, page 74, said records; and TOGETI IER WITH that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; and TOGETHER WITH the West 150 feet of the East 180 feet of the North 165 feet of the South half of said Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section I4; and TOGETHER WITH the West 160 feet of the east 190 feet of the South 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOOETHCR WITH the East 165 feet of the West 330 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the North 264 feet thereof, and EXCEPT the South 132 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH the South 20 feet of the North 284 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 330 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the North 120 feet of the South 252 feet of the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 150 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the North 284 feet thereof and EXCEPT the South 252 feet thereof, and TOGETHER WITH the East 230 feet of the South 132 feet of the North 264 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH the West 165 feet of the East 195 feet of the North 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 481066, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8109100503, located in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; LESS Roads. Exhibit A -- Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage - Area A Page 1 of 1 000518 20091105000541.01: ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT -- -- - _ AREA. «g► _ _ -- LEGAL, DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and the 20 feet wide undivided interest parcel lying between said Lot I and Lot 2, of King County Short Plat No. 576015, recorded under King County Recording No. 7905170590, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots I and 2, King County Short Plat No. 677116, recorded under King County Recording No. 7905170582; and TOGETHER WITH Tract A and Tract B of King County Short Plat No. 675021, recorded under King County Recording No. 7602040384; and TOG ETI{ER WITH Tracts 4, 5, 6 and the West 150 feet of the North 80 feet of Tract 7, a]I in Block 3, Cedar Park Five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, page 91, records of King County, Washington. All situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 14 and the North half of Section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Exhibit A - Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage - Area B Page 1 of 1 000519 20091105000541.0V ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES ------ -_ _— - SPECIAL -A SSESS E T-DISTRICT"F AREA "C'" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 thorough S and Lot 17, Ridge Point Estates, recorded in Volume 165, pages 64-65, records of King County, Washington; TOCYL:TI JER WITH that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North. Range 5 North, W.M_, King County, Washington, Iving easterly and southerly of said plat of Ridge Point Estates and westerly of the westerly right of.vay marlin of 154"' 111, SL-' (W.J. Orton Rd); and TOGE'HiER WIT11 the North 133 feet of the East 120 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; and TOGETI IER WITH that portion of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter ot'the Northwest quarter, lying easterly and southerly of Linda Homes, recorded in Volume 74, page 6, said records; and TOGETHER W11I1 that portion of the South half of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, and the south half ofthe Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, both in said Section 23, lying westerly of the westerly right of way niurgin of 156"' Ave SE (Co. Rd. 1049, August E. Gerber Rd.) and easterly of the northeasterly right of'way margin of 154" PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd.); LESS Roads, Exhibit A — Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage - Area C Page 1 of 1 000520 20091105000541.0V ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA "D"-- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots I and 50, Briarwood West, recorded in Volume 93 of Plats, pages 91-92, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots I and 16, Marywood, recorded in Volume 90 of Plats, page 32, said records; and TOGETHER WITH the South 165 feet of the North 195 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS the East 30 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WI ri-i the west 150 feet of said East half of said subdivision, lying northerly of the South 365 feet thereof and southerly of the North 195 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying northerly of the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 1286002, as recorded tinder King County Recording No. 8708140726; and TOGETHER WITH Lot 1 and Lot 2 of King County Short flat No. 1286002, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8708140726, said Lot 2 being later amended by Lot Line Adjustment No. 890718, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9010241356, said lots being a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS Roads. Exhibit A — Central Plateau interceptor SAD, Frontage - Area D Page I of 1 000521 * *WARNING* * PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PRIOR TO CREATING THIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT. • You MUST obtain a signature from an Advisory Title Officer or - - - Underwriter (as applicable in your state and/or�ounty), on the bottom of this page, indicating their approval as to the form and content of the Indemnity Agreement PRIOR to delivery of the document to the Indemnitor for execution ; AND You MUST indicate, on the bottom of this page, if the basic provisions of the Indemnity Agreement form have been modified from its standard form. NOTE: If the Indemnitor requests or makes any modifications to the approved Indemnity Agreement, those modifications must be specifically approved by a State Underwriter. Prepared by: (print name) Standard Form: [ ] Yes [ ] No If No is checked, indicate the Paragraph Number(s) that contain the modified information: THIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR DELIVERY TO THE INDEMNITOR THIS DAY OF 20 BY: Authorized Signatory (print name) 11I,I11--f*l RETAIN THIS .,IGNED COPY OF THIS PAGE _.1 YOUR FILE. THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY- - DO NOT SEND WITHINDEMNITYAGREEMENT 000524 Accepting Office: First American Title Insurance Company Address: 818 Stewart St:, Ste 800, Seattle, WA 98101 OR: 4220-2206449 Filing Reference: INDEMNITY AGREEMENT I (Mechanics' Liens) THIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this Sixth day of February, 2014, by Sally Lou Nipert, (individually and eolEectively, the "Iiidemn'itoe), 1n avorof First American Title Insurance Company, a California corporation and its agents and employees (collectively "First American Title Insurance Company"). RECITALS• A. Indemnitor is the owner of, and/or has, either directly or indirectly, an interest in, the Property or in a transaction involving the Property. B. Construction of certain improvements has or will commence on the Property. C. In connection with a contemplated transaction involving the Property, First American Title Insurance Company has been requested to issue one or more Title Policies in respect to the Property insuring against loss by reason of Mechanics' Liens. D. In connection with future transactions, First American Title Insurance Company may Issue one or more Title Policies insuring against Mechanics' Liens and if First American Title Insurance Company, at its sole discretion, elects to so issue a Title Policy for the Property, it will do so in material reliance on each of the covenants, agreements, representations and warranties of Indemnitor set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: A_QgEEMENj: 1. DEF ONS: As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings: TERM: DEFINITION: Construction. Any and all work, construction and/or placement or segregation of materials which may give rise to the right for liens to be filed against the Property under the applicable statutes and/or equitable laws of the State. Construction All costs, fees, expenses and/or obligations for labor, materials and/or services for or Costs: in connection with, the Construction. Effective Date: The date this Agreement becomes effective in accordance with Paragraph 3 below. Mechanics' Liens All liens or rights to lien existing against the Property or which subsequently attach or are claimed against the Property due to Construction. Policy Date: The date of issuance of a Title Policy for the Property. Property: That certain real property as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. State: The state in which the Property is located. Title Policy(ies): Policy or policies of title insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company with respect to the Property insuring against loss or damage due to Mechanics' Liens. 2. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENAN15. As of the Effective Date, Indemnitor shall be deemed to represent, warrant and covenant to First American Title Insurance Company as to the Property that (a) all sums due and owing for Construction on the Property have been paid or will be paid promptly and in full before the respective times for filing Mechanics' Liens affecting the Property; (b) Indemnitor has funds sufficient to pay all Construction Costs applicable to the Property; and (c) there are no Mechanics' Liens or potential Page 1 of 8 October 2001 Q 2001 First American Tide Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000525 Mechanics' Liens against the Proi .y except as previously specified by Indemr, in writing to First American Title Insurance Company. All representations, warranties and covenants contained herein are material to First American Title Insurance Company decision to issue a Title Policy for the Property. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. Delivery of this Agreement by Indemnitor to First American Title Insurance Company shall not be deemed acceptance of this Agreement by First American Title Insurance Company or a commitment to issue a Title Policy for the Property. First American Title Insurance Company has no duty to Indemnitor to accept this Agreement or, in the future, to agree to Issue a Title Policy for the Property. Upon acceptance of this Agreement by First American Tide Insurance Company as evidenced by the issuance of a Title Policy, this Agreement shall remain in effect as long as First American Title Insurance Company has any possible liability under any Title Policy issued at any time in reliance on this Agreement. First American Title Insurance ..Company -may rely an this Agreement to issue Title -Policy at any time without notice to or further consent -by Indemnitor. 4. MULTIPLE INDEMNITOM. 4.1 Joint and several. If there is more than one Indemnitor under this Agreement, all of the obligations contained in this Agreement shall be the joint and several obligations of each and every Indemnitor. Each Indemnitor shall be fully liable to First American Title Insurance Company even If another Indemnitor is not liable for any reason, including the failure of such Indemnitor to execute this Agreement. 4.2 Waiver and Release. First American Title Insurance Company has the right, in its sole and absolute discretion and without notice to or consent by Indemnitor, to (a) waive any provision of this Agreement as it relates to any Indemnitor, at any time or from time to time, without providing the same or similar waiver for the benefit of any other Indemnitor, and/or (b) release any Indemnitor from any or all obligations under this Agreement at any time or from time to time, without releasing any other Indemnitor. S. INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS, 5.1. Payment of Construction -Costs. Indemnitor covenants and agrees that all Construction Costs on the Property shall be paid promptly and In full before the respective times for filing Mechanics' Liens affecting the Property. 5.2. Indemnity. In addition to any other rights or remedies available to First American Title Insurance Company, at law or in equity, Indemnitor agrees to pay, protect, defend, indemnify, hold and save harmless First American Title Insurance Company from and against any and all liabilities, claims of liability, obligations, losses, costs, charges, expenses, causes of action, suits, demands, judgments and damages of any kind or character whatsoever, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs (including appellate fees and costs) Incurred or sustained by First American Title Insurance Company, and actual attorneys' fees awarded against First American Title Insurance Company, directly or indirectly, by reason of, or arising under any Title Policy relating to Mechanics' liens, or In any other action at law or in equity under any theory of recovery as a result of the existence of Mechanics' Liens. 5.3. Duty to Notify First American Title Insurance Company, In the event that (a) Indemnitor Is in any manner notified of a claim which could affect the interests of First American Title Insurance Company under a Title Policy relating to Mechanics' Liens, or (b) any action is filed at law or in equity or any judicial or non judicial proceeding (including arbitration) is commenced against the Property relating to Mechanics' Liens, Indemnitor agrees to promptly notify First American Title Insurance Company in writing of such claim, action or proceeding as soon as possible of Indemnitor"s acquisition of knowledge thereof but, in no event, later than seven (7) days from receipt of said knowledge. 5.4. Rights and Obligations. Upon the filing of any action at law or in equity or the assertion of any claim, cause of action or judicial or non -judicial proceeding relating to Mechanics' Liens, or at any other time which First American Ttle Insurance Company shall, in its opinion, deem it reasonable to protect itself or its insured(s) under a Title Policy, First American Title Insurance Company shall have the right, but not the obligation, (a) to take such action as First American Title Insurance Company deems reasonable to protect its interest and that of its insured under any Title Policy, and/or (b) to demand that Indemnitor, at Indemnitor's sole cost and expense, promptly do, one or more of the following: (a) Cause a properly executed release of the Mechanics' Lien to be filed of record in the proper governmental office. (b) Cause to be recorded with respect to the Mechanics' Lien a bond releasing the Property from the effect of the Mechanics' Lien, should such bond be available and effective in removing the effect of such Mechanics' Lien from the Property as a matter of law. (c) In situations where affirmative legal action or proceedings at law or in equity are necessary to discharge, eliminate, or remove the Mechanics' Lien with respect to the Property, Indemnitor shall cause (1) counsel selected by First American Title Insurance Company to institute such action or proceeding as is necessary to discharge, eliminate or remove the Mechanics' (Jens as to Page 2 of 8 October 2001 0 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000526 the Property; and (2) such counsel to deliver to First American Title Insurance Company a written representation in a form reasonably satisfactory to First American Title Insurance Company that such counsel (i) has accepted employment as counsel to commence and vigorously prosecute to conclusion such action or procedure, (ii) will promptly undertake any and all steps reasonably necessary to diligently prosecute such action, and (III) will keep informed as to the status of such action or procedure as reasonably requested by First American Title Insurance Company, at no cost or expense to First American Tide Insurance Company. Indemnitor may object to First American Tide Insurance Company choice of counsel for reasonable cause. (d) If an action or proceeding concerning the Mechanics' Lien Is instituted by a third party, -Indemnitor shall causell)-such action or proceeding to be timelydefended- a6d resisted by counsel selected by First American Title Insurance Company which counsel will protect First American Title Insurance Company and any and all insured(s) to whom First American Tide Insurance Company may have possible liability as a result of the issuance of a Title Policy; and (2) such counsel to deliver to First American Title Insurance Company a written representation, in a form reasonably satisfactory to First American Title Insurance Company to the effect that such counsel (I) has accepted employment as counsel to defend any such action or resist any such proceeding, (4) will promptly undertake any and all reasonable steps to protect First American Title Insurance Company and its insured(s), and (iii) will keep First American Title Insurance Company Informed as to the status of such action or procedure as reasonably requested by First American Title Insurance Company, at no cost or expense to First American Title Insurance Company. Indemnitor may object to First American Title Insurance Company choice of counsel for reasonable cause. (e) If the payment of a sum of money will discharge, eliminate or remove the effect of the Mechanics' Lien as to the Property, Indemnitor shall pay such sum as is sufficient to discharge, eliminate or remove the Mechanics' Lien in a manner legally sufficient to effect the release of the Mechanics' Lien of record and shall deliver documents to First American Title Insurance Company, In a form reasonably satisfactory to First American Title Insurance Company. (f) Indemnitor shall take such action with respect to the Mechanics' Lien as First American Title Insurance Company shall, in its discretion, authorize Indemnitor in writing to undertake, provided that any such authority shall not be a waiver by First American Title Insurance Company to require Indemnitor at any time to comply with the foregoing subparagraphs of this Paragraph above, within ten (10) days of First American Title Insurance Company written revocation of authority to take action other than that under any other subparagraphs of this Paragraph, and demand that Indemnitor comply with any other subparagraphs of this Paragraph. 5.5. Interest. Indemnitor agrees that any sums which might be advanced or incurred by Rrst American Title Insurance Company pursuant to this Agreement or by its exercise of any rights hereunder shall be repaid by Indemnitor to First American Title Insurance Company within ten (10) days of Indemnitor's receipt of First American Title Insurance Company written demand, together with interest thereon at four percent (41%) above the reference rate as charged by Bank of America as of the date such sum was advanced by First American Title Insurance Company and continuing until it is repaid in full, but In no event, shall such rate of interest exceed the lesser of; (a) ten percent (10%) per annum, or (b) the maximum rate permitted by law. 5.6. Determination of Coverage. Any determination of coverage by First American Tde Insurance Company shall be conclusive evidence that the matter is within the Title Policy coverage as to the Mechanics' Liens for purposes of this Agreement. If First American Title Insurance Company accepts the defense of a matter within the Title Policy as to the Mechanics' Liens with a reservation of rights, all costs, damages, expenses and legal fees Incurred by First American Title Insurance Company shall be deemed within the terms and obligations of Indemnitor under this Agreement even if the matter is subsequently determined by a court to not be within the Title Policy as to the Mechanics' Liens. 6. REMEDIEF!. Indemnitor specifically acknowledges that upon any default by any Indemnitor under this Agreement after demand by First American Title Insurance Company, First American Title Insurance Company shall have the right to exercise any and all remedies available at law, in equity or under this Agreement against any or all of the Indemnitors, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, specific performance, damages, self-help and/or resort to any collateral held by First American Title Insurance Company to secure the obligations of Indemnitor under this Agreement, Page 3 of 8 October 2001 Q 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000527 7. SUBROGATION AND SUBL iINATION. Indemnitor hereby unconditio, y grants to First American Title Insurance Company any and all rights of subrogation Indemnitor may have with respect to the Mechanics' Liens and agrees to promptly execute any documents with respect to the Mechanics' Liens or any other matter relating to this Agreement request by First American Title Insurance Company with respect to such right of subrogation and to deliver same to First American Title Insurance Company. Indemnitor hereby subordinates any and all debts owed to any Indemnitor from any other Indemnitor to the obligations owed to First American Title Insurance Company under this Agreement. S. FINAN UL INFORMATION. Each Indemnitor represents and warrants to First American Title Insurance Company as of the date of delivery of the financial statements that the statements delivered to First American Title Insurance Company with respect to that Indemnitor: (a) were prepared in accordance with generally - accepted accounting principles ("GAAP') unless otherwise -doted therein; (b) are true, complete -and correct in all -- material respects; (c) disclose all material financial information regarding Indemnitor; (d) fairly represent and present the financial condition and operations of Indemnitor; (e) if said statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP, no GAAP statements and/or audited financial statements exist; and (f) since the date of the financial statements delivered to First American Title Insurance Company, there has been no material adverse change In the financial condition, operations, assets, liabilities, properties or business prospects of Indemnitor. Each Indemnitor agrees to promptly notify (but in no event later than ten (10) days after Indemnitor learns, by any means, of such event) First American Title Insurance Company in writing of any event which would reasonably be anticipated to, or which, in any event, would materially alter or in any material respect change said financial condition, operations, assets, liabilities, properties or business prospects. Upon request by First American Title Insurance Company, each Indemnitor further agrees to deliver to First American Title Insurance Company current financial statements and that by delivery of same, such Indemnitor shall be deemed to make all the same representations and warranties as to the new financial statements as set forth herein above except as otherwise disclosed in writing to First American Tile Insurance Company concurrently with the delivery of the financial statements. Each Indemnitor hereby specifically grants to First American Title Insurance Company and its agents, representatives, and professionals, the right, at any time and from time to time, at the sole cost and expense of Indemnitor, to (a) examine the books, accounts, records and property of Indemnitor pertaining to the financial condition of Indemnitor, (b) furnish to First American Title Insurance Company for examination and copying all such books, accounts, records and other pertinent Information, and/or (c) provide such further assurances as may be reasonably demanded by First American Title Insurance Company. In the event of more than one Indemnitor, each Indemnitor shall independently comply with this paragraph. 9. WAIVERS AND COVENANTS. In the event that Indemnitor is indemnifying First American Title Insurance Company with respect to a Property which is not directly owned by Indemnitor, Indemnitor understands and agrees that First American Title Insurance Company has no obligation to secure an indemnity from the owner(s) of the Property ("Owner"), Indemnitor agrees that the validity of this Agreement and the obligations of Indemnitor hereunder shall in no way be terminated, affected, limited or impaired by reason of (a) the assertion by First American Title Insurance Company of any rights or remedies which it may have under any other indemnity agreement or against any person or entity obligated thereunder or against the Owner, (b) First American Title Insurance Company failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any such right or remedy or any right or remedy First American Title Insurance Company may have hereunder or in respect to this Agreement, (c) the commencement of a case under the Bankruptcy Code by or against the Owner or any person or entity obligated under the law or any other indemnity agreement, or (d) Indemnitor owning less than the entire interest In the Property. Indemnitor further covenants that this Agreement shall remain and continue in full force and effect as to any Title Policies issued at any time by First American Title Insurance Company with respect to the Property and that First American Title Insurance Company shall not be under a duty to protect, secure, insure, or enforce any rights it may have under any indemnity agreement or any other right against any third party, and that other indulgences or forbearance may be granted under any or all of such documents, all of which may be made, done or suffered without notice to, or further consent of, Indemnitor. First American Title Insurance Company may, at its option, proceed directly and at once, without notice, against any Indemnitor to collect and recover the full amount of the liability hereunder or any portion thereof, without proceeding against the Owner or any other person or entity. Indemnitor hereby waives and relinquishes (a) any right or claim of right to cause a marshalling of any Indemnitor's assets; (b) all rights and remedies accorded by applicable law to indemnitors or guarantors, except any rights of subrogation which Indemnitor may have, provided that the assurances and obligations provided for hereunder shall not be contingent upon the existence of any such rights of subrogation; Page 4 of a October 2001 0 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Flights Reserved 000528 (c) notice of acceptance hereof d of any action taken or omitted in relii : hereon; (d) presentment for payment, demand of payment, protest or notice of nonpayment or failure to perform or observe, or other proof, or notice or demand; (e) any defense based upon and election of remedies by First American Title Insurance Company, including without limitation an election to proceed in a manner which has Impaired, eliminated or otherwise destroyed Indemnitor's rights of subrogation and reimbursement, if any, against the Owner or any third party; (f) any defense based upon any statute or rule of law which provides that the obligation of a surety must be neither larger in amount nor in other respects more burdensome than that of the principal; (g) the defense of the statute of limitations in any action hereunder or in any action for the collection or performance of any obligations covered by this Agreement; (h) and any duty on the part of First American Title Insurance Company to disclose to Indemnitor any facts First American Title Insurance Company may now or hereafter know about the Owner, since Indemnitor acknowledges that Indemnitor is fully responsible for being and keeping informed of the financial- conditioh of th -Owner and of all arcurni tances—bearirig-an the risk of nonperformance - of any obligations covered by this Agreement. 10. NOTICE. Any notices, demands or communications under this Agreement between Indemnitor and First American Title Insurance Company shall be in writing, shall include a reasonable identification of the Property together with First American Title Insurance Company order number, and may be given either by personal service, by overnight delivery, or by mailing via United Stated mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to each party as set forth on the signature page of this Agreement. If the address for First American Title Insurance Company is not completed on the signature page, notice to First American Title Insurance Company shall be given to First American Title Insurance Company State office. All notices given in accordance with the requirements in this Paragraph shall be deemed to be received as of the earlier of actual receipt by the addressee thereof or the expiration of ninety-six (96) hours after depositing same in the United States Postal System. 11. MISCELLANEOUS, 11.1. No Waiver. No delay or omission by First American Title Insurance Company In exercising any right or power under this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by First American Title Insurance Company of a breach of any of the covenants, agreements, restrictions, obligations or conditions of this Agreement to be performed by the Indemnitor shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants, agreements, restrictions, obligations or conditions under this Agreement. Furthermore, in order to be effective, any waiver must be in writing executed by First American Title Insurance Company. 11.2. No Third Party This Agreement is only between Indemnitor and First American Title Insurance Company, and is not intended to be, nor shall it be construed as being, for the benefit of any third party. 11.3. !Partial Invalidity. In any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 11.4. Modification or Amendment. Any alteration, change, modification or amendment of this Agreement or any documents incorporated herein, in order to become effective, shall be made by written instrument executed by all parties hereto. 11.5. ExMtion in Counterpart. This Agreement and any modification, amendment or supplement to this Agreement may be executed by Indemnitor in several counterparts, and as so executed, shall constitute one Agreement binding on all Indemnitors, notwithstanding that all Indemnitors are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart. 11.6. Qualification: Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of an Indemnitor which is an entity, represents, warrants and covenants to First American Title Insurance Company that (a) such entity is duly formed and authorized to do business in the State, (b) such person is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of such entity in accordance with authority granted under the organizational documents of such entity, and (c) such entity is bound under the terms of this Agreement. 11.7. Mpraer of Prior Agreements and Understandings. This Agreement and other documents incorporated herein by reference contain the entire understanding and agreement between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties with respect to Mechanics' Dens for future transactions involving the Property and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, shall be of no force or effect. Page 5 of 8 October 2001 O 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000529 11.8. Other. This AgreemL shall be construed according to its fair mE 1g as if prepared by all parties to this Agreement. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State and Indemnitor hereby agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court of First American Title Insurance Company goosing having competent jurisdiction, and to make no objection to venue therein should any action at law or in equity be necessary to enforce or interpret this Agreement. If any action at law or in equity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to have and to recover from the other party its reasonable attorneys' fees and other reasonable expenses in connection with such action or proceeding in addition to Its recoverable court costs. Tides and captions are for convenience only and shall not constitute a portion of this Agreement. The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated into this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or -neuter gender -and -the -singular or plural number shall be -deemed -to include the others wherever and -- whenever the context so dictates. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 12. SECUPXIrY. Indemnitor has or will provide security for this Agreement to First American Title Insurance Company as follows: [ X ] None at this time [ ] Letter of Credit Agreement with Sight Draft Form [ ] Security Agreement* (Nor, Cash) [ ] Control Agreement [ ] Security Agreement* (Cash) [ ] Deed of Trust [ ] Security Agreement (Letter of Credit) [ ] Mortgage A breach by an obligor, pledgor or debtor under any of the foregoing documents as well as any documents which may be referenced in such documents shall be deemed a breach by Indemnitor under this Agreement. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, any sums held by First American Title Insurance Company as security may be held by First American Title Insurance Company in its general accounts and not deposited into an interest bearing account. Indemnitor understands that as a result of maintaining its accounts with a financial institution and its on -going banking relationship with the specific financial institution, First American Title Insurance Company may receive certain financial benefits such as an array of bank services, accommodations, loans or other business transactions from the financial institution ("collateral benefits"). Indemnitor agrees that any and all such collateral benefits shall belong solely to First American Title Insurance Company and First American Title Insurance Company shall have no obligation to account to Indemnitor for the value of any such collateral benefits. If the funds are deposited into a special interest bearing account, all such interest shall be added to and retained in the account as part of the security for First American Title Insurance Company. Any such interest earned shall be attributed for tax purposes to the Indemnitor depositing same. (Note. If security is to be taken, additional forms must be executed. Please be advised that additional documents maybe needed to perfect a personal propertysewrity interest. Please follow directions on said forms as to additional requirements or consult your local underwriter.) 13. ESTOPPEL. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE IN THE PARITY OF THE PARTIES HERETO, INDEMNITOR UNDERSTANDS THAT First American Title Insurance CompanylS UNDERTAKING A RISK SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN THAT UNDERTAKEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF PROVIDING TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES AND REL4 TED SERVICES BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND ISSUING POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE IN RELIANCE ON THIS AGREEMENT, AND, THEREFORE, INDEMNITOR HEREBY DECLARES ITS WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND TO INDUCE First American Tithe Insurance Company TO ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT, REAL LUNG THAT INDEMNITOR'S BEST INTEREST, IN THE OPINION OF INDEMNITOR, IS BEING SERVED THEREBY. Page 6 of 8 October 2001 O 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000530 NQTICE: THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS PROVISIONS WHICH PERSONALLY OBLIGATE INDEMNITOR. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT INDEMNITOR CONSULT LEGAL COUNSEL PRIOR TO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT. INDEMNITORi: Sally Lou Nipert Name: Name: SSN• SSN: ADDRESS FOR NOTICE TO First American Title Insurance Company: (If this information is not completed, please see Paragraph 10.) Notice Address: 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, WA 98101 Requires a UCC Financing Statement to be executed and flied. i All persons/entities erecubing thisAgrmnwtshall be deemed named parties W this Agreement as iftheirname also appeared in the introductory paragraph on page i. Page 7 of 8 October 2001 © 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000531 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Order No. 422072206449 (REQUIRED) Legal Description: THE WEST 440 FEET OF THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST - - ---QUARTER OF -THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST, - - W.M., EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 8 of 8 October 2001 @ 2001 Frst American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000532 Ss wMeC Mrst.merican Firs, American Title Insurance Company 818 Stewart St, Ste B00 Seattle, WA 98101 Phn - (206)615-3206 Fax - (425)551-4107 ESCROW COMPANY INF M ON: Escrow Officer/Closer: BRIE REGALIA SUDDERTH bregallasudderth@flrstam.com First AmericairTitlle Insurance Company 11400 SE 8th St, Ste 250, Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425)455-3400 - Fax: (800)363-0756 Title Team Four Fax No. (866) 859-0429 Kristil K Mathis Michelle Treherne Title Officer Title Officer (206)615-3206 (425)635-2100 kkmathis@firstam.com mtrehemeOfirstam.com Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 Stewart Street #800, Seattle, WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers Re: Property Address: 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 SECOND REPORT File No.: 4243-2195519 Your Ref No,: RECF-I V ED rEP 2 7 CITY 0 FirstAm&kaly 7/da 000533 Form No. lob$-2 ..ornn*nent No.: 4243-2195519 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 2 of 9 COMMITMENT FOR TITTLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRSTAMERICAN TMEINSURANCE COMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agree to issue a policy to you accordn _to_the terms of this Commitment. -- When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The General Exceptions and Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions. This Commitment is not valid without Schedule A and Section I and II of Schedule B. First American Title Insurance Company Kristi Mathis, Title Officer 000534 RrstAmakaa rde Form No. 1068-2 %-ommblent No.: 4243-2195519 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 3 of 9 SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: January 29, 2014 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX Homeowner's Rate with 100/o Combination Discount_-- - _-__Standard Owner's -Policy -- Proposed Insured: PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company Simultaneous Issue Rate with 10% Combination Discount ALTA Extended Loan Policy $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow Proposed Insured: To Follow 3. (A) The estate or interest in the land described in this Commitment is: Fee Simple (B) Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO COMMUNTM INTEREST OF HIS SPOUSE ON OCTOBER 21, 2008, DATE OF ACQUIRING TifLE 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto, 000535 RntAmerica., idle Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment ,ommltment No.. 4243-2195519 Page 4 of 9 SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMENTS The following requirements must be met: (A) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be Insured. (B . . __Pay us the -.premiums, -fees and charges for the policy.- (C) Documents satisfactory to us creating the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorded: (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions. (E) Releases(s) or Reconveyance(s) of Item(s): (F) Other: (G) You must give us the following information: 1. Any off record leases, surveys, etc. 2. Statement(s) of identity, all parties. 3. Other: SCHEDULE B SECTION 11 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS PART ONE: A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof, C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. E. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (B) or (C) are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the escrow or interest or mortgage(s) thereon covered by this Commitment. 171stAmarcan rAYe 000536 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain language Commitment SCHEDULE 8 SECTION II EXCEPTIONS PART TWO: CommFtrnent No.: 4243-2195519 Page 5 of 9 -.—Any -policy- we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction.— The printed exceptions and exclusions from the coverage of the policy or policies are available from the office which issued this Commitment. Copies of the policy forms should be read. 1. Lien of the Beal Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78 %. Levy/Area Code: 2143 General Taxes for the year 2014, which cannot be paid until the 15th day of February of said year. Tax Account No.: 142305-9023-06 1st Half Amount: $ 2,699.94 Assessed Land Value: $ 340,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 36,000.00 2nd Half Amount: $ 2,699.93 Assessed Land Value: $ 340,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 36,000.00 Note: Taxes and charges for 2013 were paid in full in the amount of $5,009.81. 3. Question of identity of the spouse of George Richard Ouimet on October 21, 2008, date of acquiring title. In addition, title is subject to matters which the record may disclose against the name of said spouse. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Operating Agreement of PNW Holdings LLC. According to said Agreement dated May 01, 2012, Robert Gladstein, Michael Gladstein and Joel Mezistrano is/are the manager(s) thereof. Any amendments to said Agreement must be submitted. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the property must be executed by said manager(s) as provided for therein, subject to said amendments, if any. 5. Any and aft offers of dedication, conditions, restrictions, easements, fence line/boundary discrepandes, notes and/or provisions shown or disclosed by Short Plat or Plat of ling County Testamentary Division No. L08M0034 recorded under recording number 20080812900004. 000537 Fi StAM&kan Tee _immbTent No.: 4243-2195519 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Cornmbnent INFORMATIONAL NOTES Page 6 of 9 A. Potential charges, for the icing County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge, as authorized under RCW 35.58 and King County Code 28,84.050. Said charges could apply for any property that connected to the long County Sewer Service area on or after February 1, 1990. Note; Properties located in Snohomish County may be subject to the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charges. B. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, certain format and content requirements must be met (refer to RCW 65.04.045). Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder or additional fees being charged, subject to the Auditor's discretion. C. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and Is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. D. The desorption can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. LOT B, KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIV. NO. L08M0034, REC. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY APN: 142305-9023-06 E. All matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage policy to be issued. F. The following deeds affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 36 months of the effective date of this commitment: NONE Property Address: 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 NOTE: The forthcoming Mortgagee's Policy will be the ALTA 2006 Policy unless otherwise noted on Schedule A herein. NOTE: We find no judgments or Federal tax liens against the vestee herein, unless otherwise shown as a numbered exception above. NOTE: A FEE WILL BE CHARGED UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THIS COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THIS COMPANY. FrrstAmerican 7dYe 000538 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment CONDITIONS Comm tnent No.: 4243-2195519 Page 7 of 9 1. DEFINITIONS (a)"Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b)"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title according_to thestatelaw.wherethe land is located. -- 2. LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule 8 - Section II may be amended to show any defects, [lens or encumbrances that appear for the flml time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3. EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you [view of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to: comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section IT, We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this commitment and is subject to its terms. cc: PNW` Holdings, LLC cc: Richard Ouimet 5�n 000539 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment ;.ommitment No.: 4243-2195519 Page 8 of 9 AL ANrgnr ��4 Aftiit lime c ff►stAmedcan We insurance Company 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, NIA 96101 Phn - (206)615-3206 Fax - (425)551-4107 FirstAin=k nTit% Privrq Infarreration We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Informnation In order to better serve your needs now and In the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain Information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we wly do with such Information - particulary any personal or financial inbmvtion. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us, Therefore, together with our subsidiaries we have adapted this Prmacy Policy to govern the use and handling or your personal Intwrriaation. Applicability This Privacy Pokey gavems our use of the information that you provide to us. it does not govern the manner In which we may use information we have obtained Fran any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guideMcs that govern our use of personal Information regardless of its source. First American calls theft guidelines its Fair Infarnailon Values. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal Information that we may collect umdude: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and In other communications to us, whether in writing, In person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affriial ed companies, or others; and • InfegrWdon we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request Information from you far our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffillated parties except-. (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as par nItted by law. We may, however, store such Wonratlon indefinitely, Including the period after wh'kth arty co tamer relationship has Ceased, Such InA mmatfon may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublk personal Information listed above to one or more of our arfiliarted companies. Such affllfated companies include financial service proMers, such as title Insurers, property and casualty Insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies Involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the Information we collect as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies or to other financial mftydons with whom we or our affdhaied companies have joint marketing agreernents. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Rtvaey Poky will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best effa#s to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal Information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or servkes to you. We will use our best a forts to brain and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and h accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Informatlorh Values. We curenty makrtain physical, eledronie, and protedurar safeguards that comply with federal regutatlons to guard your nonpublic personal inforrnatIon. Information Obtained Through Our Web Site First American Financial Corporation is sensitive to privacy issues an the Internet We believe it Is Important you know haw we heat the information about you we receive on the Internet. In general, you can visit First Amerkan or its of Rates' Web sites on the Worid Wide Web without telling us who you are or revealing any information about yourself. Our Web servers collect the domain names, riot the e-mall addresses, of visitors. This Inlemmllon Is aggregated to measure the number of visits, avenge time spent on the site, pages viewed and Vrrrlar information. First American uses this information to measure the use cf our site and to develop ideas to Improve the content of our site, there are times, however, when we may need Information from you, such as your name and emall address. When information is needed, we will use our best efforts to let you know at the time of collection how we win use the personal Information. Usually, the personal hfom:ation we collect is used only by us to respond to your Inquiry, process an order or allow you to access specific accamt/profile infomation. If you choose to share any personal information with us, we will only use A in accord ante wrth the fees outlined above, Business Relationships First Anwrican Financial Corporation's site and fts aFfrfates' sites may coritahn links to other Web sites. While we try to Fink only to sites that share our high standards and respect for privacy, we are not responsible for the Content or the p fvKy practices employed by other SJtes. C.aoldes Some of First American's Web silts may make use of 'cookie' technology to measure site activity and to customize infOrtnation to your personal tastes. A coolie is an element of data that a Web site can send to your browser, which may then shire the cookie on your hard drive. mar stared cookies. The goal of this technology Is to [letter serve you when visMng our site, save you time when you are here and to provide you with a more meaningful and productive Web site e:rperience. Fair Information Values fairness We consider consumer expectations about their privacy in all our businesses. We only offer products and services that assure a favorable hOance between consumer bartef is and consumer Public Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for society, enhances eomarmer &.*a and creates consumer opportunity. We actively support an open public record and ermhastie its Importance and contribution to our eoxnmy. Use We believe we should behave responsNy when we use Information about a consumer in our business. We will obey the laws gweming the collection, use and dissemination of data. Accuracy We will take reasonable steps to help assure the accuracy of the data we eokeLt use and disseminate Where possib€% we win take reasonable steps to tarred khaccurate information. When, as with the public re+card, we cannot correct Inao[urate b3formatlon, we wg take all reasonable steps to assist consumenf in klentifying the source or the erroneous data so that the consumer can serve the required comectiors. Education We endeavor to educate the users of our products and services, our employees and others in our Industry about the Importance of consumer privacy. We will Instruct our employees on our fair infenrration values and on the responsible collection and use of data. We will encourage others In our Industry to culler# and use Information In a responsible manner. Som ty We will maintain appropriate facilities and systems to protect against unauthdrked access to and Corrvptlon of the data we maintain. Form 50-PRIVACY (811/09) Page 1 of 1 Privacy Information (2001-2010 First American Finandal Corporation) 000540 t7rstAnvfkan Me Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Commitment No- 4243-2195519 Page 9 of 9 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Exhibit "A" Vested Owner: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS SPOUSE ON OCTOBER 21, 2008, DATE OF ACQUIRING TITLE Real property -in the County of King State of-WashingK:vn; described as follows: LOT B OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DMSION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 FAST, W.M., KING COUNTY WASHINGTON: LESS NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 440 FEET. Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9023-06 Situs Address: 14038156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 00054'1 Rr5tAMerka,7 Title � UU�� r z� '- msr VOL 73-73 7 ..,.o „ z .4 eC997 S' _ 1U751 iao-,',�:'1U�177.9 8 1029si a; I0a09 Si ' 1a50012 0D30 0059 0070 OOBD, 9104 213'.7 31r.92 5 P8-1",- ,anu )19 ;_...^ caN3e-1a-10k ... .1 ..g7.e2 �5 E 4=8,91 Z5E SF ' 'O „•,>s z n,e ae ti I 4, 0 Fi NOB-18- H L, 1.9'i A 14S60f 0062 ^ " LOT AWKS i 12 'imi m Qom 3RU 0064 K y I50 2164' SF 2316C sF 10�60 E 9050 9037 9C35 24_of 1215Gh I i 0067 ppbg 4. 2 ; Ac 1.5 1:N 202+f m I A ry y 9122 +N o � ld ,p3.____ ,'ci- tr86-z8-09x F7:1.96' V 89-10 cl m 4l rr r .0920E , 0005 aro M P9-31-EB E $i �� 'e,miss 14�'1 G M vn + vi LOT B 001 136401 � � 1.01 TC ..s 14� :Y r,: `v 9048 9041 I 3 nx,n ` Ltl ,� i i 7u +I - loC Inn 15 � 175 3 1 00 � I s` 0015 i KCSP 475042 1 7SM250475 e i 4 7 a7`y 4.27 AC TRC TR 8 a M TRA 1G 380t m�.'� 1a60991 "�" n +a;es ae'a o ✓v ea2a, �7ti. 9023 rcn n-y m w 21660 Sr 13230 S- 1324C S 10500E ¢ -- -> '-----' i"" Z' (�� t48R-2u-99N 621 12 900 912D 9113 ' :r OD2 �aAssfo�Y_ 'K 'T1 F`�� 20.36 7a +i s.P. 10C loc 1 cn .cY25 r_ ., ? 1-T'j s 1 f �g , ' o kJofr -,P�. sE I 26rrj ,44J O (1 Q rum J 2.a2 AG Ul Io-cat �„ Y.� �� 9a13 -. . 93941 y� r 7 ci _, - - l-'N. 132. UO q _'h-• 9.B .00 73=-5i 7 0078 0081 q �, r u —=1: c , s�1s /�ff 30 �3a%JrV '�' } � S EA -8 9 E124a.49 (P) of , o er N 10 rp 9 TR.A ryn 8 7 4 6 pr ais SG03t : is r.^ 'is,�„5P n iwo -. a 2m 'an 4 aa� e caRaLoao o,o .,w 7 �; a 1s-+ y L63 �1 5 GAOL. fliN9-100 '��. ,mro ?• 0 1'.914 SF L432 S= 12022 SP 007D h' 15C?] SO � mn 15C 30 S o '{ 4' 9 0100 L11 .9„ 4- -2 nn5n 1370= ;:L'x 12755 t._. nnon a +'6'° •,,•��. o L:b JI �e. 0090 min DOBD ,'� � -. •,•• - - 20081021000150,00' Filed for Record at Request of & When Recorded Return To G.R.Ouimet 2923 Maltby Road Bothell, WA 98012 E2V68093 10/21/2008 99:48 KING SATAXLE COUNTY, WA j10.00 :0•00 PAG8081 OF Sol PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED (Upon Distribution of Separate Real Properly from Testate Estate) Grantors: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT, Co -Personal Representatives of Estate of Kathleen M. Ouimet, deceased Grantee: GEORGE RICHARD OUTMET Abbreviated Legal Descr.: LOT B, TANG COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO_ L0$M0034, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20080812900004, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel No.: 142305-9023 1. Grantors. We, GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT, are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting Co -Personal Representatives of the Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET, Deceased, King County, Washington, Superior Court Case No. 08-4-01861-7 KNT, 2. Grantee. The Grantee is GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, a married man. 3. Decedent's Estate. Decedent KATHLEEN M. OUIMET died testate on January 27, 2008. On February 29, 2008, Decedent's Will was admitted to probate and Grantors were appointed Co -Personal Representatives of Decedent's estate and granted Nonintervention Powers for the administration of Decedent's estate. 4. Will Provision. Article IV of Decedent's Will provides that the residue of Decedent's estate shall pass to Decedent's children. 5. Real Property. Among the assets of the residue of Decedent's estate is the following described real property located in King County, Washington: LOT B OF KC TESTAMENTARY DIV #L08M0034 REC 20080812900004 BEING NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF STR 14-23-05 LESS N 100 FT OF W 440 FT LESS CO RD TAXABLE PORTION PARTIALLY EXEMPT UNDER RCW 84.36.381 THRU .389 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Number:142305-9023. CHICAGO TITLE IN& CO LJ REF# l.2 7240 - /0 000543 6. Consideration. This conveyance is made in consideration of Decedent's gift in her Will. 7. Conveyance. Grantors convey, grant, and quitclaim to GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET all of the interest of Decedent's estate in the real property described in this Deed (together with all after -acquired title of the Grantors to the real property), which interest represents Decedent's interest in the real property at her death. DATED: %a �%�% ;;,4 0 e Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET, Deceased w. By. � 1 GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, Co -Personal Representative =�A) L't-T SALLY LOUNIPERT, Co -Personal Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET and SALLY LOU NIPERT, known or proved to me to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing Personal Representative's Deed, and acknowledged that they and each of them signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal on: b0_0 4 G K, J6 , ,1-00 0-0, 1 Si tore .�O-v *ly Printed Name 3 1T 00 NOTARY PUBLIC for Washington Residing at: _,eC-7"T-d IV ►,J_� _ , `'+'•••••g�..�•+` My appointment expires on: r_v CIFI _ _ 1 a3 ---r - - 000544 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTO1V STA- NTAR DIVISION King Ctuity N0. - L'O-BMP034 TEST"ENTARY DIVISION iJVOL./PAGE FOR PJCHA" OUIMET LOCATED IN THE S. W. 114, OF THE S.E. 114, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, Wm., KING COUNTY, WASHINCTON �k4M-AU—V BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WF-. UNDERSI-NED OWNERS AT THE MgF RVNbESCRIfXD` 00 HEREW WAKE A 01AMEMgDSM..THEREOF-�' PURSUANT TO KCCIak-DB070A>"., AND ACLARE TA'IS umsiONI TO BE THE GRAPft-!'RFPRFStNTATIDN OKTHE ,t' SAME, AND THAT "o DMSi* IS WADE.IWITH THE'FREk-- ........ CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIJE.DESJRES OF TIIE: OWNER, AS HLED WITH THE SURFRIOR-OXTtr OF THE STATE No. 6ASHIN� COUNTY. UNDER IN WMNESS WHEREOF WE HAVE SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS" 5. CUTOA MATE �Tfl_EEN Q� MAW ��LJ�04 Q� STATE OF WASHIINGTON.) SS COUNTY OF ioNC ON TIFIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED OCIORE ME C Sai�' i4a Ah TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE INDIVIDUAL(S) DESCRIED N AND WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FOREGOING 0IN37RUIRPff. AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE / SHE SrNEA'.YliF SAME H48 AS. VOL.UWAIRY ACT AND DEED. foR'-TkE USES THERIDIN MENTIONED. GWN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL;!EU- THIS DAY OF WARY e� iIN ANU FOR THE':SW.E OF WASHINGTON. MY COMI EXPIRES -El APPROVAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPmEmr AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES APPROVED THIS DAY OF A-.AqT _2DoIL Fw ES srSLRVEYOR, PLATTwc LA 40 S DMM14 KNC CO uNT'rr DEPARTMENT OF 6 EXAMINED AND APPRUJEO THIS 2oas KING COUNTY ASSESSOR DEPUTY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORDiNG NO LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE TINS TESTAMENTARY DIVISION CORRITMY REPRESENTS —AT� A SURVEY MADE Iffy WE 09 UNDER MY DIRECTION IN EGUE:ST OF oCONFORMANCE Wrn4 STATE AND COUNTY STATUTES. fin* IN,. .......... P.L-S. ClUfTIFICATE NO. 40016 lug. Tm RwO.Cm Iwi OW -S mOC1KNAMA4.T. IT M � M ME IDIMI , A N. rm— FOefRIYEM. —s WI mwlyrwn LIM N Al�pa; 511F4 3J3mow-4 OR WT TIE LOTS WY smaw PA00c J Ifooll tw euAalwe Inc AMISTkIPC PFOCEM M AW ac-O "-1 4135 PaRT10tV'OF- Yutakt mIi orwaOPmew S.W. 114, S.E. 1/4, St� OOIIMY Olm&upolm � APPLE MVRDK hftl ZIE FEY931M (6MR fW ORLfMI1EE9 AMY DRAWN DATE! BY: 498 NUMBER!.; DATE! " IAWi IN EFFECT AT rWT TW - - J.A.C. 8/7/20M I 1 CHECKED -:I—! ' SNEED 1 H. N/A I z 1 . M. AWIT T6 A, .1 ISJ& 14 -W, M A- 7. � —1-47 � 7h� tx . IN J�\m - K= CO�WTY, WASHINCTON TEST"ENTARY DIVISION VOLIPAGE PEST4MENTA.RY FOR RICHARD'OUIMET .,-- .DIVISION LOCATED IN THE S. W. 114, OF THE S.E. 114, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 2W. 3 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, M., II •-kIlg.l . .. RING COUNTY, WASHINCTON Co4fty2�9.' LORM0034 20 00004 ............ 21 A*.w Tw W!l� n pw. r?wwq4 I 0.—lm17lM.:AND 42* AAr$ iFfLu .... .. r 0.4 L 9,-42Mll MOU LOT 3 LOT Lor 5 r IDT a �T? Arsp 491o6e GPAFMC SCALE IIffW ------------ 4' N. 91, OF PROr. 'RAS7S VR gMRNGS. i&, ifiwr ar wS *nw WMWr TAX PARM 142J03 ur S.r iC X&EP-W, aoo� jbo P50W— �30,;%, ----------- \ ---------- —-- S.W. mwml� .1 or I I pw sr. amrm EAST,TZ �9 ,ff. foa,"KET Or-� 4b 4fXET, NOTES: 4' pow Frkkv:.: 1. kt^Nwh75 LAST I 7W SOOROYNAtvMM SA�VLWON %JAYWYAEEPAR"EMSDa OEW L#93 . ACORM"W MT! rr. .%J9VMSlox CUMA PM or S� CORM w �� 170T PA"Awl,�OLAofffp REW� sw000mm ncmw or Kl%c mwrt w4"Jam. MACT C KCSP0302-7.V 75 1p SURVEYS: JS W OF - t Rft�Yln OF SL*� M� MXMT JM, PACE M � RMWM#4 ATX MWOWM R�m m � coany, � 4- ww n Nm PLAT nmomm w muArE m, 01 a ...... PAOE 00. IAWWFR RtcoRaWA' no. lRumaw-m Or BOY. C10R Rmw� NOWAMW K wwqmrn TM PAR= T473Z-9013 cm 4m?fr nwWa Poo M M M 0 �AMDV;AV 144M ST. AAO Fa� (Ict lex FOL"D W W rakAND cow A sz- TZM I W� I DOW AM (M�.O AS MVW OW SE ECT�rC=,AE - . A hale Poo WN. MW� DK 70 CUIWWe" W A"} sQr.;b !ml Mr 13T 24 1; S.W- 1/4, SE 1/4,'SEC, 1 .4.'.23 MO"IR.5 FASt'-wu -------- AM-JeW-h 2Ef7.,V' (WAS.) ---------- -m—AWN -NY: GATE: J(�B NUMP; (&M Of WARMS) S.E, 144TH ST i YK J.L.R. 817/200a i 2.boa-sr 1-HEI'KID BY: SCALP SHEET: - OX.H. t"-iw 2 OF Z &J 't.WM KIN. C0'4TY, WASHfACT0]V 7 TA ...TE,'�T AMEM RI DIVISION King Counity W, 0810034 DEC44RA-TION—_.... ol rl­!EsF'PRESENT9 THAT W�-:-114E UNDERSIGNED DWNFRs DF THE LAND HEREN -bESCRWG' DO 1"ER MAKE A TttTAMENTAR? DMSION '-THERFOF.'-- PURSUANT 10 KCc19A4 DA-P70A,F_ AND FKCtARE TFIS OhASIGN TO OF THE CRAPIQr-7_REFIRFSCNTWTION Oi-'7ii SAME, AND TIIA7 SAO WnJON IS MADE *Mt tHE" CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WrFH Vq DESIRES OF THE OWNER, AS FILED %TrH THE SUREFi6it- OF:: THE STATE FASHf'NQjT NTY, UNDER COU 0 IN Wf7NFq"; "HiiiEQl` WE HAVE SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS" 'I& aae_� WKMV IIIIIJI%IIET Lw Nimm co-cl(FOLITOR ,.EcvmR MOE IX "TNkm auIN17 ',IE m mwltEw oVNIET 57ATE OF VIASANGTOIN,)SS CrAAff OF KING ON THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME TEST"ENTARY DIVISION V0LJPAGF FOR RICHARD OUTMET L 0 CA TED IN THE S. W. 114, OF THE S.E. 114, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., TYING COUNTY WASHINCTON TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE JN%ftAL(S) DESCMKO IN AND who EKEGISPED THE WT14N AND FOREG"NG INSTRUMENT. NS ' TRUM ENT. AND MK T T FI�N/ SVIC SC�NEII'-VMt SAME H I �OfLr IS VoLnj�� D DEED, rofvTHE USES Apb PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED. m GIVB UNDER WYHAN AND OMICLAL EAL THISa— DAY OF to K If WTARY 4IN ANu FOR OTA4A 1415ti)7 OF WA,"NUMN. .k MY 11EXPIRES APPROVAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND EWWmiAENTALL IsCIPxEs AppRavED THIS DAY or A-_,WT_20" D S LAIN OR, PI,AT7NM. I LAND US SERVICES DMSION KING COUNry DEPARTMENT OF A=O EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS OF ?Op8 KING COLWW ASSESSOR DEPUTY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR .RECORDING NO 20 80810"! 4 ............ MOH............... .......... LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE www 0NEN� mt orwam 4t 9 R IRE TOWE RWMWW AS A ...... ... M � W � � LINT TIE .. .. -, p 'II" [OLIILRNFMI OF A THIS TESTAMENTARY DMSON CORRECTLY REPRESENTS Im m Tlp r*mwwt 1N PmAiN A SLA-bm 5�m- N A SURVEY MADE BY WE OR UNDER WY DIRECTION IN OR THAT Tw LOIS WuLm WY BE07& 1""M SM PORTION MW. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY STATUTES. THE SOUNI)MY UNE ADAPSMW WCESR OR AI!L EQUEST OF S.W. 114, SE 1/4 51cL 14. NORTIq, I I " AP� RXL RE� � TW 00C� AM -AWN HT' m �a a THw TOE wv� .s. cunnFj� 4006 J.& c. 1 8/7/2008 O.B.H. LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE www 0NEN� mt orwam 4t 9 R IRE TOWE RWMWW AS A ...... ... M � W � � LINT TIE .. .. -, p 'II" [OLIILRNFMI OF A THIS TESTAMENTARY DMSON CORRECTLY REPRESENTS Im m Tlp r*mwwt 1N PmAiN A SLA-bm 5�m- N A SURVEY MADE BY WE OR UNDER WY DIRECTION IN OR THAT Tw LOIS WuLm WY BE07& 1""M SM PORTION MW. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY STATUTES. THE SOUNI)MY UNE ADAPSMW WCESR OR AI!L EQUEST OF S.W. 114, SE 1/4 51cL 14. NORTIq, I I " AP� RXL RE� � TW 00C� AM -AWN HT' m �a a THw TOE wv� .s. cunnFj� 4006 J.& c. 1 8/7/2008 O.B.H. a32 fr] N ZINC COUAITY WASHINCTON T-ES'i�-MENTARY ., i CC .�ORAfO034 . ........... ............ X 0,P93, AND 42' E�701 PROP. or LOT i Lor 4 1 �OT 0 LOT 7 so- T JY4 W. aF ir emmmum h 14' AND 9.1" OF ~1 (Xvt L sawr. P" B'4EtlYN TEE] pp 4' WOOD am. LW 11 4.27 .4CRfT M. II BM, LNC rLYWFW165 54 ---- A-,-y TAX PARCEL 14230-90tJ COA M. Of SE. J�W I AND, IsaM AWE,a TEST"ENTARY DIVISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET LOCATED IN THE S.W. 114, OF THE S.E. 114. OF or'l—fluiv 74, TOWNSHIP ,23 ivurcin, xLq"uz a EAST, FF. YJMC COUNTY, WASHINCTOM VOL./PAGE Lor AVSP 44.9us J T' w. pm'24--:,"423O3-Wd GRAPHIC SCAU 1"-100, TI ------- ------- -- ------ -- a 100 J RASM DF, .99 AMG S-- BM LW TAt PARCEL 14230-*O�O WA,.C, AL 4kow Z,& 0n-,w OF sm I+qN Sr.. ViEW, "Artrcaap W11.51 —1W%lpZ ------------ -=A&: DESM"M Tw I w QWTyt SW. GUARTAR, OF 71� S.E OWTER, TNT PAR= f4230-9OI6 4css M. 7M.m7w Fw. UN*. rw wF m !;MT nomIc NOTES: m , V. LJAF J. 1FGIAAWATT3 A THE BOLMWIFS 9I ON TW SWWY REFRMUir Ims MY, ACft4k OWERSW AmY OlhEMW - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - J. 3MEMSOW P-ALCMAM PM OWM OF 54E+s'E1' WCOR—P W YXxW F4M PAGE W LWDER w. 81 2500mm" REMO= OF � C*JW. MA�� Lmo TR4Cr C krV JWFEREW,R SURVEV,?.' OF somy REMORDEn N PtlY ------------ FACL W LYMER AfCaft� NO. aSDBoaocae prcoftm � 000 mk� xm"wrm ^*qCfD I �*OW MAT AM & �w 171. PACE ft LWMW 06CORD#40 M 7�RM" EX. MR. aMM . ........ 10 FOWL MQW;UW M f/;r Rl� W 4WId' nXM MM ft _AS SrSOIPIH� ... ...... w 1% WD , mw P.RW 5 1-1.51 I-W — FA , swN ot,4Rcawmrrm sx, FYoK rp cmrmL&-nzW x A" (Amv S MCmN cawj7) 14 15 +_ 2� %.- - 21 AM'391277# 2617,72' PEAS.) (BLS OF BEANOAM S.9, 144TH ST L. in c 104, —T, IIA —2 r Drdj-;, I-M., P I WD, N S.W. 114. S.E 1/4.-.&EC. I J-23 NORD!L�IR5 EM,­W.M. ORA 7BY: R� 87;20,M JM wuwwR: Jt07-0 CMLCKED RIF.-I ,3.13,H SCALE! 1, 100' SFJEET: 2 OF 2 31 mr, mzmv mr m x, O rs ♦�'{' ►fit •rF�} f. American Ttle rnsurance Company ar�st#e�+c 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, WA 981oi Phn - (206)615-3206 Fax - (425)551-4107 ESCROW OMPANY INFORMATION: Escrow Of Cer/Lloser: BRIE REGALIA SUDDERTH bregaliasudderth@firstam.com First AMerican TitleInsurance Company -- 11400 SE 8th St, Ste 250, Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425)455-3400 - Fax: (800)363-0756 Title Team Four Fax No, (866) 859-0429 Krlsti K Mathis Michelle Treherne Title Officer Title Officer (206) 615-3206 (425) 635-2100 kkmathis@flrstam.com mtreheme@firstam.com Note: please send King County Recordings to 8i8 Stewart Street #800, Seattle, WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC File No.: 4243-2173612 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Your Ref Na.: Attn: 3ustin Lagers Re; Property Address: To be determined, Renton, WA 98059 THIRD REPORT F/rstAmerlcan Title 000549 Form No. 1068-2 ommitment No.: 4243-2173612 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 2 of 10 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRSTAMERICAN TITLEINSURANCE COMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agree to issue a policy to you according to the terms of this Commitment._- --- - When we show file policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. I€ the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The General Exceptions and Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions. This Commitment is not valid without Schedule A and Section I and II of Schedule B. First American Tit/e Insurance Company Msti Mathis, Title Officer HrstAmencan iISe 000550 Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment :ommf ymnt No.: 4243-2173612 Page 3 of io SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: January 29, 2014 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM General Schedule Rate with 10% TAX combination discount Standard Owner's Policy. roposed Insured: PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company Multiple Coverage Rate ALTA Extended Loan Policy $ To Follow Proposed Insured; $ To Follow $ To Follow To Follow 3. (A) The estate or Interest in the land described In this Commitment is: Fee Simple (B) Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: SALLY LOU NIPERT, AS HER SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows; The farad referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. FrstAm n r� 000551 Form No. 1D68-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment ,mmil-rent No.; 4243-2173612 Page 4 of 10 SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMENTS The following requirements must be met: (A) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured. (B) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. ---(C) _-Documentssatisfaetory to us creating the interesTin the lard and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorders: (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an Interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions. (E) Releases(s) or Reconveyance(s) of Item(s): (F) Other: (G) You must give us the following information: 1. Any off record leases, surveys, etc. 2. Statement(s) of Identity, all parties. 3. Other: SCHEDULE B SECTION II GENERAL EXCEPTIONS PART ONE: A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. S. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. C. Easements, daims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. E. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, daims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (8) or (C) are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or hereafter furnished, Imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, Installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of record for value the escrow or Interest or mortgage(s) thereon covered by this Commitment ,MAmar"„ Me 000552 Form No, 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment )mmitment No.: 4243-2173612 Page 5 of 10 SCHEDULE 8 SECTION II EXCEPTIONS PART TWO: Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction-____ The printed exceptions and exclusions from the Coveiage bf the p6lity_or policies are available from the office which issued this Commitment. Copies of the policy forms should be read. 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2143 2. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for sewer, water and public facilities of City of Renton as disclosed by instrument recorded under recording no. 20091105000541. 3. General Taxes forthe year 2014, which cannot be paid until the 15th day of February of said year. Tax Account No.: 142305-9122-06 1st Half Amount: $ 2,436.80 Assessed Land Value: $ 340,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 0.00 2nd Half Amount: $ 2,436.79 Assessed Land Value: $ 340,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 0.00 Note: Taxes and charges for 2013 were paid In full In the amount of $4,326.59. 4. Taxes which may be assessed and extended on any subsequent roll for the tax year 2014, with respect to new improvements and the first occupancy which may be included on the regular assessment roll and which are an accruing lien not yet due or payable. 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Operating Agreement of PNW Holdings, LLC. According to said Agreement dated May 01, 2012, Robert Giadsteln, Michael Gladstien and Joel Mezistrano is/are the manager(s) thereof. Any amendments to said Agreement must be submitted. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the property must be executed by said manager(s) as provided for therein, subject to said amendments, if any. 6. Potential lien rights as a result of labor and/or materials used, or to be used, for improvements to the premises. The Company reserves the right to make additional requirements prior to insuring. An indemnity agreement to be completed by PNW Holdings, LLC, is being sent to The Closing Escrow Company and must be submitted to us prior to closing for our review and approval. All other matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy. Items A through E and G and H on Exhibit s herein will be omitted in said extended coverage mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage policy to be issued, r�.amwica„ We 000553 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment mmbnent No.. 4243-2173612 Page 6 of 10 7. Any and all offers of dedication, conditions, restrictions, easements, fence line/boundary discrepancies, notes and/or Provisions shown or disclosed by Short Plat or Plat of icing County Testamentary Division No. L08M0034 recorded under recording number 20080812900004. �*'7 ride 000554 Form No. IW-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment )mmltment No.: 4243-2173612 Page 7 of 10 INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. Potential charges, for the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge, as authorized under RCW 35.58 and IQng County Code 28.84.050. Said charges could apply for any property that connected to the King County Sewer Service area on or after February 1, 1990. Note: Properties located in Snohomish County may be subject to the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charges. 8. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. C. Any sketch attached hereto Is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. D. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. LOT A, KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIV. NO. L08M0034, REC. 20080812900004, IQNG COUNTY APN: 142305-9122-06 E. The following deeds affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 36 months of the effective date of this commitment: NONE Property Address: To be determined, Renton, WA 98059 NOTE: The forthcoming Mortgagee's Policy will be the ALTA 2006 Policy unless otherwise noted on Schedule A herein. NOTE: We find no judgments or Federal tax liens against the vestee herein, unless otherwise shown as a numbered exception above. NOTE: A FEE WILL BE CHARGED UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THIS COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THIS COMPANY. RrstAmerkan TAVe 000555 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Pfain Language Cmimitment jmmitment No.: 4243-2173612 Page 8 of 10 CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a)"Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument (b)"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice according to the state law where the land is located. _ of matters affecting the title 2. LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3. EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. if we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not teal us about it in writing. 4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to: comply with the Requirements shown fn Schedule B - Section I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section II. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5. CLAIMS MUST 8E BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this commitment and is subject to its terms. cc: PNW Holdings, LLC cc: Sally Lou Nipert FoStA177&kan r/&- 000556 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment ammbTlent No.- 4243-2173612 Page 9 of 10 FifstAmetkan Title lipsurwee Company 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phn - (206)615-3206 Fax - (425)551-4107 - Fz tam icaa 27de privacy rafornratkm We AM tammitted m safeguarding CrrBbpmer rnfermad" In order to better serve your needs now and in the Aftra, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such fnfonnirtion - particularly any personal or fmandal Information. We agree that you have a right to know how we wid utilize the personal inibm adon you provide to us. Therefore, together with our subsidiaries we have adapted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicabdilty This Privacy Policy governs our use of the infomhaboo that you provide to us. It does not govern the manner In which we may use Information we have ubtained from any other source, such as Information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity, First Arnh"n has also adopted broader guidelnes that govern our use of personal Information regardless of is source. First American calls Vmse guidelines its Fair Infonmatkm Values. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utikft the types of nonpublic personal Infanywtbn that we may Called include: • Infamadon we receive from you on applicatlens, fomms and In other communicatiuns to us, w1nelbher In whiting, in person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affilleted companies, or others; and • Infomration we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request Information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the bereft of arry nonaffiliated party. Trerefwe, we will not release your Idormratlon to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary far us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, stare such Information Irderinitery, Including the period after which any customer relatloosWio has ceased. Such Irt madon may he used for arty Internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or custorn r anatysis. We may also provide all of the types of norrpubfc personal information listed above to one or more of our affilated companies. Such affiliated eompanles Include fnancal sevice providers, such as title Ensurers, property and casualty Insurers, and tnhst and investment advisory companies, or companies Involved In real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty oompanles and escrow compankes. Furthermore, we may also provide all the Information we mAeot, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies or to other financial Institutions with whom we or gum affiliated companies have Joint rnaefming agreements. Forte CusWmers Even If you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confkdendatity and Sawrity We will use our best efforts 6o ensure that no unauthorised parties have access to any of your infom%Ww. We restrict access to nonpublic personal iMorrnation about you to those lydlvkduals and endues Who need to (stow that Imlbrmation to provide products or servioes to you. We will use our best efforts to train and ore see our employees and agents to ensure that your information wm be handled responslely and In accordance with this Privacy Poky and First Amerkmn's Fair Informalka Values. We currently+ malMatn physical, elec3r - and procedural safeguards that comfrry with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. Information Obtained Through Our Web Site First American Financial Corporation Is sensitive to privacy tssrues on the Internet We believe it is Important you know how we treat the Information about you we receive on the Internet. In general, you do visit First Anuertcan or its affirm& Web shies an the Worid Wide Web without telling us who you are or revealing any information about yourself. Our Web servers collect time domain names, not the e-mail addresses, of visitors. 'This Informatim is aggregated to measure the number of vLsits, average time spent on the site, pages viewed and similar Information. First Amercan uses this Information to measure the use of our site and to develop Ideas to improve the mrrWA of am site, There are times, however, when we may need Information from you, such as your name and chill address. When information Is needed, we wig use our best eftrts to let you lames at the tame of mliedlan how we will use the personal Information. usually, the personal information we collect is used only by us to respond to your Inquiry, prvicefs an order or allow you to access specific accohint/profile Information. If you choose to share arty personal Information with us, we wig only use it in accordance with the policies outlined above. Business Relationships First Arne Scan Financial Corporation's site and Its affiliates' sites may contain links to other Web sbm While we try to link only to sites that share our high standards and respect for prhracy, we are not responsible for the corttent or the privacy practices employed by other sites. Cookies Some of First American's Web sites may make use of '%cookie" technology to measure slit actMty and to ca t Mize Information fro your personal tastes. A eookle Is an element of data thhat a Web site can send to your broWWrr which may then store the cookie on your hard drive. ilnj$ M,Si>03 uses stored mokles. The goal of this tectodogy is to better serve you when vtsiing our site, save you time when you are here and to provide you with a more meaningful and productive Web site axpeaienae Fair Infa matl6n Values Fairness We consider Consumer expectations about their privacy In all our businesises. We only offer products and services that assure a favorable balance between consumer benefits and consumer public Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for society, enhances consumer choice and creates consumer opportunity. We actively support an open public retard and ernphasIze its Importance and contribution to our ecomuhry. Use We beleve we should behave responsibly when we use Information about a Consumer In our business. We will obey the laws governing the collection, use and dissmvJm%Jm of data. Accurnscy We will take reasonable steps to help assure the accuracy or the data we ca➢ect, use and dla,eminate Where possible, we will take reasonable steps bo correct Inaccurate Information, When, as with the public record, we cannot correct inaccurate Information, we wl➢ take all reasonable steps to assist consumers In ider4ying the source ar the erroneous data so that the consumer can secure the required correctors. Education We endeavor to educate the users OF our products and services, our employees and driers in our Indus" about the importance of consumer privacy. We will Inslouct our empbyets on our fair Infamaton values and on the responslt* collection and use of date. We wig encourage ot1ws In our industry to mikect and use Information In a responsible manner. Security We will malrrtaln appropriate fatlfdin and systems to protect against unauthorized access to and corruption of bhe data we maintain. Form 50-PRIVACY CEItIJ09) Page 1 of 1 Ptwacy information (2001-2010 First American Financial Corporatian) Aawrkw n, 000557 Form No. IW-2 ALTA Plain Language Cornrnitrnent mmitmnt No.: 4243-2173612 Page 10 of 10 FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Vested Owner: SALLY LOU NIPERT, AS HER SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY Real propertyin the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: LOT A OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., ICING COUNTY WASHINGTON: LESS NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 440 FEET. Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9122-06 Situs Address: To be determined, Renton, WA 98059 FNTtAm»n ri* 000558 5 ,.m •:S .--�s.ss ...� ]u.oz ra. o7 ; 6N�ry N4 a m . ^ 1z2se ,1.9 ' 0 201 22 v i m 9�7010 1035p 5 101So 5 1G75o & 10350 5P 0070 IB]61p a ' w25 1.13 AC 30 i DOM D040 0050 �� 66.1C 8� 577{1 0190 {3141a {TT 61 3917f� 472e1 m 3966tP 0055 59,11 -_ 12544 6F 02DO 0210 0220 0230 0240 0250 I ua T! A OUSTf 2a.01 -- S.E. 138TH PL 741800 ---ry-�------.-__. _-�-- -- ------------ 75 N os OD80 A�15 sea-@ -4 Sa.D2 5 _ 113. 996{1 e1S5� 37 • . _-l3.ca.. n40 .M 50 500 w 0 40 91 So 100 8 BL-Oa-10 LQ--514------------- a °� 12 o m a Son 9.4z ~ Uua3.49 .^ 311. era,v �0 75 9 p a ,� lani CP_-1 m; ^ 4732J - 02f0 ;�ni7{2 0 44961n 17l7f r696f wre! 6 .e4 a 1; So390 N 5 .37 ,�Df00 ^2l, DOW 008D D070 Lot 1 tiw• �.ws w r.mo a130 27 50 40 90 � 16 ^ ,1 ,^ .91 '� 9tl �.a SE 139TH ST 1.OL AC a" ; ^ 15 14 w 13 1� ^ 11 � 1p �•+ iw 49031 ' ^r----- y--•'__"�-�.--`--- S 13790! z ^ z 0 1263a 5P 14 0140 '! q 57 o 104a7 SF 10457 6 10419 s e.w 10125 e �� 5p al 46 •' p' 33.03 68 ---dp0�- 0160 01W O140 lai it ]0433 3! IC44 0120 OI LO 12V5 sF L bg0 1093k CP-I :� fi6g m 19 �20 ?1 ._ -. .._ -.__ 7! _ - ...- .see=1 - C _SS7 fi ... 5.. 1Ll0L 10 c 15 5261! �i la{S3 ^ m�.l - rg. Tl m 43001 n 033 02.00 54006 7 w sa pa... _ i ! � 16 53L71i b °i Z931- 0560 im 185471/0 72s e , s Sol f ^ 01-0 B0 O1n Z022 ! 136a7 6 10937 SF 10930 SF 109.24 Sp L0917 a 1432a S 1605T SFry 9m L80 90X7 9086 9087 �" �W Pma 100 eo W ea 60 123_75 ♦ - J 19 '.� Aa f�,-_? lar•�. z: � yW`hH pt. 68- KCSP4810TH S.E. 139TO P!. O. w eI 55, 6 6 591.J ' Pell SrSF n� r�/y LOT 1 'ee m• 0010 " w e{ " r IAM's� SUNNY SLOPES 4.54 AC •. '' 1A i M1 m q 5 VOL 79-F! ; �� o ' waa a! 10161 1G312 a 30306 ! w 103a4 s 30021 S1" 7 30299 s1k locos SF' a Io5e7 sF 1.65 ac 0012 W50 0059 0070 DM o. 9104 _ - 43e.4L I 40992 sF os 9057 430 ue -1aa ■ 4:0. 6 1.93 x149601 0D52 0068 ]so 1 C0 o F LOT A 349004 0064 30 21641 Sr 13760 SF 150 9050 9037 mw wm 165 180 24504 13450k 0067 0069 1 194202f d 9122 � 1092a1 � 0005 a M e9-31-3/ utl >t O v n 3J 41 m.2 , LOT B ]0640a � 1I 9^1 DOIa LI d S AC 11@ m ({/'`� 1.14 904 �1C F- /`(�� jj - �.! 7 It I ° Moot '1 MIS KCSP 475042 C.0 4 a e),, b + e.27u TRC TRB n .RA ^'� 105001 by4 266a99f r ror „ 0020 4�4:, i 4• u>w - 902.3 fT iih F ® ���I oi-__1,---__J"" ��' p 5511 f}lil 10500f Nee-2c-G9A 624.32 17 s!- S.R. -�vl:.'160�", �.•• - f099113 00 39S 44501q 3 20.34 " i 7'lON•? 65 � q3^ 23^5� • � +160+ys�`5� f 51 i6 S0 4a m� 'w 2.12 u a 201646 9013 OO7A Wei m } 30 30 . li 75 z 139750 .I a 66-2e- 9 E1241.40 1P1 :s0 TR.A tin B 7 el s 10 9 a m Am7 p w p n '� ^ }"ryyw CA O 000 �' 10T51 SF �TSi.,a@ �. o [S 16957 SF Ni CO ypL � L3000 s c ^ N oe130 e 1y L Y• s alo0 17911 SF 0090 15432 9F 120I2 0�9 �711 ^r 1500V sr� y z 15001 3Ft IIOBa m ae 90� s9.a 32, 00 0130 124. as 89.08 g�2 > 64.Oa �z ti� D060 I9. = 0040 = o 7 4 !I .! 'I67 2.1a - ----.--.-----------------------------------------------` I r 473. 0a a c - --` 6 6'l-3e-6i FL 1060.4 --_--------_ Q _ 20081021000149:01 Filed for Record at Request of & When Recorded Return, To Sally Nipert 14004 156" Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 E2888092 10/21/2008 09:47 KTAIG( COUNTY, WA $10.@0 SALE $0.00 RASE001 OF 001 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED (Upon Distribution of Separate Real Property from Testate Estate) Grantors. GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT, Co -Personal Representatives of Estate of Kathleen M. Ouimet, deceased Grantee. SALLY LOU NIPERT Abbreviated Legal Descr.: LOT A, KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO. LOSM0034, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBED 20080812900004, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel No.: 142305-9122 I. Grantors. We, GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT, are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting Co -Personal Representatives of the Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET, Deceased, King County, Washington, Superior Court Case No. 08-4-01861-7 KNT. 2. Grantee, The Grantee is SALLY LOU NIPERT, a single woman. 3. Decedent's Estate. Decedent KATHLEEN M. OUIMET died testate on January 27, 2008. On February 29, 2009, Decedent's Will was admitted to probate and Grantors were appointed Co -Personal Representatives of Decedent's estate and granted Nonintervention Powers for the administration of Decedent's estate. 4. Will Provision. Article IV of Decedent's Will provides that the residue of Decedent's estate shall pass to Decedent's children. 5. Real Property. Among the assets of the residue of Decedent's estate is the following described zeal property located in King County, Washington; LOT A OF KC TESTAMENTARY DIV #L08M0034 REC 420080812900004 BEING NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF STR 14-23-05 LESS N 100 FT OF W 440 FT LESS CO RD Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Number. 142305-9122. CHICAGO TITLE INS, 009 ReF 1.)3-2 S0 ? -i0 000560 lit 1 !il +' ti d. Consideration. This conveyance is made in consideration of Decedent's gift in her Will. 7. Conveyance. Grantors convey, grant, and quitclaim to SALLY LOU NIPERT all of the interest of Decedent's estate in the real property described in this Deed (together with all after - acquired title of the Grantors to the real property), which interest represents Decedent's interest in the real property at her death. DATED: Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET, Deceased By: �J GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, Cc -Personal Representative SALLY LOI PERT, Co -Personal Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET and SALLY LOU NIPERT, known or proved to me to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing Personal Representative's Deed, and acknowledged that they and each of them signed the same as their free acid voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal on: OLT' 4 t 4 / C . d4a t? 't`�iliiNltegrlrq $ �tq,, Si ture ISO �AtY *� Printed Name � r NOTARY PUBLIC for Washington WJ''•...•• gr •`` Residing at: _ t7 o" W ) ' is►i+ ''*, My appointment expires on: 41&1"— -{ ! 1 000561 COL IXTY, WASHINGTON TESTAMENTARY DIVISION J- FOR RtCHARD OUIMET 451 19 TESAMENTARY LOCATED IN THE S.W. 114, OF THE S.E. 114, "b.IV I$IOAr OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., NO0034 KING COUNTY WASHINGTON .' LOBA( DRCLARA: "'4kAow.m.b,miW'i3'y"T'MESE';:P!:RESEMM rMT *ri.*- E UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE D El w MTA rx Dwmwo F DO 4V?EErY OXE Ad',,,W7Ekn' F,. AND W-OLARE TFflS PLN?sLAAT to jcOui DINISION TO BE THE ='REPR17SWALTION OX'THE- - -.- %AkW- AND TRAT SAID OMVOR IS KAM WMA TtIC' FRW-.' - COAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH TI JE OF Tw awbim. As FILED wrni THE suxEm-DESIRES t.-C90Rr OF: T �L!j IIINGION MONTY. LINDER w 5 F®RKING IN WITNESS WHEREOF WE MW SET OUR HANDS AND SEAJ owooa M-owwm MTXM OF KATNIMM W&T ESTATE M MTRW" QLMAtr STATE Or WASIJINGMN,� CmIffy OF KING v ON THS DAY PERSMALLY APPEARED SMIM WE e Sig] -ou A/14Lt 70 WE PWOM TO K THE INDMMW-(S) DE4M4io 1. WD WHO ID(EWTED THE W"N AND MAEWNG R41WMM. AND ACKNOMEM THAT HE / SHE MGNM-.'fHC SANE Ay- wIS I HER VOWNTARY ACT AN0DEED, "I� 'AfE USES .ND PURM3 THaEft IWIENTMIM ......... GrvF" UNDER MY HAND AND TH DAY OF 2s w. �"e. IN". ":ANC FOR al I lIW--STkE OF W5I-IING70N. my WUPIRES OR - APPROVAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENMRONMENTAL SERMCES . . ....... APPROVTHIS TM DAY ED OF ,2001 .......... OM PIAT W UNIT. .... ime S=R=, k"G O"M DMWrkQ4T OF EXAMINED AND APPROM THIS KING COUNlY ASSESSOR DEPUTY XING COUNTY ASSESSOR LA11D SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE Inc P ldfth6r. EWA 3 *0 �ff—. Ar "M f- 2=A 4=-g ".Mr(m THIS TESTAbliNTAffY DIV1340H CORRECTLY REPRESENTS XlMllk[)OMAA.F. 0 M ICIT T. IX MVX0 AS A Cammtkmlf w mft soorr ve MM MMP47Y TPW THE 11IIS 00 7" PFESPIT STATE � A 0 %AgM PORTMN-Vf— AT M A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER WY DIRECTION IN 00t Vvr THE uns wr VM VW L.,E ADMTIIV�& =M A�' .... 0812900 EQULST OF L 'ONFORMA"m WITW STATE MU COUMY STArJTM ,I,,~y JXIAM � DPAI-op6w Lqmm CXWT 0OWMAUM W AM=nFaA0MYE=0PMUrr 0 APPft� WL SE REMAtD UMtR THE �Alal AND � IT EAST S'W' DRAWN Erv. DAM �pff WVMKI��- IN: A— LAIIIS M &MT AT 714AT T� JAG. W 7* 0/7/2006 200--M7 C Y! iA�ffl� • p,LS. CERTIFICATE "0. 40QI6 ............ )4GR, :KM I O.B.H. N/A I ~vdz a-w;m "paw. 'd A. mm, mmm'. m. w. A, oy IsAft'4 2OW/M 5 N7 VI-41 . .KING COIk3VTY, WASHINCTON -TEST IV 4ME ARY T NU-.' 111019M0034 sl' A-. XF Awl a*. TAX PAKCEL LOT 3 LOr -rS I -� PONVIK-0 X) TESTAMENTARY DIVISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET LOCATED IN THE S. V. 114, OF THE S. E. 114, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ............. L LOX-'J OF I ALZ Lap" jj or FOOO. are. ae mGP ant Old' L VF � L44L a0v, Lkw "7 ACRES XAX FAROE 1 -Mr-U013 w wr, mmq-,. I — - — I- A - AT o r f *11w 7 pms 9'A" M. w IC ?"FN A. AM )"M AW- ME- A.9 fMqD AS 5&710A 0~) EM-09' KASJ 13MM' WAV M10 W DPW 2617.72' (W-ASJ fakw or on"69) S.Is' 144TIf ST. von./PAGE GRAM= SCALE 1 -100' -------- Z -- 100 0 goo M&M IDY, JWAWGS: aw {w M FARM F4.7m3-i. IN A Z-AM 0A - - - - - - - - - - - - lw - - - - - - - - - - - - 41i 423aanv= Tw N.W. Mmfm} fF k W. I%MRfD1. OF 111E IV OL.RRK CF;V�cncw r4, 23 x foa-,FW -7Ne -4b TAX FARM f42365 t. W. J. MwAadym LASr i44![a 0#-W-M S. 7.4E sm#Awa� *0w ON rw sLwvry APMESENr brm Lows My AMC 00m~ WT 07"am"t BE wmmmww. - ------------ 4; ------- J. SMOMMW G"WMR KFMW OF 25�A- wr�m N KM. w IM PAW W Wou? ma s5masma RkDmW of xft caLWYY. (01= C KMP *002-750A=475 )WEREWOR SOMM. t' 1. AMWW OF SWWYj=,:��LW I PACC W L04VER R=W 7 ------ Rrcarros a mm camy It Lv#ovm jIY CMIO1WOM PLAT MMOPOM M IiXLW I? t. V. PACX DO, ONOM RECORDWO N 790e250ft5 cm mccomm or )am GCLpw Vm-�"M FtAov wowwpff m amcpsm srr f/r RG8%R * w -cw 4m10` As, X 0 S.W. 1/4, S F- 1/4.`ir: 1-tjj2J WORI4V--25 DRAWN BY. )(UW@P-. J.F-R. [DATF; JJOa :iwa-olr- 61 C ECKLO By:j SCALE- SHEI SHEET: O.B.N.O. I 2 OF 2 COUNTY, WASHINCTON ..,YESTAkENTARI DIVI$ION NO LO-BA(P084 catoty HEREBY MAKE A SLIANT TO KCrl AWN TO 13E THE E, AND THAT Sk SENT AND IN Af K. _.a_- .. V --- . IN WfTt&-SS WHEREOF WE HAVE SET OUR KANM AND SEkW IOR ma'm N MT",QN Gu%&7 FMIE oF m1NuMw cumtr STATE OF gf&WWFDU,)__ COW" (f KM ON 7W DAY PERSONALLY APPUM BEFORE ME 6. R,'chAr4'0&jow,4 f Wlt jj" Aj,'j*rV- TO ME OONW TO BE THE IWDM(Y494S) OMMS WHO fXECLITED THE WffHIN AND FMCOM WST- AND ACKWMICM THAT HE / SHE SIGNEQ-.tI* HIS / HER VOLUNTARY *Lt AND DM, 1`0( --THE PURPOSES THEREW MIENtIONED. yy GNEN DAY THrS2 K- k , 1, AKRFir .wom- CRY IN TWMTE OF WA5HNUP Amy it -,oY"x-E7p"RES WAO till'A APPROVAL DEPAKPAENT OF DeiE"WEW AND MM5HIMENTAL SERVICES APPROVED THIS DAY OF �SUR� itLAND U S l-- DN4VW ACINC COUNTY DEPAFn%&NT OF ASSFSSM EXAMINED AND APPROWD THIS Y OF 6jq AL. KIND COUNTY ASSESSOR O&UTYKING COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORDING NO. lt�)1111111111111 211 1 1290 4 ................ MGR. TEST"ENTARY DrVISION FOR -FUCHARD OUIMET LOCATED IN THE S. W. 114, OF THE S. E. 114, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.H., RING COUNTY, frASHINCTON LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE Ry " CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY WE Ofr UNDrIt df DIRCCMN IN LOLAEST OF CCNF0MA&Ha WITH STATE AND coUNry STATUTES. IN: P.LS. CERTIFICATE No. 40016 ........... VOL./PAGE A5flig Kh uPA" x w-Qqm AS wLwry mw A :�Ofl ARE 4 f(IR DDaN%W S-W. 1/4, S.E. 1,4, TK 0FDRIVICIN AND MWIf By: DATE! �ps CHECKED BY: SCALE- SHUT! OAH. N/A I i 4 J- EAST, *Al y,�Y b ::, I r::•••, .: i Q. ; . •' .00'LZcI 36T. 9Z. OLW _ - - g 'FAY Ivd9S1 VOL. ,s P IA it Q397171 .OS'm5 3K,8� 90o-1 w Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way -...Renton, WA-9fl57 _ .... 20091105000541.00- 20091105000541 CITY OF RENTON ORD 76." PAGE --MI OF 015 11I113/Z*05 1E : 24 KING COUNTY, UA Plcwc print or type information WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet (RCW 65.04) Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): (all areas applicable to your document must be filled in) 1. Ordinance #5465 2. 3. 4. Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional refcrcnce #'s on page _ of document Grantor(s) (Last name first name, initials) 1. City of Renton , Additional names on page_ of document- Grantee(s) (bast name first, then first name and initials) 1. Y 2. , Additional names on page _ of document - Legal description (abbreviated: i.e. lot block, plat or section, township, range) These portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, & 24, all in Township 23 north. Range 5 East, W.M., andRE Sections 18 & 19, both in Township 23 North, Range 6 East, W_M., all in King County, Washington, m particularly described as follows... E Additional legal is on page 3 of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Number 0 Assessor Tax # not yet assigned; 142305911901 and others The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form_ The staff' will not read the document to vcrifl the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information rovided herein. i am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional tee as provided in RC W 36.18.010. 1 understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some pare of the text on the original document. Signature of Requesting Party P /F- D 7 .�)V i 4 SON 000566 20091105000541,00' CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5465 AN ORDINANCE of THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO AND/OR BENEFITTING FROM THE CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR PHASE 11 AND ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE UPON CONNECTION TO THE FACILITIES, TI IE CITI' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLI.OWS: SECTION I. 'There is hereby created a Sanitary Sewer Ser•icc Special Assessttlent District fir the area served by the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase 11 project in the northeast quadrant of the City of Renton and within King County, which area is more particulart.s- described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. A snap of the service area is attached as Exhibit "IF'. -Me recording of this document is to provide notification of potential ctmncetion and intcrOt charges. While this connection charge may be paid at any time, the City does not require p tyment until such time as the parcel is connected to and, thus, benefiting front the sewer facilities. 'Ilse property may he sold or in any other way change hands without triggering the requirement, by the City, of payment of the charges associated with this district. SECTION 11. Persons connecting to the sanitary sewer facilities in this Special Assessment District, and which properties have not been charged or assessed with all costs of the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II as detailed in this ordinance, shall pay, in addition to the payment of the connection permit fee and in addition to the system development charge, the following additional fees: CERTIFICATE 1, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Ream, Washington, certify that this is a true and cornea copy of I Al. �, Subsccihed ar+d sealed this !�l day of at>* , 20Q,1 City Cleric 000567 20091 1 050aos41 .0M ORDINANCE NO. 5465 A. Per Unit Area Charge. New connections of residential dwelling units ar equivalents shall pay a fee of $351.95 per dwelling unit. Those properties included within this Special Assessment District and which may be assessed a charge thereunder are included within the boundary legally described in Exhibit "A" and which boundary is shown on the map attached as Exhibit "B". B. Per Unit Frontaze Charge. There is hereby created a sub -district within the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase 11 Special Assessment District consisting of properties fronting on the sewer. New connections of residential units or equivalents shall pay a fee of $5.810.34 per dwelling unit. The properties to be assessed for the per unit frontage charge are described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. A map identifying the properties within the sub -district is attached as Exhibit "B". The properties located within this sub- district are subject to both charges (Area and Frontage). SECTION Ill. In addition to the aforestated charges, there shall be a charge of 5.30% per annurn added to the Special Assessment District charge. The interest charge shall accrue for no more than ten (10) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. Interest charges will be simple interest and not compound interest. SECTION IV. This ordinance is effective upon its passage, approval and thirty (30) days after publication. 2 000568 20091105000541.001 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this &th day of July , 2009. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 6th day of, July , 2009. Approved as to form: erxw� -?ZV4.0�— I.,awrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: .7/30/2009 (summary) ORD. 1553:5/21/09:scr ki — ijl�- 4v-- De is Law, Mayor 000569 20091105000541.00! ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA ASSESSMENT BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Those portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 & 24, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., and Sections 18 and 19, both in Township 23 North, Range 6 East, W. M., all in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right of way margin of SE 128t' St (NE 4th Street) and the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, crossing 155`h Ave SE and 156'h Ave SE, to the east line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way margin, crossing 1601h Ave E and the west half of 1641h Ave SE, to the section line common to said Sections 13 and 14; "thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way, crossing the east half of 164`h Ave SE and 16V Ave SE, to an intersection with the east line of the West quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13; Thence southerly along said east line and the Urban Growth Boundary (UBG) line, to an intersection with the north line of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said north line and said UBG line, to the west line of the East quarter of said subdivision; Thence southerly along said west line and said UBG line, to the Northwest corner of Lot l of King County Short plat S90S0040, as recorded in Book 101 of Surveys, Page 236, records of King County, Washington; Thence easterly along the North line of said Lot 1 and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, said Northeast corner also being on the west line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said UGB, crossing 172"d Ave SE, to the intersection of the easterly right of way margin of l 72"d Ave SE and the southerly right of way margin of SE 132°d St.; EXHierr A — CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE i OF 6 000570 20091105000541.00( ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence continuing easterly along the southerly right of way margin of SE 132"6 St and said 1JGB line, crossing 17P Ave SE, 175th Ave SE, 178th Ave SE and the west half of 180`h Ave SE, to an intersection with the east line of said subdivision, said east line also being the west line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence continuing easterly along said southerly right of way margin of SE 132" d St and said UGB -hne; crossing the east -half of Be Ave -SE, I & I "-Ave- SF and i82nd Ave SE, to an --- intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 182"" Ave SE; -I*hcnce southerly along said westerly right of way margin of 182"d Ave SE and said UGB line, to an intersection with the westerly extension of the northerly right of way margin of SE 134"' St; "Thence easterly along said westerly extension and the northerly right of way margin of SE 134"' St and said UGB line, crossing 182nd Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of' 184"' Ave SE in the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin of 184"' Ave SE and its southerly extension and leaving said 1JGB line, crossing SE 134 St, SE 1351' St, SE 136' St and SE 140" St, to an intersection with the north line of Tract 23, Renton Suburban Tracts Division No_ 4, recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, pages 74-76, said records, in Government Lot 4 of said Section 18; Thence easterly and southerly along said north line and the east line of said Tract, to an intersection with the northeast corner of Renton -Suburban Tracts Division No. 8, recorded in VolEEme fig of F'l:rls, pages 74-76, said records, in said (;overnment Lot 4 of said Section 19, said northeast corner also being on said UGB line; Thence southerly along the cast line of said Plat and said UGB line, to the Southeast corner of' said flat at the southeast corner of Government Lot 1 in said Section 19; 17ience westerly along the courses of the south boundary of said plat and said UGB line, to an intersection with the south line of Renton -Suburban Tracts Div. No. 6, recorded in Volume 66 cif Plats, pages 33-35, said records, in the Northeast quarter of said Section 24; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat and said UGB line, to the most Southwest corner of said Plat, said Southwest corner also being the Northeast corner of Government Lot 5 of said Section 24; Thence southerly along the east line of said Government Lot 5 and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Lot 31 of Renton -Suburban Tracts Div. No.7, recorded in Volume 69 of Plats, pages 39-41, said records; Thence southwesterly and northwesterly along the south boundary of said plat and said UGB line, to an intersection with the east line of Government Lot 10 of said Section 24, said east line also being the east line of Tract A of Briarwood South No. 6, recorded in Volume 97 of Plats, pages 68 and 69, said records; ExmBIT A — CENTRAt PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 2 of 6 000571 20091105000541.00+ ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along said east line of said Government Lot 10 and said Tract A and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said Tract A; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract A, and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said Tract A, said Northwest corner also being a point on the east line of - — -the-Northeast quarter of said -Section 23; Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Tract C of Skyfire Ridge Div. No. 1, recorded in Volume 141 of Plats, pages 93-99, said records; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract C and said UGB line, to the Northwest comer of said Tract C, said Northwest corner also being a point on the east line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence westerly along the north line of said subdivision and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said subdivision, said Northwest corner also being the Northeast corner of Government Lot 7 of said Section 23; Thence continuing westerly along the north line of said Government Lot 7, to the Northwest corner thereof, said Northwest corner also being the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the Southeast corner of Lot 9, Briar !-fills No. 3, recorded in Volume 107 of Plats, page 36, said records, said west line also being the east line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat, to the Southwest comer thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of said Plat, to an intersection with the Southeast corner of Briar Ridge, recorded in Volume 113 of Plats, pages 60 and 61, said retards; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat, to the Southwest corner thereof, in Goverment Lot 1 of said Section 22, said Southwest corner also being a point on the west line of the East half of the East half of said Government Lot l; Thence southerly along said east line, to the northerly bank of the Cedar River; Thence westerly along said northerly bank, to an intersection with the east line of Tract A, Cedar River Bluff, recorded in Volume 172 of Plats, pages 53-56, said records; Thence northerly along said east line, to the Northeast corner of said Tract A; EXHIBIT A -- CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 3 OF 6 000572 20091105000541.001 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence westerly along the north line of said Tract A, to an intersection with the east line of Maplewood Heights, recorded in Volume 78 of Plats, pages 1-4, said records; Thence southerly along said east line, to the Southeast corner thereof; "Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the Southwest corner thereof, said corner __also .being.a_point onihe_east._lint of_Gavernment Lot. 6 ofSection 22-; "licence South 01 *08'21" West, along said east line, to a point 641.73 feet southerly of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 6; Thence North 55°51'39" West, a distance of 391.81 feet; Thence North 26°45'23" West, a distance of 494.29 feet, to a point on the north line of said Government Lot 6, said point also being on the south line of the Southwest quarter of Section 15; '!'hence westerly along said south line, and along the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No_ 3945, to the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 15; Thence northerly along the east line of said subdivision and said City Limits, to the Northwest corner of Lot 21, Block 1 of said Maplewood Heights in said Southwest quarter of Section 15; i'iience northeasterly along the north line of said Block 1 of said Plat, to an intersection with the west line of Lot 10, East Crest, recorded in Volume 87 of Plats, page 49, said records, in said Southwest quarter; Whence northerly along said west line, to the Northwest corner thereof, said Northwest corner <il, o being a point on the south line of Tract A, Hideaway Home Sites, recorded in Volume 81 of Plats, pages 88 and 89, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said Tract A, to the Southwest corner thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of said Tract A and the northerly extension of said west line, and along the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 3143, to the south line of the Northwest quarter of Section 22; Thence westerly along said south line and along said existing City Limits and along the south line of Lot 14, Goe's Place, recorded in Volume 85 of Plats, pages 12 and 13, said records, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 14; Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 14, to the Northwest corner thereof; Thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 14, to the Northeast corner thereof; ExNMIT A -- CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 4 OF 6 000573 20091105000541.00i ORDINANCE NO, 5465 Thence northerly along the east line of Lot 13 of said Plat and its northerly extension, to an intersection with the westerly extension of the north line of the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and said north line and along the existing City limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 5074, crossing Duvall Ave NE, to its --- - intersection -wit -the-west line-ofthe Northwest -quarter of said "Section 15; Thence northerly along said west line crossing NE 2'd St, to the most westerly southwest corner of Alder Crossing, recorded in Volume 251 of Plats, pages 37 - 42, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the southeast corner thereof, Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat, to its intersection with the north line of the south half of the north half of the north half of the north half of said Section 15; Thence easterly along said north line of said subdivision crossing 14oquiam Ave NE and Jericho Ave NE, to the easterly right of way margin thereof; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin, to the Southwest corner of Tract 2, Black Loam Five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 101, said records; Thence continuing easterly along said existing City Limits and the south line of said Tract 2, to the east line of the west half of said Tract 2; Thence northerly along said east line, to the south line of the north 150 feet thereof; Thence easterly along said south line, to the east line of the of the West half of the West half of the East half of said Tract 2; Thence northerly along said east line, a distance of 8 feet; Thence easterly along the south line of the north 142 fee thereof, to the east line of the west half of the east half of said Tract 2; Thence southerly along said east line, to the south line of the Northeast quarter of said East half of said Tract 2; Thence easterly along said south line, to the westerly right of way margin of Lyons Ave NE; Thence continuing easterly along the easterly extension of said south line, crossing Lyons Ave NE, to the easterly right of way margin thereof-, Thence northerly along said easterly right of way margin, to the southerly right of way margin of NE 4`r' St. F-XHAj4T A — CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 5 OF 6 000574 20091105000541.01( ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, to the intersection with the easterly line of the existing City, of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14 and the point of beginning. ExHISIT A --- CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT RAGE 6 OF 6 000575 20091105000641.01' ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT —AREA «At, - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot I and Tract B, Carolwood, recorded in Volume I 1 I of Plats, pages 99-100, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot 11, Carolwood No. 2, recorded in Volume 114, page 74, said records; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; and TOGETHER WITH the West 150 feet of the East 180 feet of the North 165 feet of the South half of said Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14, and TOGETHER WITH the West 160 feet of the east 190 feet of the South 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETI IER WITH the East 165 feet of the West 330 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the North 264 feet thereof, and EXCEPT the South 132 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH the South 20 feet of the North 284 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 330 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the North 120 feet of the South 252 feet of the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 150 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the North 284 feet thereof and EXCEPT the South 252 feet thereof, and TOGETHER WITH the East 230 feet of the South 132 feet of the North 264 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH the West 165 feet of the East 195 feet of the North 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 481066, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8109100503, located in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; LESS Roads. Exhibit A — Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage - Area A Page 1 of 1 000576 20091105000641.0109 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA B LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and the 20 feet wide undivided interest parcel lying between said Lot 1 and Lot 2, of King County Short Plat No. 576015, recorded under King County Recording No. 7905170580, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots f and 2, King County Short Plat No. 677116, recorded under King County Recording No. 7905170582; and TOGETHER WITH Tract A and Tract B of King County Short Plat No. 675021, recorded under King County Recording No- 7602040384; and TOGETHER WITH Tracts 4, 5, 6 and the West 150 feet of the North 80 feet of Tract 7, all in Block 3, Cedar Park five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volume 15 of flats, page 91, records of King County, Washington. AIt situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 14 and the North half of Section 23, bath in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Exhibit A — Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage - Area B Page 1 of 1 000577 20091105000641.01< ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRALPLATEAUINTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL -ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA "C" LEGAL. DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 8 and Lot 17, Ridge Point Estates, recorded in Volume 165, pages 64-65, records of King County, Washington; TOOLTI IFR WITH that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 North, W.M., King County, Washington, lying easterly and southerly of said plat of Ridge Point Estates and westerly of the westerly right of way margin of 154"' PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd); and TOGETUR WILTI the North 133 feet of the East 120 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; and TOGETHER WITIi that portion of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of'the Northwest quarter, lying easterly and southerly of Linda Ilomes, recorded in VOtunic 74, page 6, said records; and T()GF'rI IER WITH that portion of the South half of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, and the south half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, both in said Section 23, lying westerly of the westerly right of way margin of 156"' Ave SE (Co. Rd. 1049, August E. Gerber Rd.) and easterly of the northeasterly right of -way margin of 154`h PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd-); LESS Roads. Exhibit A — Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage - Area C Page 1 of 1 000578 20091105000541.014 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA "D" _.._. _. LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Lots l and 50, Briarwood West, recorded in Volume 93 of Plats, pages 91-92, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots I and 16, Mar}wood, recorded in Volume 90 of Plats, page 32, said records; and TOGETHER WITH the South 165 feet of the North 195 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS the East 30 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WfTI-I the west 150 feet of said East half of said subdivision, lying northerly of the South 365 feet thereof and southerly of the North 195 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying northerly of the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 1286002, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8708 1 40726; and TOGETHER WITH Lot I and Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 1286002, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8708140726, said Lot 2 being later amended by Lot Line Adjustment No. 890718, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9010241356, said lots being a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS Roads. Exhibit A — Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage - Area D Page 1 of 1 000579 RECEIPT EGO0020176 - City of �tix r Transaction Date: February 27, 2014 BILLING CONTACT Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36TH ST , 105 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TRANSACTION PAYMENT TYPE METHOD AMOUNT PAID LUA14-000241 PLAN - Preliminary Plat Fee Fee Payment heck #10363 $3,970.00 Technology Fee Fee Payment heck #10363 $150,00 SUB TOTAL $4,120.00 LUA14-000241 PLAN - Environmental Review PLAN - Preliminary Plat Fee Fee Payment heck #40003 $1,000-00 Fee Payment heck #40003 $30,00 SUB TOTAL $1,030.00 TOTAL $5,150.00 RECEIVED r-B 2 7 2014 � Sips 000581 Printed On: 212712014 Prepared By: Jill Ding Page 1 of 1 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430--7200 Fax: 425-430=7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Justin Lagers being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the 3rd day of February, 2014, I installed one public information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at 14038 15e Avenue Southeast, Renton, WA 98059 for the following project: 156th Ave SE Assembledge Project Name Sally Nipert / G. Richard Ouimet Owner Name 2. I have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information sign(s) was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code and the City's "Public Inform a ian-Sigrns#allation" handot#-pckage. I / i taller Signature `i f4 SUBSCRIBED P q�RRN to before me this 3rd day of February, 2014. , . _ 'may ON ot Xz U J1 OfAit '�i''r. NOTARY PUB C in and f the State of Washington, residing at i i p Cl z N-� My commission expires an q')I OF W ttt»t - -3- C:\Users\Justin\Appdata\LotanMicrosoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IES\FFHOQ- X2\pubsign.dp�. —]I/12 a 0 jr k* erg A7. � . i, �`. S� ¢ tia• Wit' f.. 1. • i "i•R• �I +� y w-N^ml VA - .:f v ..; r {, '?., •LLB'! 74 x a4 !. 'y! `«.f ' i{,9�•'hs:-:w� MM�.:k7i �:L..s:,�...e,��;c 65 9 S$ JIA 3 � ,i` ,,— .'� V� f YI,.'.yl - i _ � _ _ ... 3i7L'•' � LJ �'J , .�_ . 0 k •r f . 'J .Y A St 4 or � y jl NOW Z_J Cynthia Moya From: Roger Paulsen rrogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:36 AM To: olbrechtslaw@gmail_com Cc: Jill Ding; Vanessa Dolbee; Cynthia Moya Subject: Re: Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Olbrechts, Thank you for this clarification±!I Roger Paulsen -----Original Message ----- From: phi[ olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com>; Cynthia Maya <CMoya@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <jding@rentonwa_gov>, VDolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Wed, Jul 30, 2014 1:45 am Subject: RE: Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Paulson, Ms. Walton no longer works for Renton as of a week or two ago. I have included the deputy city clerk in this email, Cynthia Moya, so that she can direct you to the proper official. You are exactly right that the code citations are off in the notice of appeal. I can't figure out how that happened, as the requirements identified in the appeal statement are all accurate but the code citations are not. A corrected appeal statement is pasted below, which contains the same text as before but with corrected code references. As noted in the appeal statement, if you file a timely request for reconsideration, you will not need to file an appeal to the city council until the reconsideration request is resolved. Thank you for pointing out the errors. Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be fled within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-5-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 73' floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. From: Roger Paulsen [mailtongerapaulsen@cs.coml Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:07 AM To: bwalton@rentonwa.gov Cc: jding@rentonwa.gov; olt rechtslawftmall.com; VDolbee Rentonwa. ov Subject: Re: Appeal Process Clarification Ms. Walton, 000585 Absent a response to my questions5* w, I am assuming that code section RMr ,-100(G)(9) applies, and that a Request for Reconsideration of the Hcdring Examiner's decision can be submitted. I am also assuming that a subsequent appeal of the hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council, if warranted, can be submitted after the Examiner has issued his response the Request for Reconsideration. Please let me know as soon as possible if either of my assumptions is not correct. Thanksff! Roger ---Original Message — From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsenftcs.com> To: bwalton <bwalton rentonwa. ov> Cc: jding <idin rentonwa. ov>; olbrechtslaw <olbrechtslaw[c"�.gmail_com>; VDolbee <VDolbee Rentonwa. ov> Sent: Mon, Jul 28, 2014 10:36 pm Subject: Appeal Process Clarification Ms. Walton, In my review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision for the proposed plat of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA-14-000241) dated July 18, 2014, the language on Page 30, (lines 13-19) appears to intend to convey important information relative to appeal and reconsideration rights under City of Renton Code. Specifically, it suggests that the Code applicable to appeals and reconsiderations can be found in sections 4-8-110(E)(8) and 4-8-100(G)(4), and that the provisions governing appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions to the City Council can be found in section 4-8-110(E)(9). I've reviewed those sections of the City of Renton Municipal Code using an on-line link on the City's webiste, and find that none are applicable to the topic they purport to be in the "Appeal Right and Valuation Notices" section of the Hearing Examiner's Decision, While I doubt this is deliberate, it makes it very difficult to participate in the City's process, where there are strict timelines for performance. Pursuant to the instructions on page 30 of the Hearing Examiner's decision, line 17, my questions to you, as City Cleric, are as follows: 1. Is there a process for requesting reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Decision? If so, where is that process codified so that I can properly make such a request in a complete and timely manner? 2. If there IS a reconsideration process, and I file a request, will I be entitled to an additional 14 day appeal period to the City Council even if the Examiner does not consider, or denies my request for reconsideration? 3. If the answer to #2 is "No", will I then need to file both a formal request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner AND a request for appeal to the City Council by the deadline for requesting a reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner? 4. Does the City have any required forms or instructions you can provide to help me understand either the process for requesting reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner, or an appeal to the City Council? If so, I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of those documents. I sincerely appreciate your patience with my questions, and ask that you reply as soon as possible, since it appears the deadline for filing my request and/or appeal is this Friday (8/1). As a normal citizen attempting to follow the Citys laws, I find this all very confusing and disjointed. As Clerk, I hope you can work with the applicable City Departments, the Examiner and the City Council to make sure that when the City cites a code section, it actually does speak to the issue or circumstance at -hand. Please feel free to contact me if I can explain my -questions or concerns. Sincerely, Roger Paulsen (425)228-1589 000586 ...10 000587 F9 Cynthia Moya From. Phil olbrechts <oibrechtslaw@gmaii.com> Sent Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:45 AM To: 'Roger Paulsen; Cynthia Moya Cc: Jill Ding; Vanessa Dolbee Subject RE: Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Paulson, Ms. Walton no longer works for Renton as of a week or two ago. 1 have included the deputy city clerk in this email, Cynthia Moya, so that she can direct you to the proper official. You are exactly right that the code citations are off in the notice of appeal. I can't figure out how that happened, as the requirements identified in the appeal statement are all accurate but the code citations are not. A corrected appeal statement is pasted below, which contains the same text as before but with corrected code references. As noted in the appeal statement, if you file a timely request for reconsideration, you will not need to file an appea I to the city council until the reconsideration request is resolved. Thank you for pointing out the errors. Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -- 7t' floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:07 AM To: bwalton@rentonwa.gov Cc: jding@rentonwa.gov; olbrechtslaw@gmail.com; VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov Subject: Re; Appeal Process Clarification Ms. Walton, Absent a response to my questions, below, I am assuming that code section RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) applies, and that a Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision can be submitted_ I am also assuming that a subsequent appeal of the hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council, if warranted, can be submitted after the Examiner has issued his response the Request for Reconsideration. Please let me Know as soon as possible if either of my assumptions is not correct. Thanksll± 000588 V Roger --Original Message -- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsenftcs.com> To: bwalton <bwalton rentonwa. ov> Cc: }ding <jding@rentonwa.gov>; olbrechtslaw <olbrechtslaw mail.com>,, VDolbee <VDolbee Rentonwa. ov> Sent: Mon, .Jul 28, 2014 10:36 pm Subject: Appeal Process Clarification Ms. Walton, In my review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision for the proposed plat of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA-14-000241) dated July 18, 2014, the language on Page 30, (lines 13-19) appears to intend to convey important information relative to appeal and reconsideration rights under City of Renton Code. Specifically, it suggests that the Code applicable to appeals and reconsiderations can be found in sections 4-8-110(E)(8) and 4-8-100(G)(4), and that the provisions governing appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions to the City Council can be found in section 4-8-110(E)(9). I've reviewed those sections of the City of Renton Municipal Code using an on-line link on the City's webiste, and find that none are applicable to the topic they purport to be in the "Appeal Right and Valuation Notices" section of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. While I doubt this is deliberate, it makes it very difficult to participate in the City's process, where there are strict timelines for performance. Pursuant to the instructions on page 30 of the bearing Examiner's decision, line 17, my questions to you, as City Clerk, are as follows: 1. Is there a process for requesting reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Decision? If so, where is that process codified so that I can properly make such a request in a complete and timely manner? 2. If there IS a reconsideration process, and I file a request, will I be entitled to an additional 14 day appeal period to the City Council even if the Examiner does not consider, or denies my request for reconsideration? 3. If the answer to #2 is "No", will I then need to file both a formal request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner AND a request for appeal to the City Council by the deadline for requesting a reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner? 4_ Does the City have any required forms or instructions you can provide to help me understand either the process for requesting reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner, or an appeal to the City Council? If so, I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of those documents. I sincerely appreciate your patience with my questions, and ask that you reply as soon as possible, since it appears the deadline for filing my request and/or appeal is this Friday (8/1). As a normal citizen attempting to follow the City's laws, I find this all very confusing and disjointed. As Clerk, I hope you can work with the applicable City Departments, the Examiner and the City Council to make sure that when the City cites a code section, it actually does speak to the issue or circumstance at -hand. Please feel free to contact me if I can explain my questions or concerns. Sincerely, Roger Paulsen (425)228-1589 000589 �41 00 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO)-- Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA141000241, ECF, PF PROJECT NAME; The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 9.8 acre project site located Within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result In the Creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and 5) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 1561h Avenue SF. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 14230590,57 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423OM57 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 1403815e Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS Mt): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unllkely to resuR from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period Mowing the issuance of the Threshold Determinatoon of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. pERMITAPPLICATION DATE: February27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Justin Lagers / PNW Holdings, LLC% 9679 S€ 3e Street Suite 105, Mercer island, WA 93040/isML:)ustln@americanclasstchornes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental ($EPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building, Fire Requested 5radtas: 13rainage Report, Cfeotechnical Report, Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Departmental! Community &PconomTc Development (CED)—Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hail, 3055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 99057 PUSUC HEARING: Pubr, li�ing is tentatweT eduled for April 2& 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Coundl Chambers at 10:13D AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CE0 —Planning Division,1055 Sc. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, Namejfile No./Y�t :� The EEncla1ve�at Bridle Ridge/LUA144000241, ECF, PP NAME: .�'V/l'TDL it_L0V61iBY MAILING ADDRESS: (aS i Z 9E 5AA Pam _, __ City/State/zip: C'' —vt N Wk d 5-4 TELEPHONE NO.: `Z0 fic - c? o q `-- 13,�b 00 590 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density (COMP-RLD) on the city of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the CiWs Zoning Map. . Envlronmental Documents that Evafuate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project NBtigatlom The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development. and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. Project constructlon shall be required to comply with the submitted geatechnlcal report ■ Project canstructiorr shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to 1111 Ding, Senior Planner, CEO— Planning Division, 10ss South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM an March 24, ZM4. This matter Is also tentadveiy scheduled for a public hearing on April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 410-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner, if you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project, CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Tel: (4Z5) 430-659$; Eml: ,iding6llrentonwa.eoy PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO — Planning Division, 1055 so. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. NamelDlle No.: fie Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14.000241, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS; City/State/zip! TELEPHONE NO 000591 Denis Law Cl Of Mayor r ti AIR— (: - City Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton October.28, 2014 Roget Paulsen 6617 SE 5`K.Place . :Renton, -WA 98059 Re: :Enclave at.Bridle Rid a Prelimina Plat " I_UA-14-000241,i PP, ECI= Dear Mr. Paulsen: At the regular Courrcil meeting of October 27, 4014, the Renton City Council adopted ' the recommendation of the Planning and 1) ' eloprrlent Committee to affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision with conditions-. A -copy. of the approved Committee .report is enclosed. if you have any questions, please contact me at 425-430-6504. Sincerely, ; Jas n A.' e ; Acting. City Clerk Enc: P&D Committee Report cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Don Persson 'Julia Medzegien, City Council Liaison Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Senior Planner . Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager, Steve_ Lee, Developrnent Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Garmon Newson, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Larry 1Warren, .Oty Attorney Justin. Lagers, PNW Holdings, Applicant _ Parties of Retard (16) =000592 1055 South Grady Way • Rentc+n, Washington 98057+ (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 •. remmnwa.gov; . VF—[),By ApPRO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTCOMMITTFE CITY GOUNC1L . RECOMMENDATION. ':October 17, 2014 :Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA-]4�-000241 (October 23, 2014) The Planning'ana Development Committee recommends that the City Courici.1 AFFIRM -the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Retornsideratiori {Fjpgr elision) on August 13, 2014, Subjecf,to the suggested = "modification§ made'below. Facts: Oh October 23, 20.14; the Planning.and Development Corrimittee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the -closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger -and Jason Paulsen,,and the applicarie/developer's - i epreserrtative; attorriy Brent Carson. Staff, represented by fill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPaint presentation which was followed byAppellarifs argument Findiries'of Factand Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the'Parties stayed Within the record. -After careful. consideration of the arguments; the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, .. the PDC does' notfind-any substantial errorthai-War�ants reversal of the i4earing Exaininer's'Final Decision. , .. Asa result, the PDC adopts the.Hearing'Exaniiner's Final Decision,,in.its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the, parties, the PDC understands that ohe of Appellants' concerns. relates to the volume -of traffic that utilizes 156�Avenue St. it appears that thisvolume- maybe the result of people -seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real, -and it is - _a concern that the City Council shares n'some form or anoth.er..Traffc_operating atLOS-F (the worst possible level), is -not desirable,and needs to -be corrected. Filrthen? lore,-tire-PDC understands that traffic along 156 '' Avenue'SE is a problem•now, will continue to, be a problem in the future, even with this developmn ht,.and that the ,addition of -up to 9 rnore_trips during rush hdur will not make it better. ' Notwithstanding this factand the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not belieWe ttiat the . solution-fo the existing problem. and the -anticipated problem is to prevent.the development of Enclave at. BridIe.Rid' e* An.b4ective solutio' n must address the f ow and/or amauni: of fraffc along 156�''Avenue SE. As a result, the PDC recommends-the'follvyring: That the Clty-Council require cjty staff to reprioritize the 156 ' Avencre,SE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of. -the pi�oject: ; The Hearing -Examiner noted that the'concurrencj► determination that the proposal will not* late Renton's transportation LOS-is undisputed arid.therefore•rriust be.acceAted'as a`verity.�Final.Decisiori, page 18; lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse ;environmental impact"'Final Decision, page 18,.lines 8-9.` In sum,'the PDC finds that the kiearing Examiner did not err.in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as. iY relates to traffic. Contrary to the /�ppellant's clairb, the PDCalso finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written , findings Arid found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and 000593 . a. right -=of -way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the -Hearing Examiner's Fins! Decision shall be r-riodified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's.Con prehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the deveioprnent of the community -as a whole.''.RMC 4-1-060A_1. One-aspect,of that policy~ is that Rentoti'strafiFc requirements also consider -the impact to the entire.citj's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the fndave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land_Use Map and the property's R-4zoning designation. The. Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project, is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan alit insures acceptable, levels of accesys; public services and it. promotes the public interest•in satisfaction of AMC 4-1- 060A:5.b and• c. Additionally, there-z3ppeared`to be a'cguple of Scriveners eerors-in the -Hearing Exa.miner's decision3 that need to -be corrected: These errors are amended'as follows:.. Page 21, line 21 should be -amended to change the word "County" to -"Renton". The sentence will then read as -"The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of as5es5ing,whether Renton staff . correctly.issuEd an MDNSis whethe_rthe project as.Ofoposed has a probable significant, environmenta-I impact." Page 24, line'3 the ward "not" shall be removed., The sentence will then read as follows: "In this', case the City clearly made a prima f` cie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic. impacts prior to issuance o'f the MDNS:" In •sum, the Ap-peflants havefailed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in ' factor law exists. in the record" justifying a reversal of the:Headng Examin-er's F.lnoi Derision.- The errors or areas that.require clarification or correction have been modified far the consideration of the City Council: -The PDC recoriimends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject:to the modifications obtJined above. Ed Prince, Chair. Not in.Attendance . Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Paltner, Member .cc: Larry Warren Gambia Newsom li ' CE. Mp Vincent 1111 ping Enclave at Bridle Ridge De]51on—AMRM 2 -000594 David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 5th PI. 6512 SE 5" PI_ Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulsen Marsha R©!linger PNW Holdings, LLC., 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 6617 SE 5 PI. 6618 SE 4th PI: Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 9$059 Renton, WA 98059 Peter & Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Gary & Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouirnet 14504166th PI SE 6220 SE 2"d Pl. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 . Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulsen Eloise Stachowiak 14004156th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 5E 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98833 Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell Tom Carpenter nd 15006 SE 139th Pl. M.A. Huniu 15451 SE 142 PL Renton, WA 98059 6608 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Brent Karst VanNess Feldman, LLP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 000595 October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes _ _ Page 317 APPEAL CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber (Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: IThe PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. 5E is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: 000596 000597 October 27, 2014 _ Renton City Council Minutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI, intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LO5 is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the POC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5,b. and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton_" The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. 000598 October 27, 2014 _ Renton City Council Minutes _ Page 319 MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30, 2014, 2:00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002 108th Ave. SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however, there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be King County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding, and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern — firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr. Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David -Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr. Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. 000599 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION October 27, 2014 Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA-14-000241 (October 23, 2014) APPROVED By aTY cOUNOL. pats e 7 42 /�- The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the blearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decisions) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Findinis of Facrand Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed'within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's'Final .Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the. Hearing'Examinees Final Decision,.in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 1561h Avenue SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass I-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real, and it is a concern that the City Council. shares in some form or another. Traffic operating at LOS,F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 1561h Avenue SE is a.problem,now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even. without this development, and that the addition of up to 9 more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem, is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An.effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. As a result, the P-DC recommends the following: That the City Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156t'' Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no'less than 3 years after the completion of the project: The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore, must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, linen 4-9 This means that any additional congestion caused by the. Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also _finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest .by references to frontage improvements and 000600 a right-of-way dedication. However, to. address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: . Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development.of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1. One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements.also. consider the impact to the entire city's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection: Another aspect of that policy is that the -Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land.Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The. Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable. levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. Additionally, there 'appeared, to be a couple of ScrNerler's emors-in the -Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton". The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word"not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "in this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MONS." In sum, the Appellants have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that.require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. -Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance Terri Sriere, Vice Chair �,x�f .r %� , '✓ram: If`.�^ . Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garmon Newsom 11 C.E. Clip Vincent Jill Dingy Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision -- AFFIRM 2 000601 October 27, 2014 _*Wo�Renton City Council Minutes N � Page 317 APPEAL CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber (Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED, Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Fin_din>?s of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. SE is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: October 27, 2D14 Renton City Council Minutes ..r, _ Pam 318 _'%W _ That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl, intersection for instalfation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity; Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.S.b. and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "in this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. 000603 October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes vane Page 319 MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer lay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30, 2014, 2:00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002 108th Ave. SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however, there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be King County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding, and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SEGO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern — firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr. Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David -Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr. Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. 000604 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMiTfEE RECOMMENDATION. ' October 27, 2014 :Enclave at Bridal Ridge. Appeal. LUA -14-000241 (October 23, 2014) jo.PPROV'E® B cITY cOUNCIL pats x 7 Z_ The Planning'and Development Committee reco.mmends'that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing'. Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration' (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appeilants; Roger and Jason Paulsen,,and the applicant's/developer s representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the' project with a PowerPoint presentation which was failoiAied byAppellant's argument. Findings of Fact,and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the'Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments; the, hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC doe5 not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Flearing' Examiner's-Fihcd Decisi0h. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing'Examiner's Final Decision, .in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the, parties, the PDC understands that one of Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real, and it is a concern that the City Council shares in some form or. another. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable.and"needs to be- corrected. FUrthermore,-the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Avenue SE is a problem, now, will continue to. be a problem in the future, -even without this development, arid that the addition of up to 9 more trips during rush haur will not make it better. Notwithstanding this factand the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problemand the anticipated problem. is to prevent the development of Enclave at. Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th'Avenue SE. -_,As a result, the PDC recommends the fol[owing: th That the City. Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156. Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection for -installation as soon as possible, and no'less than 3 years after the completion of the project: The Hearing. Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore- must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 1.8i lines' 44. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not.be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 879. in sum, the ADC finds that the .Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellants claim, the PDC. also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and 000605 aright=of--way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's.Cornpre'hensiVe Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as.a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1. One -aspect of thatpolicy is that Renton's traffic requirements also. consider the impact to.the entire city's.transportation system and`not merely a specific intersection: Another aspect of that policy is that the -Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive_ Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The.Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures .acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest_in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and, c. Additionally, there ap'peared, $o be a couple of Scriuener's errors in the -Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows:. . Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton". The sentence will then read as "The' primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant., environmental impact:' Page 24, line 3 the word"not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the. City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS.» In surri, the Appellants have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying'a reversal of the Hearing.Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications iodtlfned above. -Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member, cc:. Larry Warren Garrricn Newsom II C.L. Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision —AFFIRM. 2 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 27, 2014 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. M I N U T E S Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF DON PERSSON, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; RANDY CORMAN; GREG COUNCILMEMBERS TAYLOR; ARMONDO PAVONE; ED PRINCE, MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER TERRI BRIERE. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer, ZANETTA FONTES, Senior Assistant City Attorney; JASON SETH, Acting City Clerk; IWEN WANG, Administrative Services Administrator; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; CHIP VINCENT, Community and Economic Development Administrator; JAMIE THOMAS, Fiscal Services Director; ANGIE MATHIAS, Senior Planner; COMMANDER JON SCHULD, Police Department. Council President Persson requested a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting incident. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Law was read declaring November 2014 to be "DECA DECA Month & Hazen DECA Month and Hazen DECA Entrepreneurship Month" in the City of Renton and Entrepreneurship Month -- encouraging everyone to join in this special observance. MOVED BY TAYLOR, November 2014 SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Gene Kolcynski, Lindbergh High School, thanked City officials for recognizing the achievements of the Renton School District DECA students, He added that Hazen High School's entrepreneurship program exemplifies what DECA students are doing in Renton's high schools. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in CED: Six-month Extension of accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to Medical Marijuana consider the six-month extension, as declared on September 15, 2014, of the Moratorium moratorium on the acceptance of business licenses and permits for medical marijuana businesses declared on November4, 2013. Senior Planner Angie Mathias reported that the City is required by State law to hold a public hearing within 60 days of declaring the six-month extension of the moratorium. She explained that the purpose of the hearing is to provide the public with an opportunity to speak in favor or opposition of the moratorium extension. She also clarified that the moratorium is related to the submission, acceptance, processing or approval of applications or licenses by or for new business licenses or permits for new establishments in the sale, use, growing, manufacture, distribution or processing of medical marijuana only. Ms. Mathias reported that the City has already adopted regulations related to the zoning of recreational marijuana. She explained that the State Liquor Control Board regulates recreational marijuana, and controls the issuance of licenses for producers, processors, and retailers. She added that the recreational marijuana industry is highly regulated, and noted that the medical marijuana industry is not. 000607 October 27 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Paize 317 Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber (Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Fads: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. SE is a problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 1S6th Ave. SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: 000608 October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9, In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5.b. and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MANS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact" Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. 000609 October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes_ __ __ _ Page 319 MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer lay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30, 2014, 2,00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002 108th Ave. SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however, there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be Icing County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding, and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern — firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr. Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David -Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr. Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. 000610 October 27, 2014 _ Renton City Council Minutes _ Page 320 Citizen Comment: Dissinger— Lynn Dissinger ffukwila), from Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN), Human Services Funding expressed appreciation to City officials for supporting the program for many Allocation years. She stated that DAWN is the only comprehensive domestic violence agency in south King County. She explained that the organization's mission is to lead and support efforts to end domestic violence by providing the critical services and education to survivors to make informed choices for their future, and to engage the community to raise awareness to take action. She added that DAWN provides legal advocacy, children and youth programs, mental health counseling, and safety planning and preventive programs to survivors. Citizen Comment: McOmber — Howard McOmber (Renton) requested support for the A.R.I.S.E. (Area of Homelessness Advocacy Renton Interfaith Shelter Endeavor) program. He stated that the Renton Ecumenical Association of Churches (REACH) supports the program and is asking anyone who has the means to pledge $10 per month to the program. He explained that if 150 people pledged $10 a month there would be enough money to support the program ad infinitum. He stated that people can go to the REACH webpage and sign up. Councilmember Taylor remarked that this is an excellent opportunity for people who oppose panhandlers to make a difference in someone's life and in the community. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council: Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/20/2014. Council concur. 10/20/2014 Court Case: Rubinchikov, Court case filed by Amanda Speed, represented by Michael J. Kelly, Attorney for Forfeiture Removal, CRT-14- Plaintiff, versus the City of Renton, et al, regarding alleged false arrest and 007 seeking damages from an incident that began on 2/3/2013. Refer to gty Attorney and Insurance Services. CAG: 13-149, Sunset Community Services Department recommended approval of a Job Order Neighborhood Park Fourplex Contract Work Order with Forma Construction in the amount of $192,673.05 Demolition, Forma for Sunset Neighborhood Park Fourplex demolition project. Council concur. Construction MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CONSENT" AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Vice -Chair Palmer presented a report recommending Finance Committee approval of Cfaim Vouchers 333186 — 333644, five wire transfers and one Finance: Vouchers payroll run with benefit withholding payments totaling $7,679,825.42 and payroll vouchers including 713 direct deposits and 61 payroll checks totaling $1,582,820.11. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Lease: 1st Floor of 200 Mill Finance Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence Building, Amazing Grace in the staff recommendation to approve a five-year lease with Amazing Grace Lutheran School Lutheran Church to operate the Amazing Grace Christian School on the first floor of the 200 Mill Building. Revenue generated over the duration of the lease will be $705,728,47. 000611 October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 321 The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be �..,. authorized to execute the lease. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION.* Council member Pavone recused himself from voting on the Amazing Grace Lutheran School lease Committee report. He explained that both of his children attend the school. Councilmember Taylor explained that his daughter had attended the school approximately five years ago. He asked the City Attorney to clarify whether or not he too should recuse himself. Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes replied that he did not have to recuse himself from voting on the report. *MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinances were presented forfirst reading and referred to the ORDINANCES 11/3/2014 Council meeting for second and final reading: Budget: Authorize 2015 An ordinance was read authorizing the property tax levy for the year 2015. Property Tax Levy MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED, Budget: Establish 2015 An ordinance was read establishing the property tax levy for the year 2015 for Property Tax Levy general City operational purposes in the amount of $36,420,000. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: 2015/2016 Utility An ordinance was read amending Sections 8-2-2 and 8-2-3 of Chapter 2, Storm Rates and Surface Water Drainage, Sections 8-4-12, 8-4-24, 8-4-31 and 8-4-33 of Chapter 4, Water, and Section 8-5-15 of Chapter 5, Sewers, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, allowing for adjustments to current utility rates for 2015 and 2016, clarifying the water shutoff fee language, and clarifying the qualifications for reduced rates. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11 3 2014. CARRIED. Budget: 2015/2016 Solid An ordinance was read amending Section 8-1-10 of Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title Waste Rates VI11 (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, relating to year 2015 and 2016 services and utility rates for all customer classes. MOVED BY PER550N, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Adopt Business & An ordinance was read amending Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of Occupation Tax City Code, imposing a Business and Occupation Tax and adopting a new Chapter 5-25, entitled "Business and Occupation Tax Code." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. 000612 October 27 2014_ TRenton City Council Minutes _ Pare 322 Budget: Clarify Business An ordinance was read amending Section 5-5-3 of Chapter 5, Business Licenses, License Fees of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of City Code, by clarifying the methods of calculation of Business License Fees and restating the Section entitled "Exemption." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11 3 2014. CARRIED. Budget: Modify Senior Citizen An ordinance was read amending Subsection 5A-2.0 of Chapter 4, Animal Threshold for Pet Licenses Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of City Code, by reducing the age for City residents to qualify for discounted animal licenses available to low income seniors. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 113 2014. CARRIED. Budget: Adopt 2015/2016 An ordinance was read adopting the Biennial Budget for the years 2015/2016, Biennial Budget in the amounts of $243,543,692 and $242,343,675, respectively. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11 3 2014. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. TIME: T p.m Jaso . Seth, M C, Acting City Clerk Jason Seth, Recorder October 27, 2014 000613 Council Committee Meeting Calendar October 27, 2014 November 3, 2014 Mohday CANCELED Utilities Committee, Chair Pavone CANCELED Public Safety Committee, Chair Corman CANCELED Community Services Committee, Chair Taylor 5:30 PM Planning & Development Committee, Chair Prince — Council Conference Room 1. Title IV (Development Regulations), Docket #10 6:00 PM Committee of the Whole, Chair Persson -- Council Chambers 1. Inclusion Project Update 2. Presentation: Adopt the Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan 000614 APPROVFDIBY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 1VCDUNUL RECOMMENDATION_ _ t]at� 7 ac ober 27, 2014 .Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal I_UA-14-000241 (October 23, 2014) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the Hea�ri' g . Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13,-2014, subject to the suggested ' modifications' made -below. Facts: on October 2-3; 2014, the Planning.and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the`closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger -and Jason Paulsen, -and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. -Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the' project with a Powe -Point presentation which was f-ollovved by Appellarit's argument. Findings' of FacVand Conclusions of taw: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the'Par'tl6s stayed within the record. After careful ,consicleratiori of the argtments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC .does not find any substantial error that _warrants reversal of the !Tearing Examiner's -Final becision. , As a result, the PDC adopts the. Hearing'ExaMiner's Final Decision, •in its entirety, subject to the modifications not below. Concerning the positions of the.parties, the PDC'understands that one' of Appellants' concerns, relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 15e AVenue'SE. It appears that this volume may -be the result of people .-seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' cohcern is re.al,-and it is _a concern that the City Council shares 'in same form or, another: Traffic operating at LOS-F (the worst . possible level), is not desirable.and need's to corrected. ' FUrthermore, the PDC understands that traffic ' along 156{h=Avenve'SE is aproblem,now, will continue to b.e a problem in the future, even without this development, avid that the addition of.up to 9 more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not belleye that the solution :to the existing problem and the.ant'icipated problem -is to orevent.the development of Enclave at. Bridle Ridge: An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. •Asa result, the P-DC recommends the following: That the City. Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156"' Avenue SE/SE 142' Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of: the pr-aject: ' The Flearink. Examiner noted that the concurrency determination. that the proposal will not' 'olate Renion's . transportation LQS is.Undisputed and.therefore-must be.accepted as a'verity. FinalDecision, page 18, lines' - 49: This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse .environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 84 In sum, the PDC finds.that the . i••I.earing Examiner did not erriri approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellants clai6, the PDC-alto finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that: this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and 000615 a.right�bf-way dedication. However, to. address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity:. Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primarypurpose.Is to define and establish the policy relating to the deveioprnent:of the community as a whole."- RMC 4-1-O60.A.1. One -aspect of that policy is that kentori's traffic requirements -also consider the impact to the entire city's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection: Another aspett.of that policy is that the -Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision wi11 serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land- Use Map and the properWs R-4 zoning designation. The -Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project. is consistent with Rentori's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable, levels of access; pubi'ic services and it.promotes the public interest -in satlsfacti-on of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and- c. Additionally, there -appeared to be a couple of 5cOVene.es errors -in the -Hearing Exa.miner's decision that need to -be corrected. These errors are. amended as follows:. Page 21, line 21`should be amended to change the word"County" to ",Renton". The sentence will then read as ."The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing;whether Renton staff correctiy.issued an MDN51s whether the pro"ect as proposed has a'prob.abie significant environmental impact:" Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed.. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City dearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic.' ' impacts prior.to issuance of the MDNS:" In -sum, the Ap.peflants have :failed to. establish pursuarit to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in factor law exists i n the record" justifying a reversal,of the Tearing Examiner's Final Decision...The errors or . areas that.require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. -The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiners decision subject to the modifcatiogs outlined above. -Ed Prince, Chair. _ Not in Attenddnce . Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garnion Newsom R.' C.E. Chip Vincent Jill Ding Endave at Bridle Ridge Decision —AFFIRM 2 000616, Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Planning & Development Appeal Hearing Jill Ding, Senior Planner October 23, 2014 -City of,: -, _ ..�. ir r Community and Economic Development Brief DescriptiaE-i Located on the west side of 156t" Ave SE just north of SE 142nd PI. 8.8 acre site located within the RLD Comp Plan designation and the R-4 zoning classification. RENTON 000617 1 11 /24/2014 Brie,f Dc-St:tiptiort i- RENTON 31 lots (two tracts) at a density of 4.45 du/ac • Ranging in lot size from 8,050 to 12,566 sq. ft. Tract A is 321174 sq. ft. and Tract B is`���J 490 sq. ft. � w. Mir-4 Dessc:riptiori A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was processed concurrently, removing 30,175 sq. ft. of parcel 142305-9057 from the subdivision. Access is proposed via a new "looped" public street off of 1561h Ave SE with an extension to the southeast that terminates in a temporary cul-de- sac turnaround. It is anticipated the road would extend under a future development application. • The site is currently developed with an existing single family residence and detached garage proposed for removal. ( ♦li � R E TN a N 2 000618 11 /24/2014 Brief Description Cont. is There are no critical areas identified onsite. • 303 significant trees have been identified on the project site, 35 trees along the east property line are proposed for retention. • A 14 day Notice of Application period commenced on March 10, 2014 and ended on March 24, 2014. Two citizen comment letters were received during the comment period (Staff Report Exhibits 20 and 21). One additional comment letter was received after the comme .--- wxi da ended ( Staff Report Exhibit 27). ;k.tdl RENTON Brief Description Cont, • On March 31, 2014, the ERC issued a DNS-M which included 1 mitigation measure requiring compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. A 14-day appeal period commenced on April 4, 2014 and ended on April 18, 2014. • A Request for Reconsideration of the DNS-M was filed on April 17, 2014 citing public notice and traffic concerns, specifically the project's impact to SE51hpl. o In response additional traffic analysis was ucted by the applicant and the City. RENTON 000619 3 11 /24/2014 Brief l` 0!-,CriJ)G0.t ("Ont. The applicant's analysis concluded the project would not result in a significant adverse impact to the intersection of 156th Ave SE and SE 5th PI The City's traffic analysis concluded that a signal is warranted at the 156th Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection. On May 19th, 2014 the ERC issued a revised DNS- M requiring payment of the project's fair share of a new traffic signal ($3,435). r A new appeal period commenced on May 231 ���. ended on June 6th. An appeal was filed. RENTON ­.,-..11- � , E Brief VeFc.riptiorl coilt. On June 24, 2014 a public hearing was held for the SEPA Appeal and the Preliminary Plat. On July 18, 2014 the Hearing Examiner approved the Preliminary Plat and denied the SEPA Appeal. * A Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed on July 30, 2014. • The Hearing Examiner denied the Request for Reconsideration on August 13, 2014. • An appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed on August 26, 2014. RENTON ..�.�.� 4 000620 11 /24/2014 Preliminary Plat analysis The proposal is consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies. The proposal is compliant with all relevant zoning regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with. RENTON Availability of Pubic Services Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. • Extensions of existing water and sewer main in the new roadway would be required in order to serve the plat. RENTON 00O621 5 11 /24/2014 Availabilit)f Of Pul-)ic Scr rvl; e The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. • A stormwater wetpond is proposed within Tract A on the southwest corner of the property. The project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. F The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstr R1E,-W,rAVns. ik Staff recommends approval of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary i Plat, as depicted in Staff Report Exhibit 3 subject to the 21 conditions i • ' . M ' - �` f . -. M of approval listed in Hearing the --�'-� - Examiner's decision. RENTON `'i..�.,T�y 5 000622 '� '-- ---� �;a�n� 74.-_i; ter' iC:'",. �, J�—�111, :•,�. , I 1 � k �r1xx. � �."1 I ,' _-- -' � --- ,..:47 :�,�r•. ac-:.v fir:, r"��i o-� .-.. �`�' I ,,, . ?.s�,`rt�,,'LL��__ Denis Law City of Mayor R" h' City Council October 14, 2014 APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Paulsen & Jason Paulsen (POA for Judith Paulsen) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 1403815eh Ave 5E (File NO. LUA-14-000241) To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above - referenced item on the following date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:30 p.m. 7t' Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 south Grady way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Sincerely, Ed Prince, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton. Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ` 000624 September 8 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 253 Appointment: Parks Mayor Law reappointed the following individuals to the Parks Commission for Commission terms expiring on 10/1/2018: Cynthia Burns and Michael O'Donin. Council concur. Appeal: Enclave @ Bridle City Clerk reported appeal of Bearing Examiner's decision regarding the Enclave Ridge, Paulsen (LUA-14- @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (LUA-14-000241) by Roger Paulsen, 000241 i accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CAG:14-088, Runway City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/1712014 for CAG-14-088; Runway Biastwall Replacement, Gary Blastwall Replacement Project; three bids; engineer's estimate $979,501; and Merlino Construction submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the lowest Company responsive bidder, Gary Merlino Construction Company, in the amount of $1,252,565.24. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee for discussion of funding. Annexation: Trace Matthew, Community and Economic Development Department submitted King County 154th Ave. SE & SE 139th PI Boundary Review Board Closing Letter for the proposed 'trace Matthew Annexation and recommended approval of the annexation. Council concur. (See page 256 for ordinance.) Community Services: Cost Community Services Department recommended approval of the Recreation Recovery & Pricing Guidelines Division's Cost Recovery and Pricing Guidelines. Refer to CommunLty Services Committee. Lease: 720 Building at Airport, Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment #3 to Rainier Flight Services LLC LAG-11-003, with Rainier Flight Services, in order to terminate the lease because the business has moved to another location at the airport. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation: Airport Master Transportation Systems Division requests authorization to execute a grant Plan, FAA Grant application and related documents with the Federal Aviation Administration in order to receive $753,935 in grant funds for the Airport Master Plan project. Council concur. Transportation: Airport Master Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Plan, Mead & Hunt Inc Mead & Hunt, Inc. in the amount of $837,705 to complete the Airport Master Plan, and requested authorization to transfer $120,000 from the 820 Building Demolition CIP fund to cover the budget gap. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation: Growing Transportation Systems Division requested authorization to participate in the Transit Communities Compact Growing Transit Communities Compact, a non -legally binding agreement with various government and non -government agencies, that supports implementation of VISION 2040 and local comprehensive plans. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Utility: Emergency Sale of Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an Emergency Sale of Water Water, King County Water agreement with King County Water District No. 90 in order to provide water to District No. 90 the district in the event of an emergency. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CONSENT AGENDA ASPRESENTED. CARRIED. 000625 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILE Subject/Title: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision by Roger Paulsen regarding the Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (LUA-14-OD0241) 1 Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL - 08 Sep 2014 Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/board: City Clerk's Appeal Notification Letter (8/27/2014) City Clerk Appeal to Council from Roger & Jason Paulsen (8/26/2014) Hearing Examiner's Order and Decision on Reconsideration (8/13/2014) Staff Contact: Request for Reconsideration from Roger & Jason Jason Seth, x6504 Paulsen (7/30/2014) Hearing Examiner's Decision (7/18/2014) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $ Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $ SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the hearing Examiner's decision on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat was filed on August 26, 2014 by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen/POA for Judith Paulsen, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat. 000626 DMa,� w Qity of 0000�f City Clerk - Bonnie t. Wafton- , Angu t 27; 2014 . APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Pan. sen & Jason Paulsen (POA-f'(jr Judith.Paulsen} R.E: 'Appeal of Hearing Fxa�n&s decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the ' Enclave at Bndle Ridge located at14038 156* Ave SE. (File No. LVA-1-OD0241). To Parties of Rwbid - Rursuant to True N; Chapter $, Renton CityiCode of Ordinances,' written appeal of -the hearing, examiner's decision on Enclave_atBridleRidge laud use application has been _ fi3ed,%t-the City Clerk. ' In accordance with Renton Nfunkipal-CqdrS6cdon 478-1.10F,'the .City Clerk shall notify -all parties of T&cord- of the receipt of the appeal: Other -parties of recotdxxay submit lettersiimired.to support of their positions:within ten (10) days -of the date of mailing of the notificatiolz of the-.' filing -of the appeal The deadline for mbnUcc;on of additionaUeffm is 5:00 prn;.Monday, September' 8, 2014: NOTECE IS' HEREBY GIVEN that thewritten appeal and •other pei t eat d6cuments.wili be reviewed -by the Councils Planner and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will . notify all parties,of record of the daxe'and.time of the Planning and Development Co=itiee ' meeting; if you are not listed in local telephone dfitctories and wLsli to' attend the meeting, Please Bali the Couaciil Liaison at=425430-6501 for information: The recommendation of the Committeewill be presented for'consideration by.the foil Covacil at a subssegn t Council . , meeting: Enclosed you will. ffud a copy of the appoal and'a copy of the Renton'Municipal Code.regarding : appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions orrecommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits oft e appeal. based upon the ,v ittenIrecord previously established. Unless a showing can. be made that ,additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held• by. the Hearing Examiner; no further evidence or testimony on this matter -AU be accepted by,the City Council. - For additional infoimatiolt or assistance, please feel free to call me at 4Z5-430-604. • - Sincerely, . ` . .. - • . .. :. - - ' 46ff C eth ity Cleric Enclosures ran _ cc: Coimca L ; 1055 South Gra*Way* itentmWashington 98057 . (475) 430-6510I. Fax (42.5) 430-'6 16'- rentmwa_gOv. 4 000617 City of Renton Municipal Code; Title 1V, Chapter_8, Section 110—A2peals 4-8-110i4 Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2, the fee schedule of the Crty. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 8-110F: AQQeaIs_to Gty Council - Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3.Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No publc hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be bome bythe applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost It shall be presumed that the record before the Crty Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675,12-3-2012) S. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 44-070H1, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in factor law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012) S. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389,1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5559,10-25-2010) 000628 CrrY of RENTC;P APPEAL TO WINTON CITY COUNCIL AUG 26 2Q,4 �M ^ OF HEART G E OEMM'S DECLSI0N5ZEC0AUgENDA.TION 5� RECEjvEo "JiE"Wi E APPLrcAiIO T NAB EAT , rroL. The un&rsigrrred interested parry hereby file& its Notice of Appeal froze the decision orr=m=ndaflan of the and LUse H=d a x &am mcL dated l I . c! OIAIF _ , 20LI-1- i. IDII T(--ATION OF PARTY AFP PNarrse: , IN 5 5rG Phone N ���- •���' Email: �IC IYI �C,l Atli• �dIY1 V041 rAt jr4V,0rTtr P vea) NTa=: ^ l Sit VMSIII_ Phone N=ber LI -- ffr- 91CO Email: _Yf;RgmP.frIEme CW« .6f4i ?. SPECIFTCATTON OF ERRORS (Attach additional shy, if scary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: 3. SUMMARY OF AC 17ON REQUESTED The City Councal is regoested to grmit the following rebet (Attach exp1mWion, if deli 4 - - _Revmsc the decision orre=nmezldadon and gmt the foIlowmg relief. Modify the decision orrceommendation as follows: Remand to tine Ezaaainer for ftirdier consideration as follows- Ot%rr� QQ I�GtGS� - l� ?rdlt/ A ressentative Signapam TppelPrii Name Date NOTE Heise infer to Trtie N, Chapter 8, of the Renton M=mpd Code, and Sin 4-8-1 I oF. inr specific appeal Fmeduu 040629- August 25, 2014 Cirty of Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (�C , ,�1� rr l.JGr7>~n 11a.�c$��. ✓tick Ems, � ,54we. Lac Ph,j< orai,r�ts, r�-ex fit ✓, CLF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY Of RENTON CODE SECT10N 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. C IFYOFPENfFpN AUG 2 6 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Stand[ng As the record shows, we have attempted to utilize each of the City's provided appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council, and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for. your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via SE 5u' Place adjacent to the proposed plat (See Exhiblt A), we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at -large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and (b). The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of "appropriate provision" with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. 1 000630 ' Lastly, we find that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, co icurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We. thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal AMiments In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D) to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit C), the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Level of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for "appropriate provision" (RCW 58,17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 15, Lines S -9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting "...Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18) The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that "Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project -specific traffic impacts, we disagree with his finding that Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact, the record shows clearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre -application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its clear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review (Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review (Exhibit IF) after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that "The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A,B,C" system used in most other jurisdictions." We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads_ "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 000631 most compelling standard to use'. The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the Crty properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project In fact, the City's own policy governing site -specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 156t'/ 142nd intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site -specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense.. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156t' Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL intersection currently operates at a failing level — LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contrib Lite 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that "...it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 156d' Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 51J' PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142"d PL / 15e Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit 1) d) The City's concurreney test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit 1) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. (Exhibit B) f) in response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156' Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level `C'. (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9u' on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) 3 000632 i) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed p lat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11-13). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13d' Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Limes 15-18: In this section, the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. B. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat, it would be'in the position of "...compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment:" This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development, as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of a project -specific application establishes a de -facto moratorium, nor that it entities an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 000633 Amendment, In fact, the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property -specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17) the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'I Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de -facto moratorium and runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counter to the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA ]PRESERVATION OOUNCIi,, INC., et aL b. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-1167. Argued January 7, 2oo2--Decided April 23, 2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development The interest in informed decisionmakiug counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim 'measures as takings regardless of the planners' good faith, the landowners' reasonable expectations, or the moratorium's actual impact on property Values. The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning processor abandon the practice altogether. - Further, a careful reading of Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'I Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the opposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. in further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate, please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCII., INC., et aL r. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states dust of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-u67. Argued January 7, 2oo2—Decided AprR 23, 2ao2 "For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use, we do not apply our precedent from the physical Wdup context to regulatory tdngs claims. Land -use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way —often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a irony few governments could afford." 5 000634 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning, including project -specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argurnent under the Fifth Amendment. c. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner, explaining why the denial of this project is not an option, concludes "it is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact, we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCW 58.17 was adopted, and has been amended overtime, to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.110(1a&b) and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent of the state legislature, they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme, the Hearing Examiner's basis for approving this subdivision would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. R. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section, the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE SE/ SE 142nd Pl. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six -Year Transportation improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy -making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law, the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. 6 000635 E. Page 4, Lines 25 — 26: In this section the Hearing Examiner states that "Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning; in this capacity. While planning under. the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required bytheir growth plans, its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact, this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use planning of municipalities, shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.70A.020(12) which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Acf: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established m inimurn standards.' Conclusion Given the record before you, and as supported by our arguments above, we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development -related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd Pi. intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 000636 A 6617 SE Sth Place Renton, NVA 98059 n lei Paulsen, P A for /Judith M Paulsen 31 A4azama Pines Lane Mazarna, XVA 98833 Esdiibits from the public record (ncluded by reference): Exhibit A Neighborhood Detail Map from Paulsen Comment Letter (24 jun 2014) Exlutiit B diiginaI final Deasion for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (18_jul 2014) Exhibit C Request for Reconsideration of H(_W_ng ENamir)er's Decision (30)uI 2014) Exlubit D Final Decision on Reconsidemrion (13 Aug 2014) E.�bit E Response to Request for Reconsideration of SEPA Determination (1 G Apr 2014) l~aliihit F Rev scd SEPA Dctcmn nation (19 May 2014) Exhibit G Report to the Hearing Evlmiuer (24.1un 2014) &1ibit H City of Renton 2014-2019 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Exhibit I Traffic Impact Analysis - 2'4 Addendum (20 Jun 2014) F_ihibit J Traffic Concuzrencr, "Kest for tl-ic Enclave at Bridle Ridge (1811pr 2014) Exhibit K Alemo from C. Barnes to R. I1Iar (5 May 2014) F-diibit L SERA -11ireshold Deteauination (31 Mar 2014) Exhibit M City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development 8 000637 4 7 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat FINAL DEUSION ON - ) RECONSIDERATION Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal ) LUA14-000241 ) The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for th4p subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single - Family residential lots on the east side of 156' Avenue SE between SE 139"' Place and SE 143'd Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued tinder the Washing on State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat The, preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is 3enied. This decision includes a response to a Request for Reconsideration fled by Roger and Judy Paulsen on July 30, 2014. Other than correcting some minor grammatical and typographical errors end adding some clarifications, the original July 18, 2014 remains the same except for the added ;ection entitled "Reconsideration Response", which follows this "Summary" section. the SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the :ontribtrtion to that congestion fails within the level of service (`LOS") standards adopted by the -* Council- LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic :ongestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated. that the proposal violates City adopted [be City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe :ongeshon m some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the --ity's transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 000638 I only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated -amount of 2 population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation 3 infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contn"butes to 20% 4 of the traffic for a needed traffic improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing 5 an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development Applying a different standard than the City's 6 adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation, funding priorities set by the City Council, 7 unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. g In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of the project opponents, 9 this money has to be expended in five years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that 10 those monies will not be expended in five years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record do not reveal 11 any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is determinative on the issue of assessing 12 congestion issues- The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) of this decision. 13 14 RECONSIDERATION REQUEST 15 As previously noted, Roger and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014. The request is denied and this decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this 16 "Reconsideration Request" section. 17 Mr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideratiom His concems have already been 18 addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only be evident to an experienced planner or land use attorney. The general public has every right to be fully apprised in as clear terms 19 as possible why cities and counties are often stuck with approving new development in areas that suffer from traffic congestion.. W. Paulsen's reconsideration, request provides an opportunity to 20 provide further clarity on the issue. 21 Mr. Paulsen's first point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17.110(2) prohibits the approval 22 of a subdivision unless a city or county makes a funding that "appropriate" provision is made for ... streets, roads, alleys, outer public ways..." This finding was made in three places in the Enclave 23 decision. Finding of Fact No. 4 generally determines that the proposal is served by "adequate" infrastructure. The subsections of Finding of Fact No. 4 elaborate how this determination was made 24 for specific types of tneture. Finding of Fact No- 4(E) elaborates how this finding was made for roads. Conclusion of Law No. 7 concludes that the proposal provides for adequate public facilities in 25 response to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), whim requires that subdivisions "[m]ake adequate provision for .... 26 streets, alleys, other public ways..." PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 000639 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 'It could be argued that a finding of "adequate" public facilities is not the same as a finding of "appropriate" public facilities as required by RCW 58.17.I 10(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate such parsimonious word play. "Adequate" within the City's regulatory standards for subdivision review cleariy encompasses the "appropriate" criterion of RCW 58.17.110(2). The intent of the City Council is paramount in interpreting the regulations adopted by it It can be prm mred that the City Council intends to have its regulations interpreted in a matmer first is consistent with state law. The RMC only requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW 58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(I)(I). Consequently, to the extent possible, the subdivision criteria of the RMC should be interpreted as encompassing RCW 58.17.1 I 0 requirements in order to ensure that a subdivision that is required to be approved under the RMC is also valid under state law. It is fairly) easy to apply this interpretation to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), since the language pertaining to roads in that provision is almost a direct quote from RCW 58.17.1 I0(2). The City Council clearly intended RMC 4- 7480(B)(4) to encompass the road findings required by RCW 58.17.I 10(2). Conclusion of Law No. 7 of the Enclave decision finds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met, so the required Ending o RCW 58.17.110(2) has also been made'. The remaining part of Mr. Pauberes reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd PI intersection and the limitations of the mitigation recommended by City staff- The original Enclave decision expressly acknowledged thew problems and explained that the preliminary plat application still had to be approved because the proposal met adopted City level of service standards. - The decision noted that fiscal and legal constraints prevent the City from imposing any additional mitigation or deny the project on the basil; of traffic congestion. Additional explanation will be provided in this section in response to Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request En short, Mr. Paulsen wants .a finding that the proposal will not be server) by "appropriate" streets because the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection operates at LOS F. As shall be explained, this puts the City in the position of either having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably doesn't have or denying the subdivision request and compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment It is unlikely that the we legislature intended cities and counties to he put in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110. A far more reasonable approach and the approach that would likely be adopted bythe courts is to construe a road' as "appropriate" for purposes of RCW 58.17.100(2) if that road meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As partially discussed in the original final decision of this case, an adopted City LOS standard represents the road system that the City can afford to require. Requiring more than the adopted LOS likely exceeds the financial capabilities of the City, which cannot be ignored because the City is required to fill in the funding gaps that it cannot require to be. filled by developers. In this case, are road system meets the City's LOS, which is wiry roads were determined to be adequate. the reason why the consequences of the interpretation advocated by Mr. Paulsen are so dire is because )f the strict rulings of state and federal courts is the application of the taldnps clause of the Fifth Amendment, i.e. government cannot, take property without just compensation. There are two The refermces to "adequate" in this dwi6on %i11 also be modiSed to include "appropriate" to remove any doubt )n the issue PREL UNARY PLAT - 3 000640 l significant hiriitations unposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make "growth pay for growth". The fast limitation is proportionality. The courts consider it to be an 2 unconstitutional takings if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that 3 exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g.,. Burton v. Clark Cowaty, 91 Wn. App_ 505, 516-17 (1998). For example, if a project wtii only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant 4 can only be made to pay for I 0% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI 5 intersecti_on. 6 So with only a proportionate share contribution from the applicant to pay for the intersection, the City 7 only has two options on how to proceed with the Enclave application if it cannot find the intersection "appropriate" at its current LOS, as advocated by 1W. Paulsen: (1) the City can pay for the remaining g costs of the intersection improvements itself, or (2) it can deny the preliminary plat application. 9 As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its long term transportation planning and simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid 10 denying a preliminary plat application. Of course, such haphazard and random fiscal planning would I I likely not result in a very efficient expenditure of public funds. The LOS standards required to be adopted by the Growth Management Act ("GMA") were designed to avoid this randomized form of 12 fiscal plazming. The GMA requires cities to adopt an LOS and then put together a 6 year specific and 20 year general budget that identifies where the City will get the fends to fiance the LOS it has 13 adoptedL By requiring cities and counties to pencil out the numbers for financing an LOS standard, the 14 GMA essentially places cities and counties m the position of only adopting LOS standards they can afford. That is why an LOS standard serves as a realistic and effective standard for measuring whether 15 a road is "appropriate" to serve a proposed subdivision. 16 The second course of action, denial, implicates the second obstacle placed upon cities and counties by the takings clause. The US Supreme Court considers it to be an unconstitutional takings to impose 17 development moratoria of unreasonable length. See Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'I 18 Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or two will be difficult to justify. As noted. in Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request, the City's finding 19 priorities for the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection, suggest that needed improvements won't be constructed for 18 years. Consequently, if the Enclave application is denied because of the 156 Ave 20 SE/SE 142nd PI intersection, the City is essentially placing an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to that ititersection_ The applicant would be in a very good 21 position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium. 22 In understanding the use of LDS to gage the adequacy of roads for subdivision review, there is on 23 additional point that helps put the Renton LOS into the proper context. Although the Renton LOS standard is somewhat unique in that it doesn't adopt the more traditional "ABCDEF" system of review, 24 the Renton system isn't at all unique in having an LOS system that designates some congested areas as adequate or appropriate Cities such as Seattle that have the letter system adopt an LDS of F for 25 portions of their transportation system. Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to 26 only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street PRELMNARY PLAT - 4 000641 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 26 segment above a failing leveI'of service. So even if Renton had adopted a letter system for its LOS, Renton could still assign an LOS of F to the intersections in the Enclave area if it determined that its limited transportation funds were more effectively spent elsewhere in the city. Hopefully the explanation above provides some additional clarity as to why an adopted LOS standard is the best tool for assessing whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a development for purposes of subdivision review. Enforcing the type of standard contemplated by Mr. Paulsen would place the City in the impossible position of having to commit funds it doesn't have to upgrading all failing intersections for new development beyond the applicants' proportionate share, or paying the applicants millions of dollars in taking claims. The LOS standard is the culmination of some very difficult and, detailed policy choices made by the City Council on where to spend limited public funds to improve its transportation system. It is the only practical and reasonable way to address congestion in a manner that recognizes that there is a limit to how much money is available to address the problem_ TESTIMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed developmeM His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which maces the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments r boarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well -established DNS process and followed it correctly. With .regard to the raffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and sow it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraflEx. His firm prepared the raffic analysis for the project The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, One other potnntcal option that hasn't been addressed due to spare limitations is to reduce the density of the imposed sabdivisioa The R4 designation does not have a minimum density regniresnent However, the GMA eguires cities to accommodate assigned 20 year population projections and a ciVs zoning desigv4ons arc Iesgned to accommodate these numbem Fmther, the GMA requires residential development within cities to ocxur f "tirbW densities which at a minimum is usuraily four dwelling units per acre Routinely mquiring reduced lensitics to rca= traffic impacts would arguably violate these GMA principals. Further, in this case the ate:rsettion at issue is already operating at LOS F so that from the standpoirrt of "appropriate" roads it makes no .ubsumdal difference if the subdivision has a density of one unit per acre as opposed to fora units per acre. PRELIIISINARY PLAT - 5 000642 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis_ The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria, however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of I42nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection is a stop -controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak -hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. Tra$Ex prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the 5E 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels' of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service -C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would impmve to level- of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed- - The south side access road to the enclave road is approximately 1751 which is north of the stop bar for the signal_ With the maximum queue calculated., this access area should not be affected_ In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulsen. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pm peak hour_ Mr. Paulsen stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by N&. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic_ City Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 000643 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attomey, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulsen was able to understand the process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr_ Paulsen does not have standing to raise this issue because he understtood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment Adequate notice was provided of the process. Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21). Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the prn peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil' Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton_ The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. in some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the Jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd htersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area, The city conducted a study to determine if Yaffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at he intersection and found a signal was warranted.. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met_ The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the ugnai is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis, If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal nstallat ion at nine on the list The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 Fxhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would >e with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not )ack up. to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of oeMce F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and he pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward .ven if the proj ect does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project She does not know he likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on ;xisting traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies rn a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long -terms studies, PRELWINAR.Y PLAT - 7 000644 I specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development 2 such as a mall being built close -by. 3 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be 4 required- 5 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was 6 received after the close of the comment period.. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The 7 SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signaL However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to g be installed as part of the project. 9 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable 10 addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. 11 Under cross-examination by Nor. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the 12 city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when 13 reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more 14 trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips.. The policy uses five percent as a 15 guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met- The subject project did not meet 16 the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 17 1$ Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and 19 noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection_ The Ietter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The 20 response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, 21 and location of the review hearing. 22 Applicant Response 23 Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, these are now two independent studies in the record which find that 24 traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the 25 problem areas. 26 Appellant Response PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 000645 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr_ Paulsen stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulsen's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Till Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is Iocaied on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential lowAensity in the Comprehensive Plan and R4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no ;ritical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain slong the east property line. The 14{lay notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period The city received one additional letter s.{Ier the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31st A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant =ducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a tgmd was wamanted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting hat the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and laded on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning %illations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to ie curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on -site have been identified as notected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required 35 trees will be retained and the rest vill be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project The school district s able to accommodate the.additional students as well_ All students will be bussed. The applicant PRELDAINARY PLAT - 9 000646 I I submitted a preliminary drainage report which snows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around 2 stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only 1 Oft and increasing the size would result 3 in the loss of a lot Staff recommends the 1 Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. 4 In regard to the curved mad, Ms. Naar testified that she believes straight road alignments are 5 policy, not code. 6 Applicant Testimony 7 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal g Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to 9 traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that 10 current conditions warrant a signal. 11 Public Testimony 12 Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project He often utilizes the transportation system in the area He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it 13 implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concemed with the roads that 14 will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrincy. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny 15 development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel -shed 12 which would result in this area failing 16 concurrerYcy. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true 17 impact of vehicles on picture. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional l8 transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards lg smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I405 in the Washington State Corridor SystenL The city 20 should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to 21 the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He 22 submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 23 Roger Paulsen testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 24 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers -of the area noting their belief that tine Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6- 25 year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city 26 builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority_ The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal PRELl1v NARY PLAT - 10 000647 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The May l9th - decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. Kathy ljorsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at Gam than later in the morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning Ieft on 156th, you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The -analysis also claims there -is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I -Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately i 19ft which is less than the standard of 125ft The entire condor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arteriaL The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 9lfi There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to Seal with the impacts of new development In regard to stormwater, Nis.1TZgh noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural carnage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have responsibility over the drainage facilities. There Heads to be certainty thax new problenns will not be reated by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is anclear what will happen with the project The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the proj act. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development_ ' To lose 300 significant trees is an mormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be irotected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks ,hould not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate irxareased density. These tandards cannot be ignored by city plamirog staff The city has failed to provide the arborist report, PRELIMINARY PLAT - I 1 000648 l 1 the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HQA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made 2 them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, 3 route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as 4 Exhibit 13. 5 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, 6 there will be 204 houses impacting tie 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this 7 particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this 8 light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years_ She 9 also noted that not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There 10 will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. II These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of 12 Heavenly Bamboo.- In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not -only invasive .. but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan_ 13 14 Staff Rebuttal 15 Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the 16 landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to loft. In regard to 17 the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff 18 'wort Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Baraboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city 19 would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available_ With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but 20 is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding tragic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency 21 analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will 22 talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 23 Applicant Rebuttal 24 Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Porsell's comment about her property on 25 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant 26 believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. PRELIlvDNARY PLAT - 12 000649 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Regarding the cumulatxvc development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurr uncy requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence cuurency analysis. With. regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by I& Paulsen. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr- Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in mad conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers; and that this is a standard reference dowment for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms.. High's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a-h Exhibit 2 Staff Report wl attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4. TraflEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 - Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts frosu June, 2014 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments Exhibit S Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by I& Paulsen xhbit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan -hi-bit 11 Paulsen second request for reconsideration Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulsen's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn ITigh Comment Packet 3ahbit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant 3xhbit 15 Utility Map jxh2Nt 16 6/26114 email from Roger Paulsen. to Till Ding :xhibit 17 6i27l14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment hibit 18 6l27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulsen comments PRELIMINARY PLAT -13 000650 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g� 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit 19. 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 711/I4 email to TM Ding from Roger Paulsen FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. AMlicant PNW Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was givers until July I, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2,104 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits S, 13 and 14. 3. Proiect DescriTtion The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156 h Avenue SE between SE 139°i Place and SE 143rd Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("M17NS'l issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156* Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet A geotecbnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Adeouacy of _ Infrastructurv?ublic Services. The project will be served by adequate/appropriate infirastnirture and public services, specifically including all the ifl.frastructure and services identified below. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infirastructcrrelservices are addressed as follows: PRFUM NARY FLAT - 14 000651 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certi$cate was submitted to the City. Sewer service -%U be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 15e Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to famish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479-28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drama e. The proposal provides for adequate stomlwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application - The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop an on -site storm detention/water quality pond Iocated in proposed Tract A City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County_ King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 Ding County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDNL A level 3 downstrean analysis will be required for the project Appropriate individual lot Sow control BWs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structtual engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required_ PRELM NARY PLAT -15 - 000652 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D. Parks/dpenSpace. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R4 district The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequatelappropriate streets, roads., alleys and public ways. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes au acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LDS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" or "appropriate" traffic infrastnrcture. for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher standard than that set by LO S would likely run afoul of one if not all o f these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as .well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Rentoz3's system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act; Chapter 36.70A ("GNW). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that "...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of sexvice on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). Ia furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well - functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment PRELMNARY PLAT -16 000653 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county interswtionss. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has tbree choices: (1) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concunmey analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its moons, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to an LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance identified in the preceding paragraph_ Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, .Renton. has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single -occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See Renton Compre6ensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from. the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels dean the more typicaI "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation fimding and planning priorities, those same_ issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or fimding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose . a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no PRELEVENARY PLAT -17 000654 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium., or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional.. The Iong discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact_ It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal .if it causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the traWorlation element... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LDS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards3 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex, 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some morn left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 15e Ave. MSE 142na Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that 3 The applicant's engineers used the Trmsport=on ltmmch Board Ffii&waY_CWad" Manual to calculate LOS. PRELIbflNARY PLAT - 18 000655 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 mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt See RCW 82,02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex_ 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ear: 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the. City. See Ex, 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ear, 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signaliza#ion of the 156d Ave. SEISE 142°d Street inteasection, would cause queuing conflicts with, the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection- F. Parking Sufficient area exists, on each lot, . to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight lvfiddle School and Hazen. High School Any new students fromthe proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 PRELEVI ARY PLAT - 19 000656 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mile from the project site at Be Avenue SE & SE 5* Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156* Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156h Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156d' Avenue SE at SE 5P Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156b Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4_ There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit IS), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements - No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the 3dministrative record. 6. SEPA_ Appeal A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration with the City on PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 000657 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 1561 Ave. SEISE 142d Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex_ 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as audiorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel566 Ave. SFJSE 142°d Sired intersection improvements. W. Paulsen argued that bark -ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Conclusions of Law I. Authori RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall bold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. ZoningK2mprehensive PIan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL 3_- SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are an mitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official ias not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations_ Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A_ Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts_ Che primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an VIDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact See NAC 197-11-330(l)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS o reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. 1n the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project_ In assessing the validity of a threshold letcrmination, the determinations made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to ubstantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3xaxviii). Adequate Environmental_ Review PRELDAINARY PLAT - 21 000658 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 The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing -that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing -with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn_ App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined bow thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e_g_, Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn, App. 711 (2002), Moss v City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001), In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record zndicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufYj ezent, and therefore the SEPA oj9cial asked for additional information in the form of an EA_ The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn- App. at 23-24. WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufflcient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013), The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon infonn.-bon reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal_ 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulsen in fact submitted comments on the MANS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. PREI.INIINARY PLAT - 22 000659 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 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- Signifcance-Mitigated, att. H to. Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that `[clomment periods for the project and proposed DN.- M are integrated into u single comment period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing.-. _ by 5: 00 pm on March 24, 2014... If comments cannot be submitted in ► citing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments_.." Mr. Paulsen asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on. the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing. refers to "comments on the above application", not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[]here will be no comment period folloKing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Sign nce- Mitigated (DNS -AV." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seem clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new threshold dewmnmabon cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulsen .does not .have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(EX3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision under appeaL Mr. Paulsen doers not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was Iead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr_ Paulsen submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, W. Paulsen asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with ,itc specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed PRELR, I"AR.Y PLAT - 23 000660 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Iegislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department_ The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify sire transportation issues that were assessed by City engineering staff. All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts.. The adequacy of review Just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). Wren dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could :conceivably .lead to significant adverse -impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulsen presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is. clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts- This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the dderminat'tons of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signaUzation of the 1562L Ave. SE/SE 142d Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the. proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no evidence to the contrary. PRELMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080M): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24 000661 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11. Legal Lots: Create legal huilding sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. f 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may he denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions_ Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall he noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth: in frill, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by. this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Stag' Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road,. Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public facilities as required by RMC 4-8-080(B). RMC 4-7-080(l)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(]) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing l;Zaminer unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road_ RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff reportor anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 81h Street, which is accommodated by a stub road Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right -of --way or for easements to the City for trail PRELIM NARY PLAT - 25 a 000662 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the followingprovisions: 1_ Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding: steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per.RMC 4-3- 054JIa, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur; shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.- 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting.. The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris znd pollutants. ti PRELTMINARY PLAT - 26 000663 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 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site, No piping or tunneling of summs is proposed Trees will be retained as required by RMC 44-130 as deter u ed in Finding of Fact No. 5_ RMC 4-7--140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the s'ubdmder's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall fund that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classocations shall be as def�rned and designated by the Peparbnent. 14. As shown in Staff Report Far. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possible for the project. RMC 47-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned- RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. [6. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by AMC ¢6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (1259 are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but a* afterprovision of all necessary safety measures. [7. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and pproved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. . RMC 4-7-150(E): PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27 000664 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 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads andpathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographicaUenvironmental constraints; andlor ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link e�dsting porrions of the grid system shall -be made. Ata minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 3. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation, The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R14 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Ofjrcial shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alleys) is not feasible__. 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7_ Cube Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically Dossible. 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible fair the proposal. Alley access is not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above_ No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights -of -way and new rights -of -way dedicated as part of the plat; including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specifsed in the street standards or deferred by the Plannmg/Building%Puhlic Workr Administrator or his/her designee. 19, As proposed. PRE D,CNARY PLAT _ 28 000665 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 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex_ 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required, RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(R): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private i access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street_ C 4-7-170(C): M size nape, mid'orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate .for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-urrent applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width arcept in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of curie -sae (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirtyfivefeet (359.. 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex_ 3, the requirement is satisfied- RMC 4-7-170(E):' All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights -of --way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offtfteen feet (15). 15. As conditioned. PRELMENARY PLAT - 29 2 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall he shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preservers, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 25. Trees -%rill be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. S. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8 j into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural waterflow and shall be of sufficient length -to- permit full width- roadway and required slopes. The=draimWe- system shall- be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity forfuture development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide rapacity for the new street paving for the plat 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed including all service connections, as approved by the Department Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any swface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. PRELIlMNARY PLAT - 30 000667 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 26 129. As conditioned RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well -as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. T%e cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: u I iLil-F- T t concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and -every. controlling corner of he subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys hall be per the City of Remton surveying standards. 1. SURVEY.• tll other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. STREET SIGM.- lie subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 1. As conditioned DECISION 'he proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described m this decision is onsistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. for the proposal 2. All proposed street names sW be approved by the City. 3. All lot comers at .intersections of dedicated public rights -of -way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15). PRELEVE NARY PLAT - 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision developmeui. S. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface materiaL Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each Iot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building_ The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owmer,_Thr, applic-". shall be responsible.jonly fonconduit to_serm his _development -Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped_ The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed 7. The applicant shall install all street: name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. S. Qty staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156L Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure.safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary tam around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(G) if this is not already proposed.. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Signiificauce M-rtigated, dated May 19, 2014. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed Iandscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). PRELAVIINARY PLAT - 32 000669 j I- 1 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to 2 recording of the final plat Street frontage landscaping shah be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 3 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the 4 trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement j should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the 6 stand of trees proposed to be retained, Such easement shall be identified on the face of the 7 Final Plat. i 8 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 9 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review 10 and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 11 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-ofway. The revised plat _-_ 12 .- map -shall -be -submitted-to-the- Ca:rrevt Planning Project-1V =ger prior- i5wding oflld 13 final plat. 14 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 15 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the 16 wetter winter or spring month.., a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow 17 for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 19 M The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities 19 for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be 24 submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELDd3NARY PLAT - 33 000670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .._ .. 12 - I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 13th day of August, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-1I0(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen - - (14 - . day ---append , p- io& . shall ..coznzncnce ...upon_ ...the_....iss - of . _the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7"b floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIWNARY PLAT - 34 000671 July 30, 2014 City of Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 City of Renton Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CTTY OF REN TOM JUL 3 a 2014 RECEFVED MY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(9) Dear 7Mx. Examiner, Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18, 2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat fox The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241). S ---- Roger was a Party of Record prior to the close of the heating, he participated in the hearing, and we jointly submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing Identification of Concerns for Which RUgMideration is Requeste We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date, and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in fight of the following. 1. Streets: We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified, and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately, we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17, and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affirmative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is made for services, including streets. Despite raising this issue in our earlier testimony, nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 acknowledged in your findings or decision. Further, RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be shade in this regard, because, as your record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following ate facts fmm the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156" Ave. SE / SE 142n° PL intersection currently operates at a failing level — LOS level "F" 000672 b) The City acknowledges tbat the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle traps in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection- c) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection d) The City acknowledges that it may need to impose left turn restrictions on the access road from the proposed development e) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LDS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion g). In response to concems about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156�' Ave. SE / SE 142' PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level "C". h) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's adverse impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. x) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9`s on their Traffic Signal Priority Last 1) The City's 2014-2019 6--Year Transportation Improvement Plan CTTP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal reap not be implemented for approximately 18 years k) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has neatly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement The developer did not object to this requirement Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, or your approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our State Legislature in RCW 58.17.1.10. Relief Requested We respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner re-em irc the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the :fact that affirmative Endings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17,110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development -related traffic will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 000673 Sincere]V, 1 aulscn : on M PaulsLm POA fox.juay ni Paulsen 0617SE 5" Atce 31 Mazama Pines Line Rcnton, NVA 98059 Maxama, WA 98833 000674 - - - - - - - - - - - CrYOFRM,.TON JUL 24 2014 RECEFVED CfTy CLEWS OFFICE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE MY OF RENTON 9. RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge 10 Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal 12 13 14 SUNMARY 15 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family 16 residential lots on the east side of 156* Avenue SE between SE 1391h Place and SE 143 id Street. An 17 appeal of a Mitigated Deterniination of Nonsignificante CWNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the re -view of the preliminary plat The 18 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. 19 The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable conwrns about traffir, congestion; but the contribution to that congestion falls v6diin the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City 20 Council- LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic 21 1 congestion- The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. 22 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's 23 transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represmts a balancing of (1) the state's Growth 24 Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth, (2) 25 limitations on the availability of public fimds to pay for transportation mfiastructare; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held fitiandally responsible for 26 the traffic impacts they create (e.& if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELIMINARY PLAT - I 000675 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de firxo moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City s adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intaiection that is not performing well, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expended m six years or returned to the applicant It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of as LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could fruther reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. TESTIMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development.. Ifis only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because ofthe city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well -established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TrafiEx His firm prepared the tragic analysis for the project. The fast traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjoc:ted to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project None of the intersections in Rm ton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TrafffEm to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersectiort of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 000676 2 3 4 5 6 9 9 10 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is a stop -controlled sign intmection to the south of the project- The original study looked at the pm peak hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project Tray prepared an adderdum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE Sth Place and 156th Avenue intersection_ Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendnxn dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d)_ Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th-Place intersection will continue to operate 'at level of service C, the north -side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, -thus Tra$Ex prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 m order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a-m, and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed_ 'Me southside access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal.. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the if ect d iutersecE�ons; the IR will add 7-dj ki tFe am hour P%t Ps _.� hour. Under cross— mmmatdon by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson- In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pin peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop -line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing trafc. Under redirect by W Carson, IW Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 petcemt increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any odier person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulson clams other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but W. Paulson was able to understand the process so it se= likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr_ Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELMNARY PLAT - 3 000677 2 4 5 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and h1ely threshold_ The notice points out that the city was relyung on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. Till Ding, Renton Senior Plarmer, testified that Mr_ Paulson submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21). Rohm Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, m regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should ' However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase m the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pia there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. Site reviews the engmeering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Invcshgation froze. University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 w::pected new trips for the project in the pm peals hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, be£are beginning work in Renton- The 20 threshold ffir-impacts is no# fit base on her experi—uce. In some paces s3ae has wor the tb�resT►aldis 30. " The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd interscetion, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts_ The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward., the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Fxhzbit 5) for 156th and 142nd_ In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal.. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queries would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay_ With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and the p a level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development Renton bases its studies on a 2' percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close -by. Under on by Mr_ Paulson, Ms_ Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be required_ Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Ding noted that one public comme it was received PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 000678 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a$er the close of the comment period The city responded to this mm ment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions The SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the preJec:L Under cross-ccamination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside ofher Department - Under cross cxami ation by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development" This document is- Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trigs generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is nary if the five percent threshold is not met The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a� percent growth N6 r ufii an ysc — -- --- --- — — - --- - Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turning'out of the Sth Place inte ection. The letter dial not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, M& Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review bearing - Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DIMS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas_ Appellant Response Mr. Paulson stated that Exbbit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submittM in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hering axed present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their connnents at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue,1V&. Panlson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to msaire the traffic signal would improve conditions_ PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 000679 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be n wing an optional SEPA review process which allows far the integration of the comment period into one period The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony ,Fill Ding, Renton Senior PIanner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low -density in the Comprehensive Plan and R4 .in the Zoning Map. The proposal .is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft_ Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,1759gft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded,. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street of of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south.. The site is.currrently developed with a single-family residence and a detach ga i e._ These structures be�estroyec� 'YFC-Te are no caitiral areas on the site. TEEM— are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-0ay notice and comment period commenced on March loth, and the city received two comment letters during the period The city received one additional Ietter after the conclusion of the comment period A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31 st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period conanunced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on -site have been identified as protected., thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required 35 trees will be retained and the rest will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project The school district is able to aocommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed_ The applicant submitted a prelim mazy drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan_ 50ft laudscaping strips are rewired around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only IOft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recomine rids the I Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are ?olicy, not code. Applicant Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 000680 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 I1 -12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Munic4m l Code rehires certain tangent lei but does not require straight alignments` The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not ca-eate the need for the traffic signal The mdependent studies found that current conditions warrant a signal. Public Testimony Tom Carpenter testified that he rides within half a mile of the project He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation eoneurrency approach He is coaacerned with the roads that will intersect with 156th. If Renton's ooncurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concammncy. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use, travel -shed 12 which would result in this area failing conc ur=cy- In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a icy irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrast uctare. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Reuton's current thresholds for wteax3�ev opmeuts mast meet grewrec�ew standards xs ugh —because rt i-sgeared towards largW developments. The trend is towards smaller develaprnent such as the Enclaves thus Renton's standards are not adequate:. These inteisections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System.. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the condor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents - He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed, He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5 th Place. He submitted a comment Ietter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6-year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal A detailed traffic. analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs more stabr7.ity before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than latter In the mom]IIg. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. PRELDYDNARY PLAT - 7 000681 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Comas nity Affiance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planes and land use. She noted that the transp ation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th,, you cannot see the access streaL The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent anmial rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intmwctions; however, an I -Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7fi north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119& which is less than the standard of 1251 The entire corridor is in the 1-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91 fL There is no provision that adequate right -of --ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a his stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvment in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually makm improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped sbrmwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a Ievel 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced- The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff The city has failed to provide the arborist report, the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc_ She stated that they would ae to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impaling the 156th and 142nd main intersection. Site is concerned that no impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 1561h is considered a secondary bypass for 1-405 then this next intersection is also s bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in.the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 dips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELMNARY PLAT - 8 000682 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 13 14 IS 16 17 I8 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks, The route will change in Septeoiber and may add a number of bus stops. Peoplethat come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is eoncemed with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist bas done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report This rcport concurred with the applicant's arborist report_ With regard to the landsmpung around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation- This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 101 In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The mzaimd reports are available Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3. downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concaurrency policy is cia�ty-w dlc ana bif 2, attachment 26 from the staffreport is a concuurency analysis. When a citywide policy is met: the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards came front. Applicant Rebuttal Maher Joudi testified that: with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adapted transportation concurrency requirements- The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide.basisand collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis- This means that a proj ad in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide, The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations, The 2 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create siguficant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis, This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr- Paulson. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts, With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions They have satisfied the code_ He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response PRELRVIINARY PLAT - 9 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 in response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this de,=matiom With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted m Ms. High's documentation, she now that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. M.M. 1-1 . I V Exhibit I Notice of Appeal wl attachments a-h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 Tm$Ex Traffic Study Addendum dated June 2-0, 2014 Exhibit 5 Rentoa Traffic Counts from June, 2014 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments Exhibit 8_..__......-ka-li6u Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulson second request for reconsideration Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulson's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map Exhibit 16 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 7/1114 email to Jill Ding from Roger. Paulson FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. " PNW Holdings, LL.C. 2. Hearin . A consolidated hearing on the prel=mry plat application and SEPA appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City C12mhem The SEPA appellant, Mr_ Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant dating the hearing. The applicant was givers unto July 1, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 PRELIMINARY PLAT -10 000684 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. . Proied Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres unto 31 single-famiily residential lots on the east side of 1560'Avenue SE between SE 139d' Place and SE 143'a Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (`°MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat_ The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156" Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-e-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stomzwater tract and an open space tract The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generaHy slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surfice conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater: �" Ilie s'i et —is ly o—o igi y a single -family res deuce; a fietacha�-garage, jad associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detaehed garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 14 4. Adegnaey of lnfrastructure/Pnblic Services. The project will be served by adequate 15 inffiLstructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all inf a structure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient_ Specific iubmstracture/services are 16 1 addressed as follows: 17 A- Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water 18 availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City 19, of Renton. There is an 8 inch sewer main in 156"' Avenue SE. 20 B. Police and Fire Protection_ Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resourexist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that 21 ces the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable 22 at the rate of $47928 per single family unit This fee is paid at ti= of building permit issuance. 23 24 C. Draiaalse. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities_ A drainage Plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report Plabit 13) has been submitted with the application. 25 The report addresses comphiance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of 26 Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELUMNARY PLAT - I 1 000685 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 � 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 an on -site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A- City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre -developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combimed detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest oomer of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDK A level 3 downstteant analysis will be required for the project --Appropria£e-inshvidual-lot-fiowcontrt>17BMPs will -be retuired-t(Y-help-it1gate-the-- new runoff created by this development The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required D. PAd;§LQjLcq S ace. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific zequizerments for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space- E. Streams. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion rests a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a higher standard than that set by LOS would h1ely ran afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation fli din basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts_ In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's sy-4=n, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that "...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ties- t-L0Sfor— specific arterial tntersertions and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well -functioning irksection or road segment and F is a fang intersection or road segment An LOS of C or D is AW adopted as Tr,inimum LOS far city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic iraprovemrents that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application The type of site specific ooncurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an aaxptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specifie analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance quoted in the preceding paragrapb. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segma its. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the tata.l number of miles one single-0ccupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELMNARY PLAT -13 000687 1 Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI-26_ The Renton LOS index 2 standard is 42, ie. the combined mileage of a single -occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time, It's unclear how the mileage for the 3 LOS index is determined from the mmprebensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as 4 travel times in the CiV s transportation syst= overall meet the 42 index value- 5 The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring 6 toot for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other 7 jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" 8 LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate 9 choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may ;mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the 10 City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation I 1 funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the ------.--absenee-of-City-planning-ar-Tnndmg-duemves-tc-lower sever-oongesteit -in-a-pa3-tioular 12 area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard 13 for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be 14 required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also 15 unconstitutional. 16 The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's 17 concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a eonurrency analysis and have concluded that the 18 proposal will, not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed 19 this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City 20 concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by 21 the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact 22 23 It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most 24 jurisdictions As quoted prmously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes 25 "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally 26 by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELIlV WARY PLAT -14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection =eatly operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of con=renay became the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards' to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ear_ 12 of staffreport, Ex_ 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the CrV s. LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion, impacts at project level review, there is still some mom left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards, can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be. applied in an objective and uniform: manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156`s Ave. SEISE 142°4 Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions_ is very limited because state Jaw requires that mitigation funds be expended veithin-fve-vears nf-reeeiot--See-t-'9V82:92-028: balancing of improvement oasts cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected Mtersectious, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified M Ex. 13 and 14. See ER 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert . and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr_ Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the sigaalization of the 1561 Ave. SEISE 142°d Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position.. I The applicant's engJneers used the Transport 6cu Research Board 1%gbway 9mmg; ty2yl$nual to calculate LOS. PRELIIVl NARY PLAT -15 000689 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the mtersection would not bade up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is detmmined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the aocess points to the intersection. F. Parkins. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street packing for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Nfiddle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 156h Avenue SE & SE 5`h Place. The proposed project includes the sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156' Avenue SE north of the project site along the mad shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156"' Avenue SE at SE 5'" Place via the existing crosswalk,. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156," Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing; so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required m order to mitigate the proposal's poteatial impacts to the Renton School District The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is asses at $6,392.00 per single family residence. . 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal- Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. These are no critical areas on site. The proposal is su=unded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an Ls -is PRELIMINARY PLAT -16 000690 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty per=t of the trees shall be retained m a residential development When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in.the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trews, Of the 200 protected trees 30 punt or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retam 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record 6. SEPA A 1. A mitigated determination of nonsigaificance C l 4DNS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April. 16, 2014. Ex_ 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156 Ave. SENSE 142 Street intersection. W. —Paulsoa then ffa7&-s-u$-ec-t-SEp-X appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex, 1. The appeal raised two issues; (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing cozmnent on the MDNS at the permit hearing, and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel 56t' Ave_ SENSE 142md Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulson argued that back ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points Conclusions of Law 1 _ Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Heariug Examiner shall bold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zonui7-/Qoppr6=ve Plan Desizratiou& The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPA APPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are umnitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts- or (2) the SEPA responsible official has PRE .IM NARY PLAT -17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 11 not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental zm cts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant env ronmmtal impact. See WAC 197-1 l- 330(1)(b)- If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts_ In the altearmative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold rietannination, the detw ination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-1 lfi (3)(a)(viii). B. Adequate Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responmble official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 12 An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a 13 showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie 14 showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA' Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wit_ App- 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Palley Community 15 Assn v. Cityof Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several 16 occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to a&%essing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental 17 impacts. See, e.g-, Boehm v. City of Yancouver, II I Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of 18 Bellingham, 109 WrL App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: 19 The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The 20 environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA 21 official asked for additional information in the form of an EA- The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, 22 and unposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finalFy approving it. 23 Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts Ywre not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating 24 that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting 25 an EIS. 26 109 Wn. App. at 23-24, PREL MNARY PLAT -18 000692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 1I WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufcient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a psoposaL 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined itt Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confiising, but Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "CcJomment periods for the project and proposed DNS M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page Of the Notice provides that `'Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing....by 12 5:00 pm on Mm-ch 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in writing byte to in rcate above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments... " 13 Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period 14 on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the 15 application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard_ However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the 16 MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that Jtjhere will be no comment period 17 following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Signicance Mitigated (DNS 9." At the very leaA this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek 1$ clarification. on when the MDNS comment period expires. 1 The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new 20 threshold dctmuiination cannot be addressed in this decision. Ms. Paulson does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an 21 a issue is that the appellant must have suffered some appeal pp vijury in fact due to issuance of the decision 22 under appeal Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. 23 In point of fact Mr. Paulson submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to 24 the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 25 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No, 6, Mr. Paulson asserts that the unpacts of iutersec ion improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in 26 the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELRVUNARY PLAT -19 000693 I points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental 2 impacts. 3 On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(P), the standard is that the SEPA 4 responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon infon nation reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied 5 in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site 6 specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative 7 amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site 8 was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination- 9 In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it adequately reviewed traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex~ 1.2, was prepared analyzing impacts 1.0 to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis 1 I under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering 12 assessed by City engineering staff. _ 13 All of this taffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a `{prima facie" 14 showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will 15 create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" 16 showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish 17 that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a 18 single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that 19 level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson 20 presented no evidezice to the confiary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the 21 SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. 22 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental 23 impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse imparts_ This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the 24 SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex- 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a 25 26 PRELBENARY PLAT - 20 000694 .--.7777777777 1 qualified traffic c4xp rt establishing that queues caused by sigaalizatjon of the 156f' Ave. SE/SE 142"s 2 Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. I& Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT 4 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the crit= for preliminary review. Applicable 5 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 6 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 7 I- .Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 8 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 9 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 10 because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may 11 be required as a condition of approval and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat 12 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, stree ts, alleys, other public ways, water 13 supplies and sanitary wustes. i4 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as wdL As 15 depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road 16 A As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, 17 the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 18 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 19 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards.._ 20 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(I) of the staff report; which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 21 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be 22 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 23 or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 24 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex- 3, the internal mad system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road 25 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 26 City. PlcE D&NARY PLAT - 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record._ However, the only other sired connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8a' Street, which is accommodated by a stub road_ Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposaL RMC 4-7-120(Q: 1f a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City far trail purposes_ 11. There is nothing in the record .to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated trail- RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1_ Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such 12 Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 13 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 14 a. MoodinglInundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must. have the ppproval of the State 15 according to chapter 86.16 RCWbefore the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 16 such subdivision. 17 1 b• Steep Slopes: A plat short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 18 OSO.TI a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 19 ! approved. rOM 21 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 22 1Clearing Regulations. 23 14, Streams: 24 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, 2s and wetland areas. . k1l PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22 000696 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 b. Method: b a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved The methodo%gies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed Ec. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d Clean Water Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the starmwater design assures that it wi.Il not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-7-140. Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 12 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City. of Renton Parks Mitigation 13 Pesolution. 14 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issn.ance. 15 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department Prior to approving a street I6 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Offlcial shall find that such exception shall 17 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as 18 defined and designated by the Department 19 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex- 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is cauientiy the only road connection possible for the project 20 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 21 15. As ccmditioned_ 22 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or . 23 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 24 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project 25 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 26 Department. the street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PREL7MNARX PLAT - 23 000697 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feel (125 ) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only afte rp rovis io n of all necessary safety measures. 17. As determined. in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Worms Dgxmtnent has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable strut standards. . RMC 4-7-150(E): 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this ,Section. 2. ,Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within"and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network ofroads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan T;r-ansportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T' 9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -hand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. a_ The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the member of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: L Infeasible due to topographicabenvironmental constraints, and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made_ At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity- S. Alley Access: Alley access is th e preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and.R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible... 6_ Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattem is possible for the proposal. Alley access .is not required since the proposal ism a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are PRELDAINARY PLAT - 24 000698 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 S 9 10 I looped as encouraged by the criterion above, No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met RMC 4-7-150(.F): All adjacent rights -of -way and new rights -of -may dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the PlanningBuilding/Public ForksAdministrator or his/her designee. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a fall -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex_ 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. 12 K int: 4- /-1 /UtA): insojar as pracacat, siae Lor Lines snau De at rtgnt angles to street tines or raaLa/ to curved street lines.. 13 21. As depicted in Stag' Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conforroauoe with the requirement quoted 14 1 above. 15 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road_ Access may be by private 16 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 17 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street 18 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 19 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 20 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density 21 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22 123- As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, which includes area, width and density. 23 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at theirforemost points (i.e., the points where the Z4 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of 25 the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of 26 PRELH IINARY PLAT - 25 000699 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 twenty fest (209 and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac' (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirtyfrve feet (359. 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied_ RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicatedpublic rights -of --►spay, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offrfteen feet (15). 25. As conditioned RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 125. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department cost to the City and designed in accordance Kith City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (89 into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural waterflow and shall be of su_ eient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-5-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance %ith applicable City drainage standards as determined in Fmding of Fact No. 4. The CiVs stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical infammation report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. PRELMNARY PLAT - 26 [IIIIIYIII�; 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 la 11 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. the cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 12 - - - ` - -- - -- - -- -- -- ._. .. r ... .... . v.w..r• orauaa arG cwV rvc u W final ground elevation and capped_ The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to 13 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 130. As conditioned RMC 4-7-210: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveyingstandards. C STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned PRELHVD TARY PLAT - 27 000701 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10; 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECMON The proposed preliminary plat as .depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and descn-W in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation meiwres issued as part of the A4itigated Determination of Non -Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights -of -way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). . 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8� into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development: 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. fi. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be Iaid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development, Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156" Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff' shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe wandng conditions for children walking to the school bus. PREL MINARY PLAT - 28 000702 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(G) if this is not already proposed.. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures. issued as part of the revised Determination of Non Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction. permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped, visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single fancily residences. 11 1 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for 13 protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based 14 on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 15 I5. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application 16 identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist 17 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for 18 review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 19 IT The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right -of --way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the C%urent Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the 20 final plat. 21 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engmeer and geotech 22 engineer, and lining may also be required. 23 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during 24 the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structiu-a.I fill 25 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance 26 agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and PREL 41NARY PLAT - 29 000703 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager. for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 2 L Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 18th day of July, 2014. A- City of Renton Hearing Examiner _ Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(Ex9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be lined within fourteen (1.4) calendar days from, the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7`h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation, for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELRYUNARY PLAT - 30 000704 r.r %WAW CITY OF RWON 5EP 08 2014 APIn RECEIVED **N*CAR CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Commmiiy Allimce io keack Dui *EKgage P.Q. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.o c)m Renton City Council City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 September 8, 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat - I_UA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Council Members, I am attaching a copy of the comments we submitted during the Hearing for the subject project's Hearing for your easy reference. In general, we support Roger Paulson's appeal statement. He has done an outstanding job of capturing the traffic impacts that our entire community will endure from approval of this project as currently proposed. It is very painful to have to write these comments. Ultimately, there is tittle new to say that you haven't heard from our community for a decade. The PAA again will suffer for lack of planning for infrastructure and cohesive planning and design. We will continue to suffer from least -common -denominator syndrome. Enclave is merely one of several new developments in this corridor. More and more traffic will flow in this undersized and inadequate arterial of regional significance as an officially recognized 1405 Bypass Route. The developments in this corridor aren't even being required to dedicate the width of ROW to meet the Road standards for the for the class of arterial that is designated for 1561h Ave SE, so there will never be sufficient space to retrofit the road to carry the actual impact. Renton's Transportation Concurrency Program, as applied in project makes it clear that, effectively, there is no mitigation for traffic impacts for subdivisions in the City of Renton. The only projects that would ever trigger mitigation under this program must 1) generate tens of thousands of trips during the afternoon peek commute, and 2) create gridlock throughout the entire city. limits_ That is not a plan. But since Renton has an unchallenged Transportation Concurrency Program, there is no mechanism under which a SEPA appeal may be successfully brought. It's a particularly pernicious Catch-22 that guarantees that projects must be approved regardless of actual unmitigated lived conditions that communities are inflicted with. The community was briefly heartened that, after much public input, Renton Staff determined that the nearest (and most problematic) intersection of 156th Ave SE and SE 142"d PI was inadequate and placed the intersection in the #9 priority position.on the Traffic Signal Priority List. But then we noticed that the Traffic Signal Priority List itself indicates that historically, only one intersec�on is improved every 2 years. Thus, we have no hope for improvements to address the impacts of this project (or the several others in the pipeline) for 18 years. Having staff propose, and the Hearing Examiner approve proportionate monetary contribution to this intersection improvement under the listing on the Traffic Signal Priority List is meaningless, given that developer mitigation funding must be returned after 6 years if the funds are not used for the mitigation purposes within 6 years_ CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000705 V Once more, our community begs your careful consideration of the impacts you impose upon us_ Despite years of calm and careful participation in official processes, despite uncounted requests for adequate planning and infrastructure investment to adequately provide for the inevitable development and new neighbors joining our community, here we are again. At the end of the last building cycle in 2008, we begged, pled and urged that adequate planning be implemented during the interim period in the usual boom and bust of the development business cycle. I am personally devastated that my 5 year volunteer commitment on the Planning Commission failed to achieve much more than a requirement of minimal palette of exterior paint colors. Now we have developments of every color of mud! But the actual functional impacts that negatively affect the shared experience of the many thousands of our neighbors continues unabated. What a literal shame that there appears to be nothing that can or will be done. Please consider our pleas! Please return the Enclave project to staff with instructions to reconfigure the plat to minimize the traffic impacts in the 156"' Ave SE corridor. Thank you, Gwendolyn Gwendolyn High CARE President CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000706 I%W V to *n*! • * CAR CommuAiiy Alliance io keack Duci & UAgage P-0. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 206,888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmai[.com Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examine City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 June 24, 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat - LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Olbrechts, This copy of my notes is provided for easy reference in the record. We offer a few attached exhibits as well to which I will refer in my remarks. Thank you, Gwendolyn High CARE President Gwendolyn High will represent CARE in this matter. She is co-founder and President of CARE and has led CARE's previous participation in these comparable Land Use Actions in the community: Evendell Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L01P0016 and L01TY401) Liberty Grove Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L03P0006/L03TY403) Liberty Grove Contiguous Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L03P0005/1-03TY401) Nichols Place Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L03P0015) Highlands Park Preliminary Plat (Renton LUA-05-124, PP, ECF) Threadgill Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L05P0026) Heritage Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Cavalla (KC DDES file No. L06P0001 and Renton LUA08-097) Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L04P0034 and Renton LUA08-093) Heritage (KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Saddlebrook (Renton LUA12-077) CARE has represented the needs and concerns of the East Plateau residents since 2001, as a group of concerned and likeminded neighbors. We incorporated and were recognized as a 501c4 nonprofit in 2003. We have an email list of over 400 households. CARE households own properties and reside in the community surrounding the proposed project. There is considerable potential for this community and the environment to be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is permitted without adequate conditions to mitigate increased traffic, light and stormwater. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000707 %am#, '""r CARE's participation in this matter is in the public interest. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible land use decisions in this community consistent with state and local laws and regulations. We bring historical experience and familiarity with the existing conditions of our community as well as the detailed understanding of the potential negative impacts that must be adequately mitigated_ Our intent is to facilitate the appropriately thorough consideration of the facts that bear on this proposal. This document is not a formal legal argument, but documents the concerns of the community and our requests for adequate mitigations to properly accommodate the impacts from the construction and eventual occupation of the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision (Enclave). GENERAL. ERRORS: Staffs Report to the Hearing Examiner page 3: "E.1. b_ Sewer. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE " Contradicted on p.12 of same report. "E. I.c. Surface/Storm Water. There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 156th Avenue SE to the north of the project. " Pipe is to the south of the project and an open ditch is to the north. TRANSPORTATION: TraffEx TiA page 3: "15e Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions-' This is a true statement, but it is insufficient to fully describe the situation_ SE 142nd PL is not straight at this location and has terrible sight distance. When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 1561n Ave SE, any vehicle waiting to turn either right or left from SE 142 PL onto 156' AVE SE will not be able to see. This will be particularly dangerous when vehicles is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project. The driver will be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of the stop sign and the southbound car, and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street. In a scenario with a southbound vehicle turning left into the project, the driver will be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation. If the tractor trailer truck that lives at parcel# 5336700015 is parked where is usually is — the driver will see that truck and very little else. Please see the accompanying SightLinelllustration.pdf. TraffEx TIA page 4: "A 3 % per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years." There is no citation to support these assumptions, we therefore ask that the following questions be answered and considered in evaluating the reliability of these unsupported assertions. • Where did this data come from and by what standard is it justified? • How have the pipeline projects being built and occupied now been accounted in the analysis?? • How have past and proposed cuts in transit service accounted in the analysis? • How have the effects of the improving economy, and the resulting increase in people commuting to work accounted in the analysis? • Did TraffEx regularly measure the traffic rates over "the last several years" in order to be have this data available for this TIA? ROAD STANDARDS: Report to Hearing Examiner page 10 under Streets section: "As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet" TraffEx TIA page 4 and on to 5: CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - WA14-000241 000708 *"Pf Nuo "The south site access is located approximately 250ft north of the 156ffi Ave. SEISE 142nc PI_ intersection and therefore meets the standard." The southbound stop sign and crosswalk for this intersection is located about at the center point of parcel# 5336700015 which is approximately 70 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Figure 2 of the TIA shows that the stormwater tract is proposed to be 95.24 feet wide and Lot 19 is proposed to be 94.59 feet. This yields a measure of 189.86 feet north of the southern: boundary of the Enclave site as the proposed location for the south access to 1561h Ave SE. 189.86-70 yields a measure of 119.86 feet which fails to meet the intersection distance standard of 125 feet. Please see the accompanying 156thAveSElntersectionLocation. pdf Therefore, we request that the street access as proposed be rejected. The original Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit _B_-_Traffic impact Analysis.pdf) states (bottom of page 2) that 156th Ave. SE is a "minor arterial". Based on the traffic volumes Renton reported as a result of the citizen recommendation to investigate the need for signalization earlier this year (and which Roger Paulsen graphed) the road segment including this intersection should be classified as at least a minor arterial (12K Average Daily Trips). The table in the code indicates a need for 4 lanes and 91' of pavement to properly accommodate such such levels of use. If the project is permitted as proposed, there is no indication that sufficient right of way will be required to accommodate the eventually required upgrades - particularly considering this is officially designated as a bypass corridor in need of arterial improvements in the attached WADOT 1405 Corridor Plan (1405MasterPlan_052808. pdf). Report to Hearing Examiner Page 9 under Streets: "The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements.' Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Public Services: No comment recorded from Fire Department re: cul-de-sac. There is no evidence in the Exhibits made available to the public that the cul-de-sac meets the specified standards. Therefore, we request that the street plan as proposed be rejected. Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Schools: Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 15e Avenue SE & SE e Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 15e Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 15e Avenue SE north of the project along the road shoulder to the bus stop_ However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide safe walking conditions (exhibit 25)... Continuing on Page 11: The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 1561" Avenue SE at SE a Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 1560 Avenue SE and board the bus. New sidewalk from this project will only extend less than halfway to SE a PL. The crosswalk sign is obscured by vegetation. Kids will walk along this arterial, in the dark and rain, in the shoulder ROW, and cross before the bus arrives in order to be there waiting when the bus arrives. Without a lighting plan the public has no way to evaluate what lighting improvements will be made. There should be some improvements to the crosswalk, such as the flashing lights in the pavement on the nearby Duvall Ave SE which is also and arterial on the same 1405 Corridor bypass route, to ensure students' safety under normal conditions during most of the school year. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: Carlos e-mail.pdf From. Nancy Thompson <Nthompson@rentonwa.gov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject., Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast To: "cmbayne@gmail.com" <cmbayne@gmail.com> Cc: Chris Bames <CBarnes@rentonwa.gov>, Ron Mar <Rma rentonwa. ov> CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000709 %%d `4 Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic volumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. From the MEMORANDUM of 4/1812014 from Neil Watts (PRR-14-085-Memo.doc): Any additional off -site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat." 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program page 5-25 (TIP sheet.pdf): "fhlistorically, on average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed every 2 years. It is our understanding that funds from the developer for the project's impact must be used for that purpose within 6 years or returned to the developer. Since the available evidence indicates the signalization cannot be expected within that time limitation, we must expect the mitigation funds to be forfeit and an even longer wait than the 18 years as a result of this foss of funds. This project should not be approved until a plan for the required intersection improvements are programmed — planned and funded. From 4/15/14 email from Steve Lee responding to Roger's Records Request (Public Records Request_1_Reply. pdf): "The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access_ Widening 9- 405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SEto access Cemetery Road. " These statements contradict everything we have ever heard since 2001. We have been assured by WA DOT, King County, and the City of Renton that there is no option to provide additional north -south access to the East Plateau from the Cedar River Valley. Additionally, while widening of 1405 might add capacity, we are not aware of any even preliminary plans for such activity. If such work has been done, please provide copies. If it does not exist, then this is irrelevant speculation and of no use in evaluation the impacts of this project or the appropriate mitigationslimprovements for this corridor_ What is not speculation is all the other development activity in the area. • The Enclave project at the 3 Way stop, Hearing on Tuesday, will add 31 houses. • Alpine Estates (Alpine Nursery) is in pre-app for 29 lots (which requires two access/exit roads. It lies between 160th Ave SE and 161 st Ave SE). • The 4.5 acres on the west side of 156th at SE 6th (SE 139th Place) is in annexation (the plan is for 14 lots with a through street between 154th Ave SE to 1561h Ave SE.) They tried to include the 5 acres on the west side of 154th in their annexation also, but could not get the required 60% signatures. • The Burnstead Co. is putting 14 homes, Maplewood Park Easton the parcel at 6101 NE 2ND ST (SE 132nd and 152nd Ave S). • The parcel at Nile (148th Ave SE) and NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd) is slated for 7 lots. • There is also an 8 lot parcel in pre-app on the east side of 160th Ave SE at SE 140"' St. • There is 2 lot short plat at 156th Ave SE and SE136th St. • There are 46 homes planned for the Copperwood project which is slightly southwest of Maplewood Heights Elementary. The listed address for the project is 5001 SE 2nd PI. The project sign is on SE 2nd PI just west of where it intersects 144th Ave SE • And there are 4 plats being actively developed at 210 Duvall Ave SE CARE The Endave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000710 31 +29+14+14+7+8+2+46+4=155 14400 '%go The Highway manual standard is to calculate 9.9 vehicle trips per day per house so: 155 x 9.9 = 1534.5 new trips per day. Most will travel some portion of the 156th Ave SE corridor, but each project will be considered independently. The cumulative impact will continue to accrue, and the infrastructure deficit will remain for decades. Virtually all of this traffic will traverse the corridor from the intersection of 154th Ave SE & SE142 PI (the first intersection at the top of the hill — Tom Carpenter has more detailed information, and there is an email from a neighbor at the end of this document) through the 156th Ave SE and SE 142"d Pl all the way through the intersection of 156h Ave SE and SE 128`n St. The proposed new connections to SE 156th Ave SE from this project are at the heart of this vital regional corridor. The travelshed is already over -burdened. We are in the midst of a new development surge. This quality of life in this community and safety of thousands of daily commuters in this corridor new, and it is the City of Renton's responsibility to provide infrastructure to meet the needs of the development it permits. STORMWATERIDRAINAGE: Report to Hearing Examiner page 11 under Public Services at the bottom of the page: "The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of the maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development" Despite the garbled sentence structure, it seems clear the intent is for the HOA to be responsible for maintenance of the pond and stormwater system. It was our understanding that the code had changed and Renton was taking ownership of all new subdivision stormwater facilities now. ERC Report page 5: 'According to the T1R (Exhibit 9)the upstream areas are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible." Even though this community is on a plateau and not in any flood plane, there are historical drainage complaints everywhere (Drainage Complaints). Even this project site itself has experienced flooding due to a plugged culvert as recently as 1997. The site is directly north of the major groundwater induced landslide in 2006 that blew out the side of the cliff above the Cedar River and filled several houses with mud and debris. The vast majority of development on this plateau occurred in the 1960s, well before the first King County Drainage Manual (the basis of Renton's stormwater regulations) were adopted in 1964. It will take many more decades to slowly address the systemic lack conveyance and water quality. The system that exists is poorly maintained and chronically undersized. Our homes exist is a state of fragile equilibrium. Every new development pushes the system CARE has the longest and most consistent participation in land use applications and project implementation in this area. In every single project we have participated in (see list above) we have won Level III drainage mitigations. Nonetheless, these measures have consistently proved insufficient. We have had to participate repeatedly when these mitigations have failed and neighbors downstream of those projects have suffered serious damages to their homes and properties (list drainage complaints and list properties affected by the different projects). Due to our highly compacted Alderwood soils, surface flows are intense to begin with. Since the major wave of development in the 1960s, existing homeowners have implemented site -specific mitigations to deal with this situation, but every time a new project is cleared, new measures have to be installed_ Level III drainage mitigations should be required here, too- LANDSCAPING/TREE RETENTION: Report to Hearing Examiner page 6: Proposal to plant Heavenly Bamboo, which is an invasive species with berries poisonous to native birds and should not be used in a plat landscaping plan. http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboroAndex.ssf/2013/12/heavenly_bamboo the red berrie.html (Heavenly bamboo .htm) - - CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000711 RCP Policy CID-1 7 (page 7 of Report to Hearing Examiner) "Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly plaited lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density," But on page 8 of the Report to Hearing Examiner, staff say that installation of the required 15 foot landscaping buffer around the storm drainage pond could not be done because it would cause the loss of at least one lot, even though the project is proposed at 4.45 lots per acre when it is zoned at R-4. In the next paragraph, staff removes the specific requirement of trees in the on -site landscape strips along all frontages. Not only is there no justification for this, and it violates RCP Policy CID-1 5. In repeated surveys of our community, the trees are the consistently reported as the defining characteristic of our community. We are already losing over 300 significant trees in this project. We ask that this exemption be disapproved for this project. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: To the condition requiring a tree protection easement under section J.5, please add a requirement for prominent and permanent signage announcing the protection of the trees in order to prevent accidental homeowner or HOA removal. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000712 ``d ti„of MISSING DATA: This Hearing is the last opportunity for the public to participate and to ensure that adequate administratively and legally enforceable mitigations are required of and implemented with this project, Staff has allowed several documents essential for the surrounding impacted community to evaluate the effects of the proposed project to be prepared and submitted after this Hearing is concluded. This makes it impossible for meaningful community input on the following: 1. Report to Hearing Examiner page 8: City of Renton Arborists report promised 2. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12_ Landscaping Plan 3. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Retention Plan 4. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Protection Easement 5. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Street lighting plan 6. Report to Hearing Examiner page 13: HOA maintenance agreement If items 1-4 are not required until application for construction permits, the trees will have already have been removed during the development/site preparation phase of the project and the issues becomes moot. The trees in our community have been consistently and enthusiastically identified in every single one of the land use actions CARE has participated in since 2001. Without item 5, the public cannot evaluate the adequacy of the protections for school children walking to the bus stop on 156th Ave SE or the potential impact to the privacy and enjoyment of their properties. Community members on SE 4t' Place had a months' long challenge of emails and meetings with the City and Puget Sound Energy when new lighting meeting the new standards was installed just 2 streets away. The new lighting was a huge disruption, and we need to ensure the new development does not make sleep at night impossible. A statement from an affected neighbor is included at the end of this document. Renton has a responsibility under RCP Policy CD-15 to ensure that this project is "reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architechturai stypes, and/or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation," etc. We understand that new development will be more dense and the housing styles will be different. Further, we appreciate to beginnings of plans for the tree easements. However, we have repeatedly heard lovely aspirational allusions to responsive development during past preliminary plat Hearings, only to see radically different realities built in our neighborhoods. Cavalla was supposed to save and replant giant specimen rhodies and japanese maples. That didn't happen. There was supposed to be no road in the 162`d Ave SE ROW, but the bulldozers plowed right through — stream and all. The only things we have a hope of actually seeing must be conditions by reference in the Hearing Examiner's report for this project. Given the intense concern about and established history of drainage issues resulting from development projects in the area, the community needs the opportunity to review the "maintenance and responsibility" for the "stormwater facilities" that the HOA will voluntarily take on to ensure adequate measures are in place to prevent off -site damage. We cannot do that without item 6- CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000713 *Iw.r COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:47:46 -0700 Subject: Re: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda From: <deleted> To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com You can also add that nobody goes the speed limit up/down our hill. Ever. Well, unless it's crawling that is. - One neighbor requested "a light' outside of their home (date unknown and I believe the request was directly to PSE) - Nobody, including the requester, was notified before PSE installed 4 extra large cobra head led street lights (large roadway type) on our tiny cul-de-sac (7 houses deep) on 7117113 - Residents had light pollution/trespass everywhere; in backyards, bedrooms, etc. - City was notified with a list of the issues they caused on 7/22/13 - Didn't hear back from the city on the initial email sent until 7126/13 (after emailing them again) - Petition emailed (with pics) on 7/30/13 with one signature missing due to him being gone on vacation - Completed petition hand delivered 8/5113 along with a chat with Mr. Barnes at City Hall - The issues weren't resolved until 9117113 Summary: For two months, the residents on SE 4th Place had to deal with overly bright LED lights that were completely inappropriate to the neighborhood. This disrupted people's sleep, made yard use unpleasant and in some cases was a safety hazard (blinded while backing out of garages). Neighborhoods should have a choice/say in the types of lighting used and a study of existing neighborhood houses should be considered_ Lighting should also be appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood with minimal light pollution to disrupt the natural world. Marsha Rollinger From: <deleted> To: highlands-neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:08:14 -0700 CARE Gwendolyn: I live at <deleted> 152 PL SE and regularly come up from the Maple Valley Highway to access my home. That involves a left turn at 154th Ave SE and SE 142 PL. It is a challenging enough intersection with limited sight visibility, no left turn lane, and long waits during commute hours. Under existing conditions, the traffic can back up already from the 3 way stop. Frustrated drivers finally decide to go for the left after long waits for breaks in traffic. Unfortunately, I've seen too many oncoming cars slam on their brakes because the left turner didn't really have a big enough break to pass through easily. The Enclave development will increase congestion at our left turn and make more drivers make a left turn into a too - small traffic opening_ As the development increases in the East Highlands around Maplewood Heights Elementary, we are seeing an increasing number of people who are making that left turn to access their homes. The increased traffic from the Enclave and its odd street layout will complicate the 3 way stop- traffic, increase the number of cars, and back that traffic problem back to our already dicey left turn. 1 realize that the Enclave development will go through even though I question the wisdom of having its two streets funnel out so close to the 3-way stop. Seems like it is almost making it into a 5-way intersection. But I doubt the County has the appetite to force the builder to change his site plan. For us left turners, a left turn lane would provide some welcome mitigation and straightening out the curve - even just a little - would give more visibility and help safety tremendously. Not sure you can do anything with this but thanks for trying. Kathy Johnson The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-M241 000714 From: <deleted> To: highlands—neighbors@hotmaii.com Subject: RE: CARE Update; 1000+ new trips, Wild Babies, and Meeting Monday Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:39:25 -0700 Gwendolyn, The 111 bus line which goes out to Lake Kathleen is scheduled to be truncated in September to not go east of 156th but rather to leave Maplewood and go directly up 156th st. This would only happen during the morning and aftemoon commute hours as there is no service other times. That will be another major disruptive factor to the 156th st corridor. In addition to the bus traffic along 156th, there will be the bus commuters who will drive and try to park along the bus route to connect to the new stops. This will impact the residents along this path plus adding the congestion. An example of this type of "staging" for the bus line is in Kennydale where the entire area is parked up along the 111 route as it heads to the Park and Ride. It adds a lot of congestion at the worst time of the day for it. Not to mention making a number of us no longer have a commuter bus to downtown on weekdays. It also will affect the kids at Liberty who need the bus to get to the Running Start program at Bellevue College whereby they take college classes for both high school and college credits during their high school years. One of my points was that with the bus stopping all along 156th..... traffic would be disrupted greatly at the worst time of day at a point where many trips are being added. The parking mess is true all along the Kennydale section of the 111 with people driving to park at bus stops instead of the P&R. John Nanney <deleted> Alyssa Nanney <deleted> CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - LUA14-000241 000715 N. NOW rn Van Ness FeldmanLLP C11Y of RENTON SEP 0 8 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 8, 2014 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY AND EMAIL City Council City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104-1728 206-623-9372 vnf.com Re: Applicant's Response to Paulsen Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Dated July 18, 2014 Regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (File No. LUA-14-000241) Honorable Councilmembers: I submit this letter on behalf of PNW Holdings, LLC, the Applicant for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge ("Enclave" or the "Project"), a 31-lot single family residential subdivision. 1 urge you to deny the Paulsen Appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of this Project. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Your staff conducted a thorough review of this Project. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) determined that the Project would have no significant environmental impacts and issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated (DNS-M). Exhibit 2, Attachment 17.1 The City staff recommended approval of the plat subject to several conditions. Ex. 2, p. 13. Mr. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration of the DNS-M. Ex. 2, Attachment 29. The ERC, upon reconsideration, reissued the DNS-M, adding one additional condition requiring the Applicant to contribute its fair share to a future traffic signal at the intersection of 156`h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place. Ex. 2, Attachment 30. Mr. Paulsen appealed the reissued DNS-M to the Hearing Examiner. Ex. 11. The Hearing Examiner, after a full public hearing, and after giving Mr. Paulsen the opportunity to provide additional written testimony, denied the Paulsen SEPA Appeal and approved the Project. Hearing Examiner Final Decision, July 18, 2014, On July 30, 2014 Mr. Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration. On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner reaffirmed his decision to deny the Paulsen SEPA Appeal and to approve the Project. 1 References to "Exhibits" or "Ex." refer to one of the Exhibits listed on page 13 pf the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration dated August 13, 2014 (the -Decision"). Exhibit 2, the Staff Report, contains several attachments labeled as "Exhibits" in the Staff Report, but referred to as "Attachments" in the Decision and in this letter. 50912-4 000716 Renton City Council - 2 - Nwe September 8, 2014 On August 27, 2014 Paulsen appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council (the "Paulsen Appeal"). For the reasons set forth below, we ask the City Council to deny the Paulsen Appeal and to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision in this matter. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PAULSEN APPEAL The Paulsen Appeal should be denied and the Hearing Examiner's decision, approving the Project with conditions, should be affirmed for the following reasons: 1. The Project fully complies with all adopted City standards for subdivision approval set forth in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-7. These standards include: • RMC 4-7-080.13A. The Project, as approved, includes "adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, [and] other public ways ... " • RMC 4-7-120.A. The Project, as approved, includes a new street "connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway." + RNIC 4-7-120.B. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "conform to ... adopted plans for streets in the City." * RMC 4-7-150.A. The Project, as approved contains streets that "extend and create connections between existing streets ..." • RMC 4-7-150.C. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials [have been] held to a minimum." • RMC 4-7-150.D. The Project, as approved, contains an alignment of all streets that have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. • RMC 4-7-150.E. The Project, as approved, includes linkages, including streets and sidewalks within and between neighborhoods. • RMC 4-7-150T. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "All abutting rights -of -way and new rights -of -way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Public Works Administrator." See Decision, pages 25-30. 2. The Project has been conditioned to meet all city street standards including, but not limited to, the following: 56812-4 000717 Renton City Council - 3 - September 8, 2014 • The new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060_ The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right-of-way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. The Project's access onto 1561h Ave. SE is 250 feet north of the 156th Ave. SEISE 142"d Place intersection. Ex. 12, page 4. If, in future, there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave, SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave. SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway, per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required, It is shown on the plans. Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plant submittal. See Exhibit 2, page I0. 3, The Project fully complies with the City's Level of Service (LOS) Standards, as adopted in the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and as codified in RMC 4-6-070. Decision, page 16; Ex. 2, Attachment 26. The City's adopted LOS standard is based on a city-wide time of travel model. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Policy T- 13, pages XI-I5 through XI-17. The City does not regulate intersection LOS. Decision, page 17. 4. The intersection of 156th Ave. SEISE 142nd Place, which is the focus of the Paulsen Appeal, currently operates at an intersection LOS F. F.x. 12, p, 6. Until a traffic signal is installed, the intersection will continue to operate at LOS F, with or without the Project. Id. While a LOS F indicates a congested intersection, no City standards preclude approval of a subdivision that adds trips to a LOS F intersection, Decision, page 17, The Project adds only 9 trips to the 1,375 trips passing through the intersection at 1561h Ave. SEISE 142"d Place. Ex. 12, page 4. This 0.65% increase in trips is well below the 5% volume increase that even triggers an analysis of intersection traffic impacts under the City's Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Ex, 2, Attachment 29, ex. C. These 9 Project related trips will have no perceptible impact, causing less than 4 seconds of additional delay. Ex. 12, Page 6. 6. Although the intersection Level of Service at 156`h Ave. SEISE 142"d Place is LOS F, this intersection is not a high accident location. Since 2009 there has only been one accident 568124 000718 Renton City Council - 4 - Noe September 8, 2014 at this intersection, Ex. 2, Attachment 30. There is no evidence of any hazardous condition from this Project adding 9 trips to this intersection. 7. To mitigate its traffic impacts, the Project will pay the City a Traffic Impact Fee at the time of building permit application. The current traffic impact fee is $1,430.72 per new lot. Ex. 2, Attachment 18. 8. Additionally, the Project will contribute its "proportionate share" to the cost of a future traffic signal at the I56`h Ave. SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. Ex, 30. 9. Federal and state constitutional limitations preclude any City from imposing conditions on a development when there is no nexus or reasonable relationship between impacts from the development and the proposed condition and where the proposed condition is not roughly proportional to impacts caused by the development.z Here, where the 1561h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place intersection is already at LOS F, where the project will only add 9 trips to an intersection with 1,375 trips, and where the Project causes no impacts to safety, the City cannot require the Project to install a traffic signal at this intersection. The Hearing Examiner properly conditioned the Project to pay its proportionate share of the cost of a traffic signal at this intersection. 10. The public interest is served by this subdivision. The Project will provide additional housing in full compliance with the designation of the property as Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the zoning of the property as R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre). The Project is consistent with the policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted to promote the public interest (See RMC 4-1-060.5.c). Although the Paulsen Appeal seeks Project denial because an express "public interest" finding was not made by the Hearing Examiner per RCW 58.17.110(2)(b), this finding is clearly inferred by the Project's full compliance with the City's detailed procedures for subdivision, set forth in RMC 4-7-080, which were expressly established "to comply with the provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW." Nonetheless, we ask the City Council, based upon the existing record, to supplement the Hearing Examiner's findings and add a specific finding that the Project as designed and conditioned serves the public use and interest. APPLICANT'S DETAILED RESPONSE TO PAULSEN APPEAL The Paulsen Appeal focuses on concerns about the operation of the intersection at 156th Ave. SEISE 142" d Place. While these concerns may be heart -felt, the Paulsen Appeal must be denied because the Project fully complies with all applicable City requirements and because the arguments raised by Paulsen are without merit, both factually and legally. The Project Complies with Renton's Subdivision Code and, as a result, satisfies State Subdivision Requirements in Chanter 58.17 RCW �! 2 See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391, 114 S-Ct, 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S.Ct, 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987); Benchmark Land Company v. Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999) Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App, 505, 516-17 (1998). $6812-4 000719 Renton City Council - 5 - September 8, 2014 One of the fundamental misunderstandings in the Paulsen Appeal is the relationship between the state subdivision statute, Chapter 58.17 RCW, and Renton's subdivision code. Paulsen seeks denial of the Project because of an alleged failure to demonstrate compliance with specific provisions in RCW 58.17.110. Renton, however, has adopted its own provisions for the review of subdivisions in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-7. These code provisions were adopted specifically to comply with the state subdivision statute: E. State Enabling Legislation As It Applies to This Chapter This Chapter is in conformance with chapter 58.17 RCW regulating platting, subdivision, adjusting lot lines, and the dedication of land RMC 4-7-010.E. Compliance with state subdivision law is also restated in the opening paragraph of RMC 4-7-080: A. Purpose: The procedures regulating subdivisions, including segregations of ten (10) or more lots, are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots, avoiding placing undue burdens on the subdivider and to comply with provisions of chapter 58.17. The Applicant for Enclave followed each of the applicable provisions of the City's subdivision regulations in RMC Chapter 4-7. The Staff, in considering this application, reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with each of the applicable provisions of city code. See Ex. 2. Likewise, when the Hearing Examiner reviewed the Project, he applied the criteria adopted by the City Council for the review of subdivisions. See Decision, page 24-31. The Paulsen Appeal appears to be challenging the adequacy of the City Code, not the adequacy of the Enclave subdivision in complying with City Code. Paulsens' challenge is misplaced and untimely. Moreover, the specific sections of state law cited by Paulsen have been incorporated into City Code, applied to the Project, and appropriate findings and conclusions made, demonstrating that the Project meets these provisions. The Paulsen Appeal cites RCW 58.17.1 I0(2) as one statutory subsection that has allegedly been forgotten by the City. However, Paulsen fails to recognize that Renton's adopted code includes these substantive requirements. RCW 58.I7.110(2) reads: (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including 16912-4 000720 Renton City Council - 6 - N"We September 8, 2014 sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. The Renton subdivision code at RMC 4-7-010 B states: The purpose of this Chapter is to provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City, and for administrative procedures for adjustments of lot lines in the City, ensuring that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be ensured; that proper provisions far all public facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that the site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set forth in the City Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan shall be insured. Additionally, the Renton subdivision code at RMC 4-7-08.13 reads: A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because offlood, inundation. or wetland conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. q Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. By reviewing the Project under these subdivision code provisions, and finding that the Enclave plat satisfied each of these requirements, the Hearing Examiner confirmed that the requirements of state subdivision law have been met. The Project Fully Complies with Renton's Adopted Level of Service Standard, which is based on City -Wide time of travel, not Intersection Congestion Paulsen misunderstands the City's adopted Level of Service Standard and its relationship to the review and approval of this plat. The Growth Management Act (GMA) at RCW 36.70A.070(6) mandates that all cities required to plan must adopt a Comprehensive PIan that includes a Transportation Element. The Transportation Element must identify Levels of Service Standards that the City will apply to all locally owned arterials to judge performance of the City's transportation system. RCW 36.70A,070(6)(a)(iii)(B). After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, cities must adopt and 569l2-4 000721 Renton City Council - 7 - r.�` September 8, 2014 %WNW enforce ordinances that prohibit development approval if the development causes the Level of Service to decline below the Level of Service Standard adopted in the Transportation Element of the comprehensive plan, unless improvements are planned or financially guaranteed to meet those Level of Service standards. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). In establishing Level of Service standards within the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element, cities must address their transportation facilities and service needs, identify specific actions for bringing their facilities into compliance with adopted level of service standards and assess their financial needs to accomplish that objective and identify a financing planning strategy. In full compliance with GMA, Renton adopted its Comprehensive Plan, including the mandated Transportation Element. With regard to a Level of Service Standard, the City decided not to adopt an intersection -based standard. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan established a Level of Service policy that emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. It is based on travel time standards. (An excerpt of this section of the Comprehensive Plan is attached to this letter as Appendix A). The Level of Service Standard adopted in the Comprehensive Plan rejected the typical intersection Level of Service approach that the Paulsen Appeal suggests should have be applied. Instead, the adopted Level of Standard is based on travel time and is measured by a traffic model implemented by City staff. See Appendix A. Under the City's adopted Level of Service Standard, every development that creates additional demand on the City's transportation facilities must be reviewed under the City's Traffic Model to determine if the City's transportation system has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and maintain the travel time objectives established by that Standard. RMC 4-6-070. In this case, the Project applied for and was found to pass the City's adopted Traffic Concurrency Level of Service standards. Ex. 2, Attachment 26. Renton does not have an intersection Level of Service standard. There is no provision in the City's subdivision standards or in any other regulation that prohibits a subdivision or any other development from generating trips that flow through an intersection that has an intersection LOS F. While the Paulsen appeal may bemoan this fact, the Hearing Examiner properly applied the adopted Level of Service Standard and all other applicable subdivision standards and correctly approved the Enclave subdivision because it satisfied these adopted standards. The Enclave Project meets all of the applicable provisions in RMC 4-7, which establish the minimum street standards for plats. These include., RMC 4-7-080.B.4. The Project, as approved, includes "adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, [and] other public ways ... " • RMC 4-7-120.A. The Project, as approved, includes a new street "connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway." RMC 4-7-120.13. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "conform to .. , adopted plans for streets in the City." 56812-4 000722 Renton City Council - 8 - 14� September 8, 2014 • RMC 4-7-150.A. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "extend and create connections between existing streets ..." + RMC 4-7-150.C. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials [have been] held to a minimum." • RMC 4-7-150.D. The Project, as approved, contains an alignment of all streets that have been reviewed and approved by the Pub] is Works Department. + RMC 4-7-150.E. The Project, as approved, includes linkages, including streets and sidewalks within and between neighborhoods. • RMC 4-7-150.F, The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "All abutting rights -of -way and new rights -of -way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Public Works Administrator." See Decision, pages 25-30. The Enclave Project has been conditioned to address specific code compliance including the following: The new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. The Project's access onto 1561h Ave. SE is 250 feet north of the 156`h Ave. SEISE 142" d Place intersection. If in future there are significant concerns rearding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156` Ave. SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. • To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 1561h Ave. SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. • Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. See Exhibit 2, page 10. 56912-4 000723 Renton City Council - 9 - v.r September S, 2014 The Unrefuted Traffic Analyses Prepared for the Prole_ ct Confirmed that the Enclave Plat Will Have Minimal Impacts. City staff has adopted a document entitled "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development" that it applies during SEPA review to assess the significance of traffic impacts from development. These Policy Guidelines ask developers to review project impacts on all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of a proposed development. Ex. 2, Attachment 29, ex. C. With regard to the Enclave Project, the Applicant retained an expert traffic engineering firm, TraffEX, to evaluate project impacts. TraffEX found that no roadways or intersections would experience a 5% peak hour traffic increase caused by the Project. Ex. 2, Attachment 10. Thus, under the Policy Guidelines, no intersection review was necessary. Nonetheless, the Applicant voluntarily provided traffic analyses to demonstrate that the Project would have minimal impacts. TraffEX produced three separate Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports. The first TIA (Ex. 2, Attachment 10) demonstrated that the Project would not change the Level of Service at any intersection. At the intersection of 156th Ave. SEISE 142'd Place, the TIA found that the intersection currently operates at an intersection LOS F and will continue to operate at an intersection LOS F in the future with or without the project. The TIA further demonstrated that the Project would add only 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through that intersection. Because this is only 0.65% of the total trips, substantially less that the Policy Guidelines' 5% threshold. TraffEx concluded that the Project would have no significant impact. For southbound traffic (the worst travel movement), vehicles are expected to experience 133.2 seconds of delay without the Project and 137.1 seconds with the Project, a nearly imperceptible 3.9 second change. The first TIA also verified that the Project's roadway intersection was 250 feet from the 156th Ave. SEISE 142t'd Place intersection, in full compliance with the City's minimum 125 feet separation standard. In response to questions, TraffEx produced an Addendum to the TIA in April 2014, Ex. 1, Attachment D. The Addendum added an AM Peak Hour evaluation and a queuing analysis. In the AM condition, the intersection of 1561h Ave. SEISE 142nd Place was found to operate at LOS F with or without the Project, with the Project adding only 1.1 seconds of delay. At the intersection of SE 5th PI/156" Ave. SE, the next intersection to the north of the Project, the calculated level of service with or without the Project was LOS C. In April 2014, based on Mr. Paulsen's requested reconsideration of the City's DNS-M, the City evaluated whether the 156th Ave. SEISE 142nd Place intersection met traffic signal warrants. Based on that assessment, the City reissued the DNS-M, imposing on the Project an additional condition to pay a "fair share" contribution toward a future traffic signal, based upon the relative number of trips from the Project to this intersection. Ex. 2, Attachment 30. In response to this condition, TraffEX produced a Second Addenda to its TIA evaluating the effect of a traffic signal. Ex. 4. TraffEX found that the signal, when installed, would improve the intersection level of service from F to B in both the AM and PM peak hours and would significantly reduce the southbound queue on SE 1561h Street. No adverse impacts from the traffic signal were identified. 5691 z-q 000724 Renton City Council - 10 - September 8, 2014 The three TIA's were subject to review by the City's Engineering Department who voiced no objections to their methodology or conclusions. Decision, page 19. Neither Mr. Paulsen nor any member of the public provided any engineering analyses or other traffic studies to address the adequacy of roads, traffic impacts or compliance with City road standards. Id. As such, the conclusions from the Applicant's traffic studies were properly taken, as verified, and supported the determination that the Project met the City's adopted street standards. Id. These traffic studies confirmed that the Project will have a minimal impact on traffic operations and that the Project has been designed for compliance with adopted City traffic standards. There is simply no basis for Paulsen to claim that the Project fails to meet adopted City standards. The Hearing_ Examiner's Findiny-s of Fact Support the Conclusion that there are Adequate Provisions for Streets to Serve the Project Paulsen's' argument that the Findings of Fact do not support the finding of adequate streets is ludicrous. Finding of Fact 4 expressly found that "the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services ...". Decision, page 14, Concerning streets, subsection E in Finding of Fact 4 presents four pages of detailed explanation on the adequacy of streets based on the City's adopted code provisions. Decision, pages 16-19. Of particular note are the Hearing Examiner's findings with regard to the City's city-wide Level of Service Standard. Id, The Hearing Examiner went to considerable length to address Renton's unique Level of Service standards and how these standards are applied in reviewing proposed developments in Renton. He specifically contrasts Renton's city-wide Level of Service standards with those in other jurisdictions that may allow for a localized assessment of Level of Service at specific intersections. "[Tjhe [Renton] City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion." Id., page 17. The Examiner also notes that City staff conducted an analysis and concluded that the proposal meets the City's adopted Level of Service standard. Because no one disputed this determination, the Examiner found no evidence to contradict it. Id. page 19. Because the Project meets the City's Level of Service standard, the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the Project. The Hearing Examiner's Findings Demonstrate that the Public Interest is Serviced b Aunroval of the Enclave Plat The Paulsen Appeal suggests that the Hearing Examiner's decision must be reversed because the decision is missing reference to RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) and a specific finding that the public interest would be served by the Project. This argument is without merit and should be rejected by the City Council. As noted earlier, the City's subdivision code was adopted by the City Council to comply with the state subdivision law Chapter 58.17 RCW. The Hearing Examiner found the Enclave Project to be in full compliance with the provisions of the City's subdivision code. As such, the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW have been met. 56912-A 000725 Renton City Council tirr v September 8, 2014 Moreover, the Hearing Examiner's Decision demonstrates that the public interest is served by approval of the plat. The Examiner found that the Project is in compliance with the zoning code (Finding 1(2) of the staff report was adopted by reference (see Decision, page 25)), in conformance with the general purposes and adopted standards of the Comprehensive Plan (Finding I(]) of the staff report was adopted by reference (Id.)), and in compliance with the specific provisions of the City's subdivision regulations. Id. pages 25-31. To suggest that the City Council must reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision because the specific words "in the public interest" are missing from the decision is absurd. Nonetheless, we request that the City Council, based upon the record, supplement the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and include the following additional Finding of Fact: The public use and interest will be served by the platting of this subdivision. The subdivision will provide housing opportunities to the City consistent with the Project site's designation of Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's underlying R-4 (Residential 4 swelling units per acre) zoning designation. Moreover, the Project is consistent with the policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, which were adopted, in part, to promote the public interest (See RMC 4-I -060. S. c). The Project is compatible with existing surrounding uses, which are also single-family residences and designated R-4 on the City's zoning maps and King County maps. The Hearing Examiner -Decision is Based on the Factual Record and Applicable Law, Not Opinion, , ....., „. ,--- —, ,_,_....._ The City Council can easily reject the argument in the Paulsen Appeal that claims the Hearing Examiner's Decision is based on opinion not fact. The Hearing Examiner went to great length to summarize all of the testimony and voluminous exhibits that support his decision. His decision presents multiple Findings of Fact and incorporates many of the Findings of Fact identified in the staff report. The Hearing Examiner should be commended for trying to explain to Mr. Paulsen, in response to Mr, Paulson's Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's initial decision, the background behind the City Council's choice in adopting a city-wide Level of Service standard and the legal limitations established thereby. While much of this discussion may have been unnecessary, it was obviously presented to help Mr. Paulsen understand the policy choice made by the City Council in its adopted Level of Service standard and the consequences of that decision. Unfortunately, Mr. Paulsen confuses the Hearing Examiner's helpful attempt at explanation as being pure opinion. That was clearly not the Hearing Examiner's intent. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner was careful to fully support his Decision with strong factual findings based upon a detailed factual record. 56812-4 000726 Renton City Council - 12 - September 8, 2014 The Hearing Examiner Correctly Noted that Constitutional Limitations Preclude the City from Conditioning the Project on Installation of the Traffic Signal The Paulsen Appeal questions the Hearing Examiner's legal response to Paulsen's suggestion that the City require the Enclave Project to pay for the entire traffic signal, rather than only its "proportionate share." The Hearing Examiner got this right -- Paulsen does not. Rulings by the United States Supreme Court and the Washington Courts make it clear that cities are legally constrained in imposing conditions on a development where such conditions result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. When government imposes an exaction on a land development, the government must show an "essential nexus" between a "legitimate state interest," and the condition imposed. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987). Further, to satisfy the .Fifth Amendment, the government must establish that its proposed condition is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public problem. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994). See also Benchmark Land Company v. Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999) (City failed to establish essential nexus between its requiring developer to make half -street improvement and alleged traffic problems); Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn, App. 505, 516-17 (1998) (City failed to demonstrate rough proportionality between problems created by short plat and the required road improvements), In addition to these cases, two state laws constrain a city's imposition of mitigation conditions. First, under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), mitigation measures can only be imposed to mitigate specific adverse impacts and those mitigation conditions must be "reasonable." RCW 43.21c.060. The reasonableness of mitigation conditions has also been addressed by the legislature in RCW 82,02.020, which prohibits cities from imposing any condition on a plat that is not "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development." The Washington courts have ruled that the same nexus and rough proportionality requirements under federal constitutional case law apply to mitigation measures under RCW 82.02,020. City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17 (2011). The Hearing Examiner correctly noted in his response to Paulsen's reconsideration request, that the City was constrained by this body of law to impose only a "fair share" contribution by the Enclave development for a future traffic signal. The Hearing Examiner also correctly noted that precluding development until a signal was installed could amount to an illegal moratorium. The Examiner correctly cites to Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal takings law does apply when a government action deprives an owner of all economically valuable use and that a moratorium lasting more than one year could be adjudged an unconstitutional taking of property. Based on this legal precedent, the Hearing Examiner properly observed that denial of the Enclave plat until a traffic signal is installed is not only unsupportable by the facts, but could subject the City to the serious consequences of a takings lawsuit. This statement shows no bias, as suggested by Mr. Paulsen, but rather the Hearing Examiner's proper understanding of the law. 56812-4 000727 Renton City Council - 13 - *400 September 8, 2014 vftw The Hearing Examiner's decision, which approves the plat and affirms a fair share contribution by the Project to a traffic signal, is supported by the record and all applicable law. CONCLUSION The Enclave Project meets all of the City's subdivision requirements and fully complies with the City's adopted Level of Service Standard. The City staff thoroughly reviewed this application and recommended its approval. The Environmental Review Committee found no significant environmental impacts and imposed conditions to mitigate impacts reasonably related to the Project. The Hearing Examiner carefully considered all testimony and the voluminous record and produced a thorough Decision supported by detailed Findings of Fact. For the reasons presented above, the Paulsen Appeal should be denied and the Hearing Examiner's Decision affirmed. Very truly yours, VAN NEss FELDMAN LLP Brent Carson BC:jes Enclosures cc: Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk Client Appellant 5681'_-4 000728 %%,W APPENDIX A 000729 APPENDIX A Amended 09/19/11 Excerpeo'from Renton Comprehensive Plan and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability, Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined using letter designations -- A, B, C, D, E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. LO5 B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision -makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. Renton's LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non - motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures, The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally -linked, locally -oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level -of -Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit elements of the LOS standard are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non -motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi - modal goals of Renton and the region. Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections, and it provides a multi -modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi -modal travel, The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following: xi-15 000730 Amended 09/19/11 1%W 140, • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and HOV travel times for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model, • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intra-Renton travel time to regional system, and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (index) using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system, including State-owned facilities; and • Selecting a plan that maintains the established LOS standard. Other elements of the LOS implementation process include: • Monitoring the area to re -validate transportation plans; • Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; and • Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). Level Of Service Standard A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30- minute travel distance for SOV, HOV, and Transit as follows: 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* Rounded As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle (SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle (HOV - carpool, vanpool) could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002) is then weighted by doubling it (to 6.8 miles) to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger -carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard, presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995, was based on raw data collected prior to 1994_ Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-2010) transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and examining the raw data, the 2002 LOS index was found to be 42. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: i) reduced Icing County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints (e.g. passage of Initiative 695); H) limited implementation of x1-16 000731 Amended 09/19/11 Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990 — 2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. With the 2002 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions 2 times Transit LOS SOV HOV (includes access time) Standard 15* miles 17* miles 10* miles 42 * Rounded This standard will require that the travel time of SOV (15) + HOV (17) + 2 T (10) or the sum of these three modes (42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years. The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub -Elements that are designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development- To test against the LOS standard, the 2022 planned Arterial, HOV, and Transit improvements identified later in this Transportation Element are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traffic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV, HOV, and Transit* modes along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments of known distance) including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42. *Other factors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access time. Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton's LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995. LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) (i.e. 1-5, 1-405, SR 167) have been adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). For urban areas the adopted LOS standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways (non- HSS) in the Central Puget Sound region (i.e. SR-900, SR-169, 5R-515) were adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 30, 2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges from LOS E/mitigated (pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E) to the traditional LOS D. (Further information on LOS standards for HSS and non-HSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton's modeling estimates of Renton's projected growth, and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities. These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton's city-wide travel -time based LOS standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Renton's Transportation Element has identified x1-17 000732 Amended 09/19/11 SOV, HOV, and transit -oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway system. Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi -modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi -modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible, The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7. The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit flan and HOV improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of Service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2022. XI-18 000733 Il J Sandi Weir From: Julia Medzegian Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:28 PM To: Sandi Weir Subject: FW: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Attachments: 154th-156th Arterial Corridor 2014-08-31 RCC Written.pdf ATl`OOOOI.htm From: Marcie Palmer Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:26 PM To: Julia Medzegian Subject: Fwd: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Tom <TDCargecomcast.net> Date: September 6, 2014 at 9:08:43 AM PDT To: <m almer rentonwa. ov> Subject: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Marcie, I'm not sure whether the Planning and Development Committee or the Transportation/Aviation Committee will get the appeal. The good news is your on both so you get be the contact. I'm a party of record, and the attached adds no new data to the official record, other than describing my support regarding the Appellant's submittal. I'd appreciate it if you'd make sure this got into the official channel for the appeal. Thanks Tom Carpenter 1 000734 V 5 September 2014 Renton City Council re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Ruling and Reconsideration regarding the Enclave at Bridal Ridge development preliminary plat I_UA14-000241 The Renton Hearing Examiner ruling on the Enclave at Bridal Ridge preliminary plat was appealed for reconsideration. The reconsideration decision is being appealed to the Renton City Council. I'm a Party of Record for the Enclave at Bridal Ridge development preliminary plat Hearing Examiner decisions and rulings. This letter summarizes my original submittals. These are the unmodified items submitted originally to the Hearing Examiner's first preliminary plat meeting that were accepted as part of the official record_ Date Type Description 24-Feb-14 Letter Tom Carpenter to Renton Hearing Examiner; The proposed Enclave development along 156th Ave SE 18-Dec-13 Letter Jennifer Henning (Renton) to Josh Peters (King County); Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 10-Dec-12 Resolution City of Renton, Washington Resolution No. 4165; Request to King County for an Interlocal Agreement regarding Renton Potential Annexation Areas. Flyer WA State Department of Transportation Interstate 405 Corridor Program Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects 22-May-14 Letter Chip Vincent (Renton) to Roger Paulsen; Enclave at Bridal Ridge Preliminary Plat/LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Map King County (Failing) Travel Shed 12 with Transportation Needs 23-Jun-14 Map Transportation Road Corridors 18-May-14 Map 154th PI SE/156th Ave SE Arterial 3-Jun-14 Map 154th Pl/156th Ave Corridor Arterial The submittals focused on: • The holistic corridor context (i.e. crossing jurisdictional boundaries) of the Enclave development, and The intent of the City of Renton's relationship with King County for Transportation Concurrency and joint planning relevant to the Enclave development area. The Holistic Corridor Context • The Enclave development is within feet of unincorporated King County, and is adjacent to an arterial that crosses in and out of King County and Renton jurisdictions multiple times over it 1.8 mile length. The corridor's entire length is within, or immediately adjacent to, Renton or one of its PAAs. The corridor is part of the Interstate 405 Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, and is an alternate route for 1405 from SR167 to the Factoria interchange. • All the unincorporated urban area, and the neighboring rural King County areas are in an area failing King County Transportation Concurrency. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139'' Place, Renton, WA 98059 000735 i*00i 1%� • The three-way intersection in question for the appeal, 1) intersects two Renton road segments and one King County road segment, 2) is within the Renton jurisdiction, 3) is functioning, in at least one direction, at Level of Service "F", and 4) is immediately adjacent to an unincorporated area failing King County Transportation Concurrency. • King County Transportation Needs Report identifies issues along the corridor, and on roads the arterial corridor connects to on the East Renton Plateau. • The Enclave development would not have been issued a Transportation Certificate if the property were still in King County. • Renton does not appear to have any policies or codes that are based on recognition of the holistic arterial corridor context. Renton's Intent for Joint Planning and Transportation Concurrency Through Resolution and input to the King County Transportation Plan update, Renton has made its intentions clear regarding joint planning for PAAs, and for Transportation Concurrency coordination. • "Should consider areas within and outside its jurisdictional boundaries when applying the concurrency test" • "Requests that King County establish Level of Service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary" • "This will provide the ability to understand and evaluate the true impact and movement of vehicles on our road infrastructure. This will in turn give clear information on which impact fees and mitigation can be based." • Requests King County work with Renton staff to develop an interlocal agreement regarding Renton's PAAs. • Testimony and comments to the King County Hearing Examiner • Comprehensive planning and pre -zoning • Transportation, including concurrency, level of service, and high incident accident areas • Transfer Development Rights • Renton appears to have made no meaningful progress with King County on either the ILA or concurrency. stand in general support for the appellant Is the appellant's stand on adequate mitigation for the 3-way intersection. I su art the appellant's stand on the question of Renton's ability to provide the mitigation within the 6-years required by RCW. I do not suraport any assumption that the appropriate mitigation for the 3-way intersection is a stop light. That proposal was developed without the benefit of a holistic plan for the arterial corridor, and based only on the guidelines used by the Renton Transportation Utility department. Given the 1.8 mile arterial corridor is part of the 1405 Program, and functions as a significant traffic connector (the only north route off SR-167 between Cedar Grove Road and 1405), a holistic -based analysis could determine a stop light was not the appropriate mitigation. What's needed is a comprehensive plan (e.g. connector, safety, local access, multi -modal), with no firm mitigation decisions or further development permitting allowed until that plan is developed and approved. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139'" Place, Renton, WA 98059 2 000736 rMl August 27, 2014 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 27th day of August, 2014, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Roger Paulsen of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (File No. LUA-14-000241). A. Seth, meting City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 27th day of August, 2014. Cy-tr[bit R. M0 a "k Notary Public � and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 �gVIIA j+ 'Ili �-! 801041;b,. 11/i O ,,O TA �, 'PA rp N� �� in r i ~ / p G `WA SO 000737 Denis Law - city o f •/ Mayor 1 1 `-_�}'. l J FA City Clerk -Bonnie I_Walton August 27, 2014 APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Paulsen & Jason Paulsen (POA for Judith Paulsen) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038 156b Ave SE (File No. LUA- 14-00024 1) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on Enclave at Bridle Ridge land use application has been fled with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (I0) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional. letters is 5:00 pin, Monday, September 8, 2014, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date -and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425430-6504. Sincerely, kon eth cting City Clerk Enclosures cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 43fl-6510 L Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwaQQ0738 City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 — Appeals 4-8-110C4 Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-11OF: ApDeals to City Council -- Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiners decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application, submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070H1, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012) 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) 000739 CITY O� HEM, TO . O. a 'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNChwe A U G 2 6 2014 OF HEARING EXA M'i-FA S DECISZONIRECOMNENDATION RECEIVED CITY IERK' F. 1 E APPLICATION NANW 64/C (J(W X r �JiQt f �i' FnZ NO 1v-- The nndersiped interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dared 42 i , 24it/ A.7s: 0 7 Z Y-rhe #Wjr!Wdq9030 Phone NZ-vj.<ZLXev ber. ;z f+ /5*gf Email:�•� Wd F�4t rVia rrrr Adf/4S,60 Address: 3l NZ61W AMES ZIAJ• Phone Number: , ` f Lr— Email. 2, SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: 3. SAY OF ACTION RE UESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Ar=h explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: J'O;. lemm Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consislm ion as follows: Other: /'�� �A' A epresen.tati7ve Signature Type/PrWed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Tide IV, Qiapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-1 I DF. for specific appeal p er• 000740 C&Lp V,�► n. , riY O RENTGN August 25, 2014 w,�1 AUG 2 6 2014 6'f3L;'9 8-aiw-11, exn RECEIVED City of Renton !�"rj �- r%A� V--, C-C70 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk Phil nlbreA-6, 007X 1055 S. Grady Way Sr-U 01=ni), CAD Renton, WA 98057 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Standing As the record shows, we have attempted to utilize each of the City's provided appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council, and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via 5E 50 Place adjacent to the proposed plat (See Exhibit A), we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at -large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and (b). The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of "appropriate provision" with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. 1 000741 Lastly, we find that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal Ar urnents In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D) to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit Cj, the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Level of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for "appropriate provision" (RCW 58.17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 16, Lines 8 -9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting "...Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18) The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that "Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project -specific traffic impacts, we disagree with his finding that Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact, the record shows clearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre -application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its clear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review (Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review (Exhibit F) after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that "The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A,B,C" system used in most other jurisdictions." We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiners finding on Page 17, Line 24 which reads: "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 000742 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City property exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact, the City's own policy governing site -specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 156th/ 142"d intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site -specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58,17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 1561h Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --- LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak -hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that "...it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142"d PL. / 156" Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit 1) d) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit J) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. (Exhibit B) f) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142"d PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level — LOS level "C". (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9th on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) 000743 i) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE: / SE=142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement.is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11---13). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13t` Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18: In this section, the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. 13. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat, it would be in the position of "...compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the fifth Amendment." This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development, as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of project -specific application establishes a de -facto moratorium, nor that it entitles an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 000744 Amendment. In fact, the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property -specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17) the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'! Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de -facto moratorium and runs counterto the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counterto the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et aL u. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-iif 7. Argued January 7, 2002--Decided April 23, 2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development. The interest in informed decisionmaking counsels against adopting aper se rule that would treat such interim measures as takings regardless of the planners' good faith, the landowners' reasonable expectations, or the moratorium's actual impact on property values. The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether. " Further, a careful reading of Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the apposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. In further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate, please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et aL v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. oo-iz57. Argued January 7, 2oo2--Decided April 23, 2002 "For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use, we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings context to regulatory takings claims. Land -use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way —often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a Iuxury few governments could afford." 5 000745