HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgendaHome
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
{ENTER DATE}
3:00 p.m.
1.AGENDA
a.Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (LUA-13-001572) Appeal
b.Tiffany Park Appeal Memo
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon
Reconsideration dated 2/26/2015 regarding the
Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat. (File No.
LUA-13-001572)
Meeting:
REGULAR COUNCIL - 06 Apr 2015
Exhibits:
(See Summary for List of Exhibits)
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Clerk
Staff Contact:
Jason Seth, City Clerk (x6502)
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee.
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A
Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A
Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision upon Reconsideration on the Reserve at Tiffany Park
Preliminary Plat was filed on 3/12/2015 by Renate Beedon, President of Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy
Group, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee.
EXHIBITS:
A. Response Letters (Supporting & Denying) (3/27/2015 - 3/30/2015)
B. City Clerk’s letter (3/20/2015)
C. Appeal – TPWAG (3/12/2015)
D. HEX’s Final Decision upon Reconsideration (2/27/2015)
E. HEX's Order on Request for Reconsideration II (1/29/2015)
F. Revised & Amended Request for Reconsideration – TPWAG (1/28/2015)
G. HEX's Order on Request for Reconsideration (1/22/2015)
H. Request for Reconsideration – CH& (1/22/2015)
I. Request for Reconsideration – TPWAG (1/21/2015)
J. HEX’s Final Decision (1/7/2015)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Take action on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat appeal.
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 3 0 2015
3112 SE 18'x' Street
Renton, Washington 98058 RECEIVED
March 30, 2015 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Subject: Tiffany Park Woods Development
Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee,
There are several issues that I request your permission to briefly bring to your attention
with supporting information and/ or photographs. I will be prepared, with information, to
discuss any of the following issues.
1) SE 16'x' Street accident records.
2) Congested hairpin turn as the water tower.
3)Area school capacity.
4)Friendliness and openness ofneighborhoods.
5)Isolation of heritage neighborhood homes.
6)Development buffers.
7)Loss of property values to heritage homeowners.
8)Dense housing.
9)Children need to in contact with nature.
10)Neighborhood residents denied the opportunity to gather information for hearings.
11)Requested Environmental Studies.
12)Money emphasis
13)City oversight of builders.
14)Neighborhood disruptions by multi million dollar international corporations.
1
15)Local government's duty to represent the citizens who pay their salaries.
16)Advice to TPWAG to limit issues.
Sincerely,
William L. Roenicke
425-271-7785
risingr@integrity.com
2
Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2015
To: City Council
City of Renton CITY OF
1055 Grady Way RENrOM
Renton, WA 98057 MAR 3 0 2015
1r
ffLARECEIVED "'tiFrom: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net CIryCLERKS Opp/CE
1725 Pierce Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572)
Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Comments Supporting the Notice of Appeal to
the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-080
and RMC 4-8-110(F)(3).
Framework for City Council Decision
What makes this appeal interesting is that the City of Renton used the alternative threshold determination
process commonly referred to as the "mitigated determination of non-significance" set forth in WAC 197-11-
350. With a MDNS, promulgation of a formal EIS is not required. An applicant may clarify or change a proposal
by revising the environmental checklist and permit application so that a MDNS can be issued for the revised
project. WAC 197-11-350(2). Alternatively, the municipality may specify mitigation measures and issue a
MDNS only if the proposal is changed to incorporate those measures. WAC 197-11-350(3). Nonetheless, WAC
197-11-350(2) clearly emphasizes: "If a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental
Impact,even with mitigation measures,an EIS shall be prepared."
Courts review a decision to issue a MDNS under the "clearly erroneous" standard.A finding is clearly
erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Norway Hill Preservation & Protection
Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). For the MDNS to survive judicial
scrutiny, the record must demonstrate that "environmental factors were adequately considered in a manner
sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA,and that the decision to issue a MDNS was based on
information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d
78, 82-83, 569 P.2d 712 (1977). In essence, what SEPA requires is that the presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with
economic and technical considerations. It is an attempt by the people to shape their future environment by
deliberation, not default. Norway Hill at 272. In order to achieve this goal, it is important that an
environmental impact statement be prepared in all appropriate cases.
TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 of 4
In a nutshell, this MDNS process is a mixed hybrid of both procedural and substantive SEPA because the
threshold determination of the DNS (procedural component) is contingent upon the determination that
mitigation measures (the substantive component) can alleviate any adverse environmental impacts. Professor
William Rodgers, an eminent scholar at the University of Washington, emphasizes that the issue of a mitigated
DNS has been hotly debated: "What this process approves is a kind of backroom bargaining outside of the
normal glare of EIS procedures...As a result,the process should remain under sharp scrutiny."The SEPA rules
provide that if a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental impact after mitigation
measures have been applied, an environmental impact statement shall be prepared. This touchstone of the
SEPA review process was designed to provide some protection from abuse: "If a MDNS is issued and an
appealing party proves that the project will still produce significant adverse environmental impacts, then the
MDNS decision must be held to be "clearly erroneous" and an EIS must be promulgated." Anderson v. Pierce
County, 86 Wn.App. 290 (Wn.App. Div. 2 1997).
Review of Record Leaves Definite and Firm Conviction that Mistake Committed
What makes this appeal unique is that the full scope of mitigation measures were not specified and
determined until the Hearing Examiner issued the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26,
2015. The gist of TPWAG's appeal to the City Council is that the hearing examiner's decision provides
inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's
proposed development to support a MDNS determination under SEPA. Consequently the preliminary plat
application should be denied and an environmental impact statement must be prepared.
The record clearly reflects:
1. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own
wetland assessment on the property. The City and Applicant's wetland assessment understates the
extent of wetlands on the site.The hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant
adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly
defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or
no input.
2. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site
is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the
environment resulting there from.
3. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts
resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof
runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these
issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input.
4.Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse
impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project, the hearing
examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this
extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls, lock and load
retaining walls, and extensive grading operations and provides inadequate mitigation for the
impacts on the environment and the community. Instead the decision improperly defers
TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 2 of 4
consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no
input.
5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to
ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street
and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values
resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic studies should be performed to investigate and
revise access routes to the project.
6. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated
geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan,
final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this
documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary plat
approval. Otherwise the public will have little or no input on these issues.
The City Council's review of the record should lead to the definite and firm conviction that it would be a
mistake to rubber stamp this preliminary plat. The extensive mitigation measures outlined in the hearing
examiner's decision, and discussed above, are a reliable indicator of major action with significant
environmental effects.The mitigation measures do not reduce all significant adverse environmental impacts
below the threshold level of significance, but merely postpone their evaluation to the construction permit
stage. Consequently the City Council should deny the preliminary plat application and require an
environmental impact statement.
Conclusion
The members of TPWAG are proud that we have persevered in the face of considerable adversity at the
consolidated SEPA/preliminary plat hearing. Given that the deck was stacked so highly against TPWAG and in
favor of the Applicant, it is remarkable that we were able to prevail with the hearing examiner so that the
Applicant was required to provide the plethora of additional documentation to the city prior to construction
permit approval. Most of these issues were simply glossed over or ignored by the Environmental Review
Committee's threshold determination and were not included as mitigation measures. Rather than providing
reasonable mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, all of this additional documentation is tantamount to
a reliable indicator of and suggests significant environmental impacts. Once the Applicant provides this
additional documentation, we are confident that it will reveal a wide array of marginal impacts that are very
important to the neighbors and together result in a significant impact.
TPWAG initially organized to advocate for the preservation of the character of the woods at Tiffany Park as a
unique and mature forest in an urban area, habitat for wildlife and sanctuary where community residents hike
or simply find peace in the middle of the city. Over time it became apparent that the Applicant provided
insufficient and inadequate information to truly understand the massive scope of the proposal and its
detrimental impact on the environment. We now have the definite and firm conviction that it was a mistake to
excuse an EIS which should give detailed consideration to the alternative possibilities that Applicant's
preliminary plat is proportionally and aesthetically out of touch and not compatible with the neighborhood;
that existing streets are inadequate to safely handle ingress and egress for the site; that "backroom
bargaining" understated and minimized the wetland requirements for the site; that unlawful discharges to the
wetlands may destroy the wetlands or cause flooding downstream; that the geotechnical information for the
site may be inadequate to understand the risks associated with the massive grading operation, the extensive
TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 3 of 4
excavation necessary for the drainage vault, or the construction of an extensive and intricate network of
retaining walls; and that the proposed storm water system may exacerbate downstream storm water capacity
issues that the City already considers an environmental nuisance. This proposal continues to have a probable
significant environmental impact, even with mitigation measures, so it is important that an environmental
impact statement be prepared
For all of these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to deny the preliminary plat application and require
an environmental impact statement.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
f y 1
RENATE BEEDON
President
TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 4 of 4
CITYOF RENTON
To: MAR 3 0 2015 wt)awl
City Council RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE h'
City of Renton
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision
LUA13- 001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council
Dear Council members:
We would like to add our support to the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group' s
Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration
dated February 26, 2015. The cutting of the woods, grading of the land, building
of roads, utilities and residences may have a negative impact on wildlife, the
environment, property values, neighbors and the citizens of Renton.
Here are our comments based on some of the points made in the Appeal (Item
numbers from the Appeal):
Item 3: "TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity
to perform our own wetland assessment on the property." In a fair and open
process there should be nothing to lose by having a second study of the
wetlands done to ensure they are properly protected.
Item 4: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as
to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste". Shouldn't that be one
of the first things established before allowing homes and yards to be built there?
And if the developer has information about this that they refuse to divulge, then
that definitely casts doubt on the safety of the site.
Item 5: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the
substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system
for the site." Is this supposed to be resolved before approval? Will leaving it to
the construction permit stage allow the developer too much leeway and result in
a poor outcome?
Item 6: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial
probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining
walls on the project." This is yet one more thing that should be addressed before
approval of the project. The style, height and nature of these walls will make a
big difference in how this project affects the surrounding neighbors. Is it
standard procedure to delay the definition and review of these features, or is it
just a way for the developer to avoid providing mitigations?
Item 7: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic
impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site." If you look at the two
proposed entry points, they are both situated such that it will be a huge impact on
the people living on those roads. The SE 18th Street entrance in particular will be
very congested, especially during construction, as it was not designed to be an
arterial.
Item 8: "The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional
documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction
permit approval" Is there any reason not to require it before preliminary plat
approval? Why not have all the information possible before making that
decision?
Item 10: "An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence."
And by the reluctance of the developer to provide all they know about the
possibility of hazardous waste on the property. And by their refusal to allow a
second wetlands study. It would be proper to know the environmental impact of
development on 21 acres of 79 year old woods before giving approval.
In short, we expect our public representatives to do everything they can to make
sure this site is developed in a responsible way, with an open, thorough process
that results in all stakeholders' concerns addressed before the final decisions are
made. Thank you.
Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch
1717 Pierce Ave SE
Renton, WA 98058
425-228-2346
CITY OF RENTON
To: City Council
City of Renton MAR 3 0 2015
1055 Grady Way RECEIVED
Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
From: Robin Jones
3624 SE 19t" CT
Renton, WA 98058
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572)
Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City
Council
Members of the City Council:
In addition to earlier comments that I have submitted, this letter reflects an expansion
on my earlier appeal comments to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is required to
follow a process and apply the different information presented to him against the Renton
Municipal Code to ensure compliance, which he has sought to do. What he is not always
capable of doing is considering unique, intangible factors, which is why the process allows for
an appeal to the City Council; hence this letter. I believe the Renton City Council should relook
the land decisions made to date for the following unique circumstances.
1. The land use process that has been used to date has not be able to account for the
unique nature of this land parcel; the length of time that it has been lying unused and
the maturity of the surrounding community. This is a unique block of land that has been
pristine for roughly 35 year, surrounded by homeowners who have a well-founded
expectation that their property would border a green belt. I would ask for the Council
Members to factor this longevity consideration and owner expectations in a re-
examination of the current land decision.
2. The land use process that has been used to date has been unable to account for the
intangible impact on the community and quality of life concerns that this development
action would have. As the representative's for the citizens for this area the Council
Members are in the best position to voice these intangible but highly critical concerns.
The citizens impacted by this decision have significant worries around school
enrollments, decreasing house prices, loss of recreational areas, a declining quality of
life and loss of community cohesion. I would ask for the Council Member as our political
representatives to assess the current land decision to ensure that our concerns in these
areas have been addressed.
3. The Land use decision today has not accounted for the ongoing legal action against the
Renton School Board around the land action process. This legal action, challenges the
Renton School Board's assertion that entering into a single source binding contract prior
to engaging with the general public does not meet the intent of the State Law. This legal
action is currently active and in the discovery phase. I would ask the Council Member
take into consideration that there is a strong possibility that this land action has not
followed the legal process as dictated by Washington State Law.
Based on these three unique factors of this area of land I would asked the Council Members to
re-examine the current land decisions and re-shape the current decision to reflect this unique
concerns raised above.
Sincerely
Robin Jones
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 2 7 2015
RECEIVED
2707SE 16th Street CITY CLERICS OFFICE
Renton, Washington 98058
March 24, 2015
Jason Seth, City Clerk
Mayor Dennis Law, and the Renton City Council
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Re: Traffic Safety SE 16th Street, Tiffany Park Woods Development
Mayor Dennis Law, and the Renton City Council,
I am a resident of Renton, having lived at the above address for 10
years. During that time there have been many automobile accidents
on the streets, and street corner, which border my home, property.
Yes, and many accidents in the last five years. The police have been
at some of the accidents. Many times the driver is able to drive off
before the police arrive.
My property has been damaged many times. I have not been
compensated for the damage to my property. Fortunately no children
in my family have been injured by one of these accidents.
have asked for help from the city to make the street safer, but my
requests have always been ignored.
I would like to come and explain this problem to the City Council
asking for help to make this street safer. To repeat, there have been
many accidents on this street in the past five years, some with police
attendance.
Sincerely,
Ruka Khazehie
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 2 7 2015
RECEIVED
ITY-CLEWSGF-FVE
L\)1 j vo SL
7
709 S- ALtk r--,tfcf,T
N A- 9 EGM
RAM4 2-7 20S
T&SON sz-;qi , Ci TV CURX
1 1H2 V-cJrM-M CAN CCUJUc(L
bS s so Ute, G T-C)U/ V\w
A,...9B,0S7
HmWn 5RFLTV -SE 1611, S crr-CC
a VAV U- DEN IV K.- L&W At,,o unc RDjTb m jv COU ML I'L
H A14 S-JTV OF
VUS0 ON S., F- terv, sorccT-
SNC, 19S 7,
W OUM U KS- TO COML BiF-C> L T14 E, C-OU N C I L FOV
T V\J= ALSO Ur-'!- -M E`l- A PAfLT-V Ofk- COILD
LL N ALL r
ou L
i(Do nou
M-z I L-S.
Cynthia Moya
From: Jason Seth
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:58 AM
To: Cynthia Moya
Subject: FW:Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572
CITY OF RENTON
Letter supporting the Reserve at Tiffany Park appeal.
Jason
MAR 2 7 2015
Jason Seth, CMC RECEIVED
City Clerk
iseth@rentonwa.gov
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
425-430-6502
From: Craig &Jill Jones [mailto:cajones52 acomcast.nek]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:22 AM
To: Jason Seth
Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572
To: Renton City Council Planning and Development Committee
c/o Jason Seth, City Clerk
As parties of interest we are writing to register our support of the appeal by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group(TPWAG)of
Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding the proposed development, Reserve at Tiffany Park(LUA13-001572).
We agree with the ten points made by TPWAG that the adverse impacts of this development have not been adequately studied or
addressed.
It is unusual for such a fully,canopied parcel of forest to be available for development within the city limits. The proposed development
of this tract for 97 homes is problematic in several ways:
the parcel lies at the heart of a long-developed community
it contains several wetlands that require protection
has limited road access
is directly upslope from a city park
is a block away from an elementary school.
The issue of storm water runoff and drainage should be of particular concern to the city.As previously testified, the Tiffany Park
neighborhood already has water drainage issues during and after heavy rains.The city park,Tiffany Park, is at the lowest point of the
entire neighborhood and sits on top of Ginger Creek,which was culverted when the park was built. During the rainy season the park's
wooded patch becomes a small pond and the playground and playing field become saturated and unusable.Along the curb of Lake
Youngs Way near the baseball diamond a puddle often extends well out into the street, sometimes with a footprint as big as a house.
The proposed development will remove a thousand mature trees and forest duff, which absorb rain, and replace them with pavement
and rooftop to an extent far greater than the surrounding neighborhood.The developer proposes a water retention vault directly behind
and upslope of existing houses and about 150 yards away and upslope from the park. If the vault leaks or proves inadequate,flooding
could impact those homes and the city's park.
We urge the city council to seriously consider the TPWAG appeal and the concerns of the people of the Renton neighborhood who will
bear the burden of this development.
Thank you.
Jill Jones
Derek Jones
Kyleigh Jones
1413 Newport Ct. SE
Renton,WA 98058
1
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 2 7 2011
Jason A.Seth,CMC
City Clerk RECEIVED
City of Renton CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1055 South Grady Way i<L
Renton,WA 98057
Re:Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26, 2015, regarding Reserve at Tiffany Park
PP. (File No. LUA-13-001572 ECF, PP, CAE)
Dear Mr.Seth,
I am writing in support of the appeal filed March 11, 2015 by Renate Beedon,the designated
representative of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG). I am a party of record, because 1
gave oral comments at a meeting held at Tiffany Park Elementary, and submitted written comments to
City Staff at that meeting. I do not live adjacent to the Tiffany Park Woods. But I know enough about it
to have an informed opinion.
The errors of fact or law presented in the TPWAG appeal letter seem true to me.The written record as I
have seen in letters mailed from City Staff indicates to me that the hearing examiner gave the developer
instructions on doing many things that they should have done prior in the process. Now the developer
can do it the back door way by having only the project manager watching what they're doing,and the
public gets no input.As one of several examples,the hearing examiner requires the applicant to submit
extensive additional documentation to the project manager before construction permit approval. But all
of this should have been prepared prior to preliminary plat approval. Overall,the written record
indicates to me that the process has been unfairly allowed to go forward, basically no matter what.To
me,this has the appearance of a pre-determined outcome,with the public interest not seriously
considered.
I request City Council, in consideration of the written record previously established, including the facts
presented in the appeal letter, please stop this runaway process,and find a better alternative use for
the unique and beautiful Tiffany Park Woods than the current development plan which is not in the best
interests of current and future residents of the City of Renton.
Sincerely,
Czez Z44-4—
Daniel Goldman
1608 Glenwood Ave SE
Renton,WA 98058
425-271-6058
CITY OF RENTON
h"
T-' 1
MAR 2 7 2015 l>
RECEIVED
5242nd Ave.Suite Soo off,e 206 58,0;oc CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Seattle-WJ'98104 far K6 SP;2308
1_.uai nc-ossrom CH&
March 27, 2015
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
City of Renton
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Letter Supporting Denial of TPWAG Appeal
The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat
City File No. LUA13-001572
Dear Mayor Law and Councilmembers:
This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and
applicant for The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat(the "Preliminary Plat"). By this letter,
Henley asks the Council to deny the appeal filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
TPWAG").
This letter is submitted in conjunction with Henley's Motion to Dismiss TPWAG's appeal ofthe
Renton Hearing Examiner's decision denying TPWAG's first appeal under the State Environmental
Policy Act ("SEPA") as an improper second appeal of the SEPA threshold Determination of Non-
Significance ("DNS-M"). Should the Council deny the Motion to Dismiss, Henley requests the Council
affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision because the Preliminary Plat is in full compliance with the
governing regulations and approval of the Preliminary Plat was proper.
Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(F)(5) and (8), TPWAG has the burden of proving that "a substantial
error in fact or law exists in the record." Absent such proof, the Council must affirm the Examiner's
decision. TPWAG's appeal fails to raise any errors of fact or law, and its request for the extreme relief
of overturning the findings and conclusions of expert City Staff and the Hearing Examiner should be
denied. The Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision.
TPWAG Assertions Nos. 1 & 2:
TPWAG's first two assertions fail to raise any error of fact or law capable of review. TPWAG
instead makes broad generalized statements that the Hearing Examiner's decision is insufficient to
support the DNS-M and the Council should require additional mitigation. The record before the
Examiner confirms, as the Examiner ruled, that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision to approve the
Preliminary Plat with the DNS-M is adequately supported by the numerous studies provided and expert
conclusions reached during the application process and the hearing before the Examiner. Nothing in
TPWAG's Assertions in paragraphs 1 and 2 warrant reversal of the Examiner's Decision.
nro ersa,cairncross.com
direct(206)254-4417
02773006.D0CX15 }
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
March 27, 2015
Page 2
TPWAG Assertion No. 3:
TPWAG next asserts that the wetlands delineation was done incorrectly, the Hearing Examiner's
Final Decision did not fully evaluate the adverse environmental impacts on wetlands, and it improperly
deferred these issues to the construction permit stage. All of these arguments are unfounded. A
thorough review of the environmental impacts of the Preliminary Plat on wetlands was conducted and
numerous experts, including a third-party review by the City, concurred that an EIS was unnecessary
because no probable adverse impacts were likely.
TPWAG argues as a basis for its appeal that it was denied a fair opportunity to perform a
wetlands assessment of the property. A fundamental tenet of property law is that there is no public right
of access to private property. TPWAG therefore had no right to access, and the School District had no
duty to provide TPWAG, or the general public, access to this private property for the purpose of
environmental investigation.
There were extensive studies ofthe environmental impacts on wetlands and numerous experts
confirmed that no Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") was required because no probable
significant adverse environmental impacts would occur. In October 2013, Henley submitted a Wetland
Determination study and in February 2014, to account for revisions to the plat, Henley submitted a
revised Wetland Determination, both of which were performed by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. At the request
of the City of Renton, these studies were then reviewed by an independent third-party consultant, Otak.
Upon receipt of the recommendations from the Otak study, Henley again submitted a Revised Wetland
Determination and Response in June 2014 and a further response in July 2014. The Hearing Examiner
reviewed all of these studies in reaching his Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat and
specifically held that"[g]iven the extensive review of wetland impacts, staff's review and approval of
wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is
concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands." Final Decision upon
Reconsideration, pg. 19. In fact, the project does more than simply avoid adverse impacts to the
wetlands. As the Examiner noted, "[t]he applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Soundview
Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an
improvement in habitat conditions for both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present
situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present." Final Decision upon
Reconsideration, pg. 13.
Thus, the evaluation of environmental impacts on wetlands and the wetlands delineation are the
product of several iterations of expert review and recommendations, and revisions of the Preliminary
Plat by Henley to meet these recommendations. This process culminated in an informed and proper
decision by the Hearing Examiner approving the Preliminary Plat. The only matters deferred to the time
of construction permitting are matters of engineered design that can only be addressed at the time
construction permits are processed by the City.
02773006.DOCX;5}
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
March 27, 2015
Page 3
TPWAG Assertion No. 4:
TPWAG's fourth asserted error alleges that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is
free of hazardous waste. This argument stems from the belief that the property was once subject to two
easements in favor of the Department of Defense and therefore it is possible the property was exposed to
hazardous substances. TPWAG's allegations relate to sections 3 and 4 of a recorded 1957 summary of
five different even older grants, conveyances, and easements. At most, TPWAG's allegations establish
that there was a grant of an easement to the Defense Plant Corporation in 1944 across a 14 foot strip of
land somewhere in this area, that may or may not include a portion of the land within the plat.
TPWAG's allegations are purely speculative as to the presence of hazardous material. TPWAG
has provided no evidence of the existence of hazardous materials on the property. As highlighted by the
Hearing Examiner, TPWAG was "unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination
visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's
determination that the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further
environmental review." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 12. TPWAG's bald speculation
about possible hazardous waste on the site fails to carry its burden ofrp oving that"a substantial error in
fact or law exists in the record." RMC 4-8-110(F)(5). The Council should deny TPWAG's appeal and
affirm the Preliminary Plat approval.
TPWAG Assertion No. 5:
TPWAG also asserts that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision inadequately addresses adverse
impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system and demands more precise and exhaustive
mitigation conditions at this early stage. Again, these arguments are misguided, as the Hearing
Examiner based his approval of the Preliminary Plat on a thorough analysis of more than adequate
studies and technical plans to address storm drainage and TPWAG did not present any evidence to the
contrary. The Hearing Examiner specifically noted that TPWAG's strategy of making vague
accusations that studies and plans are generally inadequate, without providing any support for its claim,
is insufficient to overcome the surplus of evidence Henley provided demonstrating compliance with all
applicable regulations. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner stated TPWAG has "not identified any
deficiencies in these [stormwater runoff] calculations or the regulations that require them."Ruling on
Reconsideration, pg. 6.
Further, the Examiner noted, "[TPWAG has] not specifically identified how any part of the
proposed system would fail to comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roof runoff and its
interaction with wetlands. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to assign remaining
compliance issues to engineering stage final plat review, as contemplated in the City's subdivision
review regulations."' Ruling on Reconsideration, pg. 6. The Code does not require exhaustive final
See also Final Decision upon Reconsideration,pg. 18-19(noting the City had"reasonably sufficient information at this
stage of review to evaluate downstream impacts"and"[s]ince the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all
applicable regulations, is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the
proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts.")
02773006.DOCX;5 )
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
March 27, 2015
Page 4
plans at this preliminary plat application step, but instead provides a logical and reasonable multistep
process by which supplementary materials are added to appropriately fine tune the project as needed.
Granting TPWAG's appeal and requiring Henley to submit extremely detailed plans that are required at
later stages would be contrary to law. The Council should instead affirm the Hearing Examiner's
Decision because the Preliminary Plat complies with the City's development regulations and
environmental review procedures. TPWAG has established no error of fact or law in the record that
would support reversal of the Examiner's Decision.
TPWAG Assertion No. 6:
The Council also should reject TPWAG's argument that the Hearing Examiner failed to
adequately mitigate the probable adverse impacts of structural retaining walls. The Hearing Examiner
found that retaining walls greater than four feet in height that are visible off-site have a significant
adverse aesthetic impact. But the Examiner also expressly concluded that "[t]he aesthetic impacts of the
retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a [sic] ten foot perimeter landscaping strip." Final
Decision, pg. 10. The Examiner concluded that the ten-foot buffer requirement for visible retaining
walls "will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental
impacts." Final Decision, pg. 11. Again, the Hearing Examiner's careful analysis and thoughtful
Decision should not be disturbed in the face of the bare allegations presented by TPWAG. TPWAG has
failed to establish an error of fact or law to support reversal. The Council should reject TPWAG's
appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of the Preliminary Plat.
TPWAG Assertion No. 7:
TPWAG's last argument asserts that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately address the
project's traffic impacts. TPWAG's argument lacks any support in the record, as the Hearing
Examiner's Final Decision was based on extensive traffic studies submitted by Henley and an
independent consultant, and these studies concluded that the impacts on traffic were either within the
acceptable levels of service or sufficiently mitigated by the required DNS-M conditions. The Hearing
Examiner reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TranspoGroup and the Independent
Secondary Review requested by the City and prepared by Perteet, the City's third-party transportation
reviewer. These studies fully captured any adverse traffic impacts resulting from the project and
TPWAG again failed to present any evidence to the contrary.
TPWAG also asserts that there will be significant adverse impacts from the conversion of SE
18th Street and
124th Place SE from cul-de-sacs to "arterials." In fact, these residential roadways will
remain residential roadways. No such conversion of these roads into arterials is contemplated by the
Preliminary Plat and, as noted by the Hearing Examiner, TPWAG did not produce any evidence that
connecting these roads would create adverse environmental impacts, including diminished property
values. Ruling on Reconsideration Requests, pg. 6. Both roadways were long planned to connect to
serve this site, whether it was developed as a school, or a residential subdivision.
f02773006.DOCX;5 }
Mayor Law& City Councilmembers
March 27, 2015
Page 5
Pursuant to a review of the various traffic studies and expert opinions, the Hearing Examiner
made an informed technical decision that any adverse impacts to traffic would be sufficiently mitigated
by the conditions imposed. Again, Henley is not disputing any of these conditions and plans to comply
with them. Thus, the Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision approving the
Preliminary Plat and deny TPWAG's unsubstantiated appeal.
TPWAG Assertions 8-10:
TPWAG concludes its appeal by making additional generalized arguments that do not raise any
specific error of fact or law, but instead urge the Council to abandon the process required under the
Renton Municipal Code and SEPA. TPWAG again argues that additional technical studies and detailed
plans should be required at this preliminary plat stage instead of later in the development process. But
to require Henley to provide engineering and construction level analysis at the time of preliminary plat
would be contrary to law. Indeed, under State law, a preliminary plat is a"neat and approximate
drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and
other elements of a subdivision." RCW 58.17.020(4). TPWAG argues for more, more, more, but neither
State law nor the Renton Code demand the exhaustive level of analysis that TPWAG requests at the
preliminary plat stage of review. The Council should affirm the Examiner's Decision.
TPWAG's final generalized argument also is contrary to law, as it asks the Council to overturn
the DNS-M reached by City Staff, independent third-party experts, and the Hearing Examiner. While
Henley firmly asserts that the DNS-M is proper for all of the reasons stated above, we also reiterate our
arguments set forth in our Motion to Dismiss that this second appeal of the SEPA threshold
determination is barred by law and not subject to review by the Council.
Thank you for your time and attention to this response. For all of the reasons stated above,
Henley respectfully requests that the TPWAG Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon
Reconsideration be denied and the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat be
affirmed.
Very truly yours,
Nancy Bainbri ge Rogers
NBR/kgb
02773006.DOCX;5 }
Denis Law
Mayor City of
March 20, 2015 City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC
2"d REVISED LETTER
APPEAL FILED BY: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group by Renate Beedon, President
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26, 2015, regarding Reserve at
Tiffany Park PP. (File No. LUA-13-001572 ECF, PP, CAE)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Reserve at Tiffany Park PP has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the
notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, 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 regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00 p.m., Monday, March 30, 2015.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Monday,June
8, 2015, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. No further
evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please call Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6510.
Sincerer,
Chris L. Chau
Deputy City Clerk
Attachments
Error in last paragraph — not based on Code.
1055 South GradyWay•Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516• rentonwa.gov
r
City of Renton Mun 31 Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Secy 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: Appeals 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
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 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 4-8-0701-11, 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)
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015
To: City Council
City of Renton CITY OF RENTON CPG
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 MAR 12 2015 i3
RECEIVED
From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net Gln CLERK'S OFFICE
1725 Pierce Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP- Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572)
Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final
Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-080 and RMC 4-8-110(F).
TPWAG hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative.
Summary of Substantial Errors of Fact or Law
1. The hearing examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the
environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support
a DNS-M determination under SEPA.
2. The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of
Renton to exercise that authority for all issues raised in this Notice of Appeal.
3. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own
wetland assessment on the property. The wetlands delineation has been done incorrectly. The
hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the
environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of
these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input.
4. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site
is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the
environment resulting there from.
5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts
resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof
runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these
issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input.
6. Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse
impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project, the hearing
examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this
extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls and lock and load
retaining walls and provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the
TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 of 2
community. Instead th vision improperly defers consideration Mese issues to the
construction permit staghere the public has little or no input.
7. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to
ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street
and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values
resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic studies should be performed to investigate and
revise access routes to the project.
8. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated
geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan,
final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this
documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary plat
approval. Otherwise the public will have little or no input on these issues.
9. The hearing examiner's decision improperly concludes that there is no need for additional SEPA
mitigation, environmental review, or the issuance of an environmental impact statement.
10. An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence. An environmental impact
statement is justified and must be prepared if after applying mitigation measures by changing,
clarifying or conditioning of the proposed action, a proposal continues to have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment.
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group
SLA s-,—,4
RENATE BEEDON
President
CC,: Lc,rf lti
u
U 2SSc -\b es
TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 2 of 2
NOW err+CITY OF RENTON
FEB 272015
1 RECEIVED
2 CITY CLERKS OFFICE
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11
RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park
12 Preliminary Plat
FINAL DECISION UPON
13 RECONSIDERATION
14
Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
15
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE
16
17 I. SUMMARY
18 A. Alterations to Final Decision Resulting from Reconsideration Requests
19
A Final Decision was issued on the above captioned matter on January 8, 2015. The Final Decision
20 was subjected to two requests for reconsideration made by the SEPA Appellants and the applicant.
21 This Final Decision Upon Reconsideration incorporates all the changes to the January 8, 2015 Final
Decision resulting from the reconsideration requests. The Ruling on Reconsideration Requests,
22 attached to this decision as Attachment C, identifies the basis for all the changes made to the January
23 8, 2015 Final Decision. None of the changes are significant. The only changes made to the January
8, 2015 Final Decision are those identified in the Ruling on Reconsideration Requests.
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 1
I B. Summary of Decision
2 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into single-family
3 residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18th Street and bordered
by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline4alongtheeasternpropertyboundary. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance
5 ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were
consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group6 ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The
7 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The TPWAG SEPA appeal is denied. The
applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part.
8
TPWAG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre9
subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property
10 is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal
years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPWAG argues that the loss of this long-time1I
recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in
12 this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or
worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any13
SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development.
14 Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through
that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a15
position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one
16 exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with
surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental17reviewormitigationtoaddressaestheticimpacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The
18 applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls
of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not19
similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MDNS
20 mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer
21
these walls from neighboring uses.
22 TPWAG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies,
hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic
23 hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by
24 experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling
than the expert testimony provided by TPWAG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that
25 must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any
26 probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat - 2
AW
1 mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the
2 property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous
waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for
3 hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase
4 I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the
review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of
5 review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to
6 verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site.
7 The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's
MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to
8 revised language for Conditions 1 and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the
9 applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter
of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining10proposedretainingwallstoconcealthewallsfromneighboringview.
I I
A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience
12 and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of
hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings13
of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision.
14
CONTENTS
15
I. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 116II. TESTIMONY....................................................................................................................... 3
17 III. EXHIBITS............................................................................................................................ 3
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT..........................................................................................................4
18 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW................................................................................................24
SEPAAPPEAL........................................................................................................... 25
19 PRELIMINARY PLAT..............................................................................................29
20
VI. DECISION .........................................................................................................................40
21 II. TESTIMONY
22
Please see Attachment A for testimony summary.
23
24 III. EXHIBITS
25 Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the
26 hearing are as follows:
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 3
rrr
1
ow
Exhibit AS: City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11,2 2014)
3 Exhibit AT: TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 14, 2014)
Exhibit AU: TPWAG Motion— Late Filing (December 15,2014)
4 Exhibit AV: Henley Response to TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 2015)
Exhibit AW: Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPWAG Motion— Late Filing (December 15,5 2014)
Exhibit AX: Hearing Examiner Ruling—Late Filing(December 15, 2014)6 Exhibit AY: Henley Response—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 19,
7 2014)
Exhibit AZ: Henley Reply—City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response
8 December 19, 2014)
9
Exhibit BB: City of Renton—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 22, 2014)
10 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
II
Procedural:
12 1. Applicant. Henley USA, LLC.
13 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was
held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City14
Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by
15 December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal.
City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and16
preliminary plat comments.
17
Substantive:
18
19 3. Project Description and Appeal.
20 A. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the
21 subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96
lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18th
22 Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island
23 Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the
24 preliminary plat.
25
The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A
26 small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat - 4
I lots would range in size from 4,500sf to 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399sf. Under either the 96
2 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition
to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage,
3 access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer
4 along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary
access extended from 124th Place SE.
5
The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or
6 mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30%tree retention requirement. Adequate tree
7 retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest
at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three
8 Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands B and E). The
9 applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through
portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E.
10
The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis,1 I
Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary
12 studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application.
13 B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the
14 proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the
Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Cairncross & Hempelmann on behalf of
15 Henley USA, LLC.
16 1. Applicant SEPA Appeal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MDNS
17 conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful
18 obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat.
19 a. MDNS Condition 1. The applicant argued MDNS Condition 1 should be
revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary
20 version of the geotechnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested
21 the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final
geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant
22 then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. 1, which is found to adequately
23 address pertinent environmental impacts:
24 All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the
recommendations ofthe geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences,25 Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final
26 City-approved geotechnical report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 5
44W, NOW,
1 b. MDNS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MDNS Condition No. 3
2 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree
upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts.
3
MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows,
4
5 The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with
exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees
6 located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas
and their associated buffers.
7
The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or
8
modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by
9 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30%
10
retention requirement(Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 11).
I I City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that
are being mitigated by the MDNS condition. The City argued the MDNS Condition prevents
12 the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)(i) to replace trees and
13 instead requires retention of significant trees.
14 The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants,
Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's
15 SEPA 30%tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or
16 mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of
these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just
17 the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated
18 new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional
significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be
19 retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated
20 he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which
might be viably preserved.
21
22 Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant
agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval,
23
24
The applicant shall provide afinal Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree
25
retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impact
26 trees proposedfor retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 6
I approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit
2 approval.
3 C.MDNS Condition 6. MDNS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested
portion of the applicant's appeal. MDNS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA4responsibleofficialrequireda15-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the
5 development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5, this perimeter has been reduced to ten
feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring6view.
7 2. TPWAG SEPA Appeal. TPWAG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal,ppeal, alleging
8 both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The
9 impacts identified by TPWAG are addressed in FOF No. 5.
10 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential
development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is
11 bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides
12 is single family residential (R-8),though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east.
13 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse
environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined14inFindingofFactNo. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed.
15 The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the
project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other16impactsnotrelatedtoeitherappealbutrelatedtothepreliminaryplatarediscussedbelow.
17
A. Applicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the
18 Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is
19 determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable
significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to
20 nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter
21 areas in front of the retaining walls.
22 1. Proposed Development Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding
Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately),23 the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts
24 because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A
site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding25
neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of
26 trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 7
4w
I surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest
2 increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this
difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The
3 developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed
4 residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density
requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties
5 are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456
6
square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed
lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding
7 developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is
lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of8
the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical
9 areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential
10 lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they
do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in
11 the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the
12 separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood.
13 2. Loss of Trees Not a Probable Significant Environmental Impact. It is
determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City
14 code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
15 In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary
to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed,
16 thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring
17 properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this
impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not
18 qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all
19 development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in
COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by
20 the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or
21 significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The
existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is
22 arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the
23 subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining
30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a
24 significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially
25 with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining
walls.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 8
I The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also
2 tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the
applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic
3 benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had
4 no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding
property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic
5 benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by
6 development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not
an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been
7 removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the
8 code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain
perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the
9 surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when
trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable10
why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision
I 1 expressly requiring such a perimeter.
12 3. Retaining Walls Create A Probable Significant Adverse Environmental
13 Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in
excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
14 As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the
15 proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are
retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a
16 finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be
17 lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding
grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls
18 are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock
19 and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high.
During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for
20 reduced retaining wall heights.
21 A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28,
22 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these
easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the23developmentandoftheretainingwalls. The site visit demonstrated that high
24 retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The
applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height.25 These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences,
26 especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 9
I view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they
2 change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly
two stories tall in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by
3 the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94)x.
4 When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the
5 significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air
or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for
6 retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This
7 serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower
than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also
8 tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is
9 required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on
retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or
10 more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to
I I create probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
12 4. Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully Mitigates Retaining Wall Impacts.
The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a13
ten foot perimeter landscaping strip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot
14 buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot
wide buffer with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense15screenin10years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant
16 a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's
arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site-
17 obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any
18 material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that
staffs 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own
19 arborist2 and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good
20
21 In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot
22 alternative (Exhibit 2). The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the
Tree Retention Plan recommended the elimination of Lot 1 ofthe 97 lot alternative to maintain 30%tree retention.
23 2 1 Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character ofthe project
site. See Exhibit A 1,page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A.1,the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for24thelossoftreesonitsproperty. Further,staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b).
This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing. This standard does25serveasagoodanalogousstandardforretainingwallimpacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot
26
high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 10
wr' NOOP
1 explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is
2 determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist
will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such
3 will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse
4 environmental impacts.
5 Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are
four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the
6 view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of
7 approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for
site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining
8 walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close
9 to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94.
10 B. TPWAG SEPA Issues.
I I 1. Aesthetic Impact Due to Loss_of Trees. The appellants argue there is a
12 significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the
exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development
13 does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic
14 incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in
Finding of Fact 5.A.1, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally
15 wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the
16 applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in
Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30%of the trees. The applicant has had
17 no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding
18 property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic
benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an
19 impact created by the development, since those trees could have been
20
21 aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous
landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b)and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does
22 show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation.
Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as
23 subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and
only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far
enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection24beyondatenfootbuffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation,the imposition of a ten foot
buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as25concludedbytheCity's arborist.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 1 l
4
Iftl
I removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether
2 the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to
neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be
3 required by this decision to obscure retaining walls.
4 2. Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous
5 materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property
had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there6mightbehazardousmaterialsonsitebasedonthisformeruser. For the past 65
7 years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly
healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of
8
any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify
9 overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that
the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further10environmentalreview. However, nor were the appellants granted access to
1 I perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even
12 after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of
13 the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the
project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains
14 unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the
15 results of the Phase 1 ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no
hazardous materials on site.
16
17
3. Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to
wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had
18 sufficient information to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant
submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5),19
a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical
20 Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent
secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion21
of Law 3.13 below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie
22 showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably
sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These23
multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the
24 wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any
additional information that could have made any material difference in the25
official's conclusions.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 12
me
I No significant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat
2 connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's
bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered
3 species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as
4 marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from
the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Island Pipeline easement, a residential
5 street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power
6 Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy
human disturbance on the site including recreational walkers, bikers,
7 unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including
forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of8
Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands
9 and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for
10 both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due
to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present.
ll
4. Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to
12 assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are
13 anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the
applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was
14 reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit
15 K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a
geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional
16 paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical
17 improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary
geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW
18 provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental
19 impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11-335.
20 The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away,
though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are21unmappedfaultzones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground
22 movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate
several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a23shallowgroundwatertable. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic
24 Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has
provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's
25 request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work
26 for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 13
1 there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page
2 21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater,
the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his
3 opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and
4 surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed
residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger
5 of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family
6 residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the
surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable
7 significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards.
8 5. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information
9 to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has
structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are
10 landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to
11 bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or
slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide
12 activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested
13 access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the
appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test
14 pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above,
15 the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by
Earth Solutions, NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no
16 landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The
17 City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred
with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a
18 professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil
19 engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20'
feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project
20 site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There are no sensitive or
21 protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has
less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of 15 percent to
22 35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas.
23 Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability
analysis for these areas.
24
The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were
25 insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient
26 numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 14
I on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault
2 area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis
during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not
3 typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process.
4 Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a
determination of impact on the site(See Decision Attachment A, Page 24).
5
Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are6determinativeontheslopestabilityissue. He clearly reviewed the
7 geotechnical reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or
additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also8
compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do
q not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded
that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to10assesstheslopestabilityoftheprojectsite.
11
6. Groundwater. The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate
12 information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable
significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The13
appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on
14 site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They
note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied.15
Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests,
16 tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic
conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer17
review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a
18 revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The
wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and 15).19
The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided
20 a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on
site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information21
provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information
22 sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold
23 determination with respect to groundwater impacts.
24 There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The
appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it
25 undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the
26 Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 15
I Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all
2 demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface
in all wetland areas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of
3 wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour
4 throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water
intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation
5 drains and the stormwater vault.
6 The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched
7 groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred
with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25,
8 respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all
9 over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying
topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped
10 by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when
I l cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from
perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment
12 A, page 22). Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed
13 no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant
groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though
14 there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will
15 require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its
test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that
16 groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the
17 feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement.
lg Mr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The
entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to19theproposeddevelopmentonsimilartopographyandsoils. There is no
20 indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities;
infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have21failedduetoperchedgroundwaterorahighwatertable. Mr. Coglas noted the
22 presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management
23
practices are followed.
24 Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Coglas and the substantial
weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is
25 determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse
26 groundwater impacts.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 16
1*4100,
1 7. Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information
2 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The
City required a Level I downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow
3 Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to
4 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an
existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of
5 the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have
6 therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to
building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not
7 exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be
8 required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the
conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally
9 established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream
10 analysis for '/4 mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met
before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these
11 conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage
12
of review to evaluate down stream impacts.
13 8. Discharge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into
wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
14 The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off
15 are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed
drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse
16 impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is
17 in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King
County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from
18 roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution
19 generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any
citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of
20 any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading
21 of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant,
noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into
22 wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the
23 wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and
federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the
24 codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further
25 noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be
required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are
26 released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 17
14u/ res
I and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be
2 issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater
discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice
3 for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the
4 proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant
adverse environmental impacts.
5
9. Air Quality. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated.
6 During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks
7 and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the
subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with
8 respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is
9 functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the
record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air
10 quality.
11 C. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminary Plat.
12
1. Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any
13 significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three
14 of the wetlands are Category 2; the others are Category III. The applicant
submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc.
15 October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to
16 revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage
detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the
17 site perimeter(February 28, 2014).
18
Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by
19 an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland
20 analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April
3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by
21 Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of
22 recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised
Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment
23 5).
24
At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the
25 protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern
26 regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 18
I Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to
2 perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. In her
study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site.
3 She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human
4 intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper
fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists
5 currently.
6
The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water
7 quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The
8
applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(f)). The
buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from
9 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas
10 significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff
are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering
I 1 on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the
proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be12
required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating
13 appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit
14
approval.
15 The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent
buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the
16 applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18th Street
17 RMC 4-6-060). This area (219sf) has already been impacted by past
infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas
18 exemption with mitigation for the impact.
19
The critical areas on site have a total area of 1 ]8,494 square feet (2.72 acres)
20 and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to
21 increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used
to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02
22 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated.
23
Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staff s review and approval of
24 wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland
regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse
25 impacts to wetlands.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 19
1 2. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention
2 because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C).
The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The
3 first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree
4 retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves
30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection
5 Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree
6 retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation
measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and
7 is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to
8
pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration.
9 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the
administrative record.
10
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate11infrastructureandpublicservices. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been
12 reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific
infrastructure/services are addressed as follows:
13
14 A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service
boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20th Court, in
15 SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone.
16 Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton
sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18th Street.
17
18 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient
resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision
19 of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family
20 lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City
emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal
21 Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is
22 paid at time of building permit issuance.
23 C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order
24 to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval
requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for '/4 mile from the project site to determine if
25 the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The
26 applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 20
vrI
1 February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is
2 consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton
Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will
3 be required during engineering review.
4
D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space
5 standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-115,
6 which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any
specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district.
7 However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open
8 space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision.
The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace
9 to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements.
10 E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated
1 1 infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat;
SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve12
project traffic include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky
13 Road, S. Puget Drive, and
108th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently
served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within14
the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake
15 Youngs Drive SE and 123`d Avenue SE.
16 Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related
17 to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service,
sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection,18 the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See
19 Exhibit 10).
20 The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup,
21 November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received,
staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the22
applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating
23 measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an
acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive S/S Puget Drive,
24 which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of
25 AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to
26
this intersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 21
Me
I additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of
2 service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of
building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts
3 created by the proposal.
4
The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe
5 Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing
6 obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied
by an MDNS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign.
7
8 Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for
sight distance analysis at the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection. The report
9 identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA
does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation10
measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of
11 the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection sight distance and recommend
appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study12
intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16"
13 Street.
14
The vertical curve of SE 16th Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve
15 obstructs sight distance where SE 16th Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car
speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery16WhenWet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE 16th Street northeast of Beacon Way SE
17 which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the
project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a
l 8 SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for
19 a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest
directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th Street (east of20BeaconWaySE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this
21 intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional
information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 116th
22 Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFFANY PARK"
23 with a left arrow and"CASCADE" with a right arrow.
24 Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure
25 along SE 16th Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and
26
spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 22
r wool
1 City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not
2 desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up
time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire
3 engines and aid cars.
4
Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivity, connections to
5 neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary,
6 and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (See Exhibit 10.22). No
frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public
7 streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City's
8 complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5
foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide
9 sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are
required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring10
developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E.
11
City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16`" Street-Edmonds
12
Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and
13 determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional
development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at
14 this location.
15
As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per16acreandthereforeisnotrequiredtoprovidealleyaccess.
17
Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The
18 developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours,
19 construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the
Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to
20
construction.
21
F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking22foraminimumoftwovehiclesperdwellingunitasrequiredbyCitycode.
23
G. Schools. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional24studentsgeneratedbythisproposalatthefollowingschools: Tiffany Park Elementary
25 0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site)
26
and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 23
MW
I that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions
2 for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops.
Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the
3 subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported
4 to school via bus.
5 As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways
6 which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for
safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops.
7
8 Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park
Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue
9 SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way
intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake10
Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of
I 1 students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18th Street intersection,
which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical12
safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure
13 was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE
14
18th Street and Lake Youngs Way.
15 No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton
School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students16whowillbeattendingNelsonMiddleSchool.
17
A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to18mitigatetheproposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to
19 the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit
application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and20wouldincreaseto $5,541.00 on January 1, 2015.
21
22 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
23
1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall24holdahearingandissueafinaldecisiononpreliminaryplatapplications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and
25 RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA
26
appeals.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 24
r/'
1 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The majority of the subject property is zoned
2 Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned
Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for
3 residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single
4 Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD).
5 SEPA APPEAL
6 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (1) there are
unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or(2) the SEPA responsible official
7 has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be
8 separately addressed below.
9 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts
10
The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS
I 1 is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-
12
11-330(l)(b). WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable" as follows:
13 Probable`means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in `a reasonable probability of more
than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment` (see WAC 197-11-794). Probable is
14 used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility ofoccurring, but
15 are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test.
16 If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there
are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental
17 impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold
18 determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to
substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed19undertheclearlyerroneousstandards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the
20 SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision
maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-110-
21 (E)(12)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff
22 shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(I 2)(a).
23 B. Adequate Environmental Review
24 The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately
25 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 25
I must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably
2 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335.
3 C. No Grounds for an EIS.
4 TPWAG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the
5 issuance of an environmental impact statement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in
Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPWAG
6 qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPWAG has not identified an
7 impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably
assess impacts.
8
D. Perimeter Landscaping._
9
10 MDNS Condition No. 6 is modified to only require 10 foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining
walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90,
11 93 and 94.
12 The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards
13 do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for
landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.70B.030(3) and RCW 43.2 1 C.240(2)(a)
14 does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for
15 environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.21 C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development
regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the
16 development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW
17 43.21C.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate
impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body
18 of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact.
19 Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the
20 proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to
adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of21impact. See RCW 43.21 C.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the
22 landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of
the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent ofthese regulations that rigid and inflexible design
23 standards be imposed, but rather that minimum standards be set."
24
The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would
25 adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the
26 subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 26
1498j° r+''
1 typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any
2 perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must
have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the
3 proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal will involve
4 up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it,
which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the
5 vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the
6 impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council
considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional
7 mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining
8
walls.
9 The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the
densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an
10 adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a
I I difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative
guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that
12 reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse.
13 Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the
proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project,
14 differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council
15 would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter
requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi-
16 family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the
17 proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
18 Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a
SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA
19
mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the
20 City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of
the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of21otherSEPApoliciesthatpromoteaestheticcompatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii) provide that one of
22 the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive
plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic23
quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic
24 appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the
community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new25developmenttoprovideanattractivestreetscapeinareassubjectedtoatransitionoflanduses. All of
26 these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 27
W I-OW,
1 landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against
2 the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the
lower surrounding residential densities.
3
The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable4becausehomeswouldloseyardspace. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose
5 some lots. Given the judicial construction of"reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss
of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable.
6
7 As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant
adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 5, the solid walls created
8 by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the
opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a9
mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall
10 should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an
objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do11
not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative
12 retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go
through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated13
for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the
14 views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those
portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 1015
foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS.
16
E. Conclusion of Law 3(E) has been renumbered to Conclusion of Law No. 7.5 as directed by
17 the Ruling on Reconsideration.
18 F. Loss of Recreational Use.
19
The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding
20 community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The
21 loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to
SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's
22 detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create
23 demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards.
24 As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights
claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority25toaddresstheprescriptiveeasementclaimsassertedbytheSEPAappellants. Practically speaking,
26 this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 28
I pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants
2 actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school
property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial
3 relief to prevent development of the proposal.
4 No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of
5 that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to
the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further
6 environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (1)
7 the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public
repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position
8 borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its
9 property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason,the loss of recreational use should
not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review.
10
Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmentalII
purposesimpactforur of SEPA its loss would notPPP qualify as a probable significant adverse
12 environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements
are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share13
contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as
14 development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these
requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of15
building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no
16 open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's
park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or17
trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's
18 detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to
19
the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system.
20 PRELIMINARY PLAT
21 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.
22
23
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with thefollowingprinciples ofacceptability:
24 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with allprovisions ofthe City Zoning Code.
25 2. Access: Establish access to a public roadfor each segregated parcel.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 29
Iftow 4000"
1 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
2 because offlood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may
be required as a condition ofapproval, and such improvements shall be noted on thefinal plat.
3
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
4
supplies and sanitary wastes.
5
RMC 4-4-080(I)(7):
6
a. Benefits of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and7therebyimprovesafetyandreducecongestionwhileprovidingforadditionalon-street parking
8 opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged whenfeasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517,
5-8-1995)
9
10 b. Where Permitted:Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize a joint use driveway where
suchjoint use driveway reduces the total number oj'driveways entering the street network, subject to
11 the approval of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Joint use driveways
12 must be created upon the common property line ofthe properties served or through the granting ofa
permanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint
13 use access to the driveway shall be assured by easement or other legalform acceptable to the City.
14 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report in the portions
15 related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by
reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by
16 this decision as well.
17 As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road
18 (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are
19 proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot 11
and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues
20 to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number
of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the21
same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways.
22 However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 1 1 is problematic because the
driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to23allowsideloadingofthegarage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared
24 driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation
or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and25pedestrianconflictsisdesirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 1 1 is not an
26 unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 30
I driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a
2 limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul
de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The
3 approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots
4 78-81 in shared driveways.
5 As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, 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.
6 6,the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
7
7.5 Retaining Wall Height. The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff
8 will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls
9 outside of setback areas. There is nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse
impacts other than aesthetic, and those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staff's
10 recommended landscape perimeter.
1 I The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (1) whether the City's fence and
12 hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply,
whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040
13 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050
14 is to regulate the material and height of "fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC.
However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(1)
15 provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be
16 measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence
strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence
17 acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that
18 project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to
wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the
19 language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls.
20 In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4-
21 4-040(C)(1) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a
height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence22
clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which
23 would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in
light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used
24 instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the
25 place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to
26
retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 31
ti 41We
1 Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to
2 stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well.
3 Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code
provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see
4 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1.
5 As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully
mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report.
6 Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height.
7
8
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
9 ofthe Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards...
10 8 The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
I I in Finding I(I) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
12 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
13 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
14
9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18th Street and
124th
15 Place SE, both public roads.
16
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location ofall streets shall conform to any adoptedplans for streets in the
17 City.
18 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the
19 administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads,
SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards.20 Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal.
21
RMC 4-7-120(C): Ifa subdivision is located in the area ofan officially designed[sic]trail,
22 provisions shall be made for reservation ofthe right-of--way orfor easements to the Cityfor trail
23 purposes.
24 11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is
designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain
25 right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SE (see
26 Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 32
1 designated trail across the extension of 124th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant
2 shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE
extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail.
3
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
4 with the followingprovisions:
5
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
6 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health ofthe future residents (such
7
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
8 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
9 a. Flooding/Inundation: Ifanyportion ofthe land within the boundary ofa preliminary plat
10 is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion ofthe subdivision must have the approval of
the.State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner11shallconsidersuchsubdivision.
12
b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the
13 creation oj'a lot or lots thatprimarily have slopes fortypercent(40%) or greater as
measuredper RMC 4-3-050Jla, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which14
development may occur, shall not be approved.
15
16
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land1ClearingRegulations.
18
4. Streams:
19
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies20
ofwater, and wetland areas.
21
b. Method: Ifa stream passes through any ofthe subject property, a plan shall be presented
22 which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an
23 overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance ofthe natural channel and stream
bed.
24
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling ofwater shall be discouraged and allowed only when25
going under streets.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 33
Vr/ lwr
1 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies ofwater clear of
2 debris andpollutants.
3 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.13, the stormwater
design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As4determinedinFindingofFactNo. 5.13, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping
5 or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as
determined in Finding of Fact No. S.A.
6
7
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
8 dedication of land or providingfees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
9
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
10 Resolution.
11 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
12 See also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 31 above.
13 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 street14
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
15 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
16 defined and designated by the Department.
17 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE
181h Street and 1241" Place SE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two
18 public streets which did not exist previously.
19 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
20
15. As conditioned.
21
RMC 4-7-150(C): ,Streets intersecting with existing or proposedpublic highways, major or22secondaryarterialsshallbeheldtoaminimum.
23
16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial.
24
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment ofall streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works25Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
26 1 alignment offsets ofless than one hundred twentyfivefeet(125) are not desirable, but may be
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 34
Owl-, NMI01
I approved by the Department upon a showing ofneed but only after provision ofall necessary safety
2 measures.
3 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
4
approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards.
5
RMC 4-7-150(E):
6 1. Grid:A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
7
predominant streetpattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
8 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
9 ofroads andpathways. Implementation ofthis requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
10 Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
11
3. Exceptions:
12
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grid"by reducing the number oflinkages3
or the alignment between roads, where the followingfactors are present on site:
14
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
15
16 ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
17 4. Connections: Prior to adoption oj'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
18 within subdivisions to allowfuture connectivity.
19 5. Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern exceptfor properties in the Residential
20 Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval ofa plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall21
evaluate an alley outla and determine that the use o alleyjy(s) is notfeasible...
22
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
23
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due24todemonstrablephysicalconstraintsnofutureconnectiontoalargerstreetpatternisphysically
25 possible.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 35
4W NWMOI
1 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by
2 creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are
currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6
3 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above.
4 The cul de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of
two pipeline easements. The criterion is met.
5
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of=way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,6 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
7 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
8
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
9
19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage
improvements.
10
RMC 4-7-150(G): ,Streets that may be extended in the event of'future adjacent platting shall be
11 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions ofgreater depth than an average lot
12 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication ofafull-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances tofacilitate future development.
13
20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the14
presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential
15 development.
16 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
17 to curved street lines.
18 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement
19
quoted above.
20 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access maybe by private
access easement streetper the requirements ofthe street standards.
21
22
22. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street.
23 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
24 development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
25 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 36
1 23. As previously determined and as conditioned, the proposed lots comply with the zoning
2 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density.
3 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of4
the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
5 twentyfeet (20) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
6
shall be a minimum ofthirtyfive feet(35).
7
24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the
minimum frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 27, each of these
8 lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as
9 discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan
which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths
10 and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements.
1 1 RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio greater thanfour-to-
12 one (4:1).
13 25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width
14 requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion.
15 RMC 4-7-170(F):All lot corners at intersections ofdedicatedpublic rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15).
16
17
26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion.
18 RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permittedfor new plats to achieve the minimum density
19 within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the minimum density.
Minimum Lot Size and Pipestem Width and Length: The pipestem shall not exceed one hundredfifty20
feet(150) in length and not be less than twentyfeet(20) in width. The portion of the lot narrower
21 than eightypercent(80%) ofthe minimum permitted width shall not be usedfor lot area calculations
orfor the measurement ofrequiredfront yard setbacks. Land area included in private access22easementsshallnotbeincludedinlotareacalculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another.
23
27. The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling24unitsperacreandthereforepipestemlotsareprohibited. The applicant has proposed several
25 pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these
lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an
26 1 alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of
PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat- 37
fir r'
1 all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now
2 proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5.
3 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be requiredfor the maintenance and operation of utilities as
specified by the Department.
4
5 28. As conditioned.
6 RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such naturalfeatures should be preserved, thereby
7 adding attractiveness and value to the property.
8 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There
9 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above.
10 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
I 1 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
12 eightfeet(8) into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
13 development.
14 30. As conditioned.
15 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
16 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 drainage system shall be
17 designed per the requirements ofRMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
18 system shall include detention capacityfor the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacityfor future development ofthe lots. Water qualityfeatures shall also be designed to
19 provide capacityfor the new street pavingfor the plat.
20 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City
21 drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6. The City's stormwater standards,
which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during22civilplanreview, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
23
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offire hydrants shall be
24 designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
25 Department requirements.
26 31. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 38
1 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
2 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
3 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
4 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation ofutilities as specified by the Department.
5
32. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As
6 conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials
7 above the utilities.
8 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
9 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessityfor disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
10 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 to11
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
12 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 to13
the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
14
33. As conditioned.
15
RMC 4-7-210:
16
17 A. MONUMENTS:
18 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 surveys19shallbepertheCityofRentonsurveyingstandards.
20
B. SURVEY.-
21
22 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
23 C. STREET SIGNS:
24 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
25 34. As conditioned.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 39
1 VI. DECISION
2 The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area
3 exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following
conditions:
4
1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination5ofNon-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below:
6
a. MDNS Condition l shall be revised as follows:
7
All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the8
recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences,
9 Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final
10 City-approved geotechnical report.
I I b. MDNS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following [as modified by
the Ruling on Reconsideration]:
12
The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site3streetfrontagelandscapestripasrequiredbyRMC4-4-070(F)(1) for all lots and a 10
14 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining
walls are four or more feet in height. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height15oftheadjacentretainingwall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to
16 and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit
approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover
17 as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development.
18
2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot
19 width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the
20 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The
average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted
21 to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
22 3. Condition No. 3 has been deleted as directed in the Ruling on Reconsideration.
23
24 3 All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff
report. Those references are accurate. However,the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the25staffreport,which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 40
V
1 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are
2 elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street
intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and
3 installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street
4 intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
5
5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those6lotsabuttingprivatestreetsand/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12-
7 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to
take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed
8 access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot l l may access the public street
9 directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore,the access restriction for
10 such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording.
11
6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site,
12 including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. The applicant
shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and providel3
appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8-
14 120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior
15
to construction permit approval.
16 7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from
construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the
17 planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The
18 revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit approval.
19
8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional20
wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland
21 E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E
buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18th Street. To provide an additional22offsetfortheimpactsresultingfromtherequestedexemptionassociatedwiththefillof14
23 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall
provide enhancement to the Wetland `E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18`" Street, as well24asenhancedplantingsadjoiningthatbufferareawithinTractM. A revised mitigation plan
25 shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
26
construction permit approval.
Preliminary Plat- 41PRELIMINARYPLAT-
wme
1 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those
2 parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and
signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval.
3
10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought
4 to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction.
5
11. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree
6 retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not
7 impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and
approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
8
12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required
9 construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124`h Place SE
10 extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the
construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project
11 Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to
12 construction permit approval.
13 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through
the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Planl4
Reviewer prior to construction permit approval.
15
14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E
16 from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,
17 the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit
approval.
18
15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a19shareddrivewayandthatatleastonesuchlotshallmeetminimumlotwidthrequirements
20 along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.1) (a minimum of 80% of the required lot
width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage
2l along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In
22 order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take
primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
23 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
24
16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side
25 lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in
26 width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 42
W r.rj
1 in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
2 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
3 17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots
lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street
4 right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically,
5 proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to
meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative
6 plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting
7 minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access
easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them
8 pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
9 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
10 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond
be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7-1 1 080M.2.
12
19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance
13 agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for
14 all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted
to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and
15 Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat.
16 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the
17 City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of
building permits.
18
19 21. All road names shall be approved by the City.
20 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
Department.
21
23. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in
22 accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot
23 if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development.
24 24. 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.
25
25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling
26 corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 43
we 40e
1 Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot
corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all2streetnamesignsnecessaryinthesubdivision.
3
26. [This condition added as directed by the Ruling on Reconsideration to address Roof run-off].
4 Roof run-off that impacts wetlands shall not be allowed mix with polluting surfaces.
Category 2 wetlands may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity5orqualitycontrolasrequiredbyKCSWDMReference5. City staff shall require design
adjustments as authorized by KCSWDM 1.2 to the extent necessary to prevent adverse6impactstowetlandhydrologycausedbyroofrunoff.
7
DATED this 26`" day of January, 2015.
8
9
iE~h, n.C3 bnechte
10
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
11
12
13 APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES
14
RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
15 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-1 IO(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to
16 be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision.
There is no right to reconsideration as the decision has already been subject to reconsideration.
17 Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office,
18 Renton City Hall—7th floor, (425)430-6510.
19 The City Council's jurisdiction to hear SEPA appeals is contested by the applicant. The City
Council shall determine whether it has any jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the SEPA portion of20thisdecision.
21
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
22 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 44
rPO
ATTACHMENT A
The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE)
TESTIMONY SUMMARY
SEPA Appeal #1 —Applicants
Applicant Testimony
Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA
MDNS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the
current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 and#6. They believe it's better for
the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's
arborist work with the City's arborist to assure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They
requested amendments to Condition 3. In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MDNS. It would
impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly
burdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary
because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. There are two rights of
ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River
Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is 100 feet wide. There is already substantial buffering
between existing uses and the project site.
They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K11).
Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis. They appealed Condition #l. Staff felt that Condition #1
would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised
geotechnical report. The applicant agrees.
With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter
buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law
that establish a nexus of rough proportionality. That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior
to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had
held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each
other. That is not the case here.
With respect to Condition #3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MDNS to the
staff's current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the
applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with
relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that
allows for replacement of trees through mitigation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)). The condition is
overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant
environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to
preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently
damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't
intending to clear cut. They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down
through inadvertent damage. If so, those will be properly mitigated.
With respect to Condition#6, the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MDNS condition it was a
minimum 15 foot buffer" which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is
no significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here.
There is no legal authority or justification by the City to require Henley to protect one use from
another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own
yards.
As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that
are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single
family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is
more on critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two
pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average
buffer goes up to 100 feet between homes from this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside
of rough proportionality.
Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Mr. Talkington
described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts for single family
projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary
plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into more detailed engineering
design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-11,
the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat. There
was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention
requirement. They eliminated Lot 1 from the original submittal.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging
including 50 feet in Tracts B and M and near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a
10 foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum
proposed buffer is 10 feet. By Tract G, the buffer is 100 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet
wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the property boundary,
though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in
Tract H, G and J. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width
is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six
i
lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the
project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors.
With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic,
though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is
grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes
or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge
and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A
building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building
permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today.
Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this
was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is.
In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be
rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall
elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining
the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing
grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra
stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the
project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff
Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline.
The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and
the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This
wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to
prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a
fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the
walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6
feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders
the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be
willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height.
Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically
Conditions #3 and#6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staff's buffer requirements to screen the
adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons
agreed to relevance.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington
referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will
provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no
significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics.
OW Ntoo
Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those
retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to
include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by
reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a
plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than
grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers
asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for
retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist.
Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he
provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two
locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that
would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most
efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading.
Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington
stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets
in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as
part of the buffer.
Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr.
Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at
how the buffer would impact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms.
Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he
wanted the project outcome to be pleasing.
Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as
much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared
one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a
question for the geotechnical engineer, however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid.
Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington
stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would
need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington
said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space.
Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington
stated he didn't know.
Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his
education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban
forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects
4*W we
of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he
has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that
doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree
protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to
the most recent layout.
Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means
he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot
trees and street trees, in 10 years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush
community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are
also well treed.
Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The
August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his
understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his
understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement without field judgment.
The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of
188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than
they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken.
Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the
grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge
trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand.
Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He
did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root
protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of
the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and
how for each edge tree.
Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included
in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is
anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped
tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust
clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After
that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright
asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees.
rw d"
Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He
stated he has no doubt this project will retain more than 30% of trees even accounting for field
adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50%
sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 10 foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he
understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with
Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the
50% screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a
15 foot buffer would add a few more trees, but not a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright
thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney
objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed. Mr. Wright stated
the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few
in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new
houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the
gaps.
Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there
were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding
property owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers.
There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They
will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the removal of so many trees would
impact the surrounding property owners. Mr. Wright said it's aesthetic. There is no other impact.
Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as
is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a
valuable contribution to the environment.
In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on
the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where
the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoods. They didn't
include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening
in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they
plant in a 10 foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in
10 years. A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of
buffer.
City TestimonX
Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The
City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during
fte
construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition#3 is solely designed to require a tree
retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not
detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the
significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition
defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation.
With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to
surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately
addresses these impacts.
Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his
education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr.
Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy
cover. He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a
subdivision. This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to
retain as much canopy as possible. He believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a
minimum 30%.
In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural
vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation,
but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 feet.
To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are
some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more
planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers
are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and
adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy.
Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to
trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer
is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He
stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers
asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees
on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that
oversight. He said he didn't.
Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr.
Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had provided SEPA mitigation measures
to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the
fir''
condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He
stated it could.
With respect to MDNS Condition#6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet
wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers
asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar
with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was
not familiar with specific policies.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his earlier testimony
Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed
areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at
Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near
the project.
Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing.
He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any
knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo.
Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure #3 it sounds as if
the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is
failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is
intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation
measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City.
For mitigation measure #6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation.
Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts.
Applicant Testimony
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot
buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11-
14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All
other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing.
Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014.
As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions #1
and#3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma
and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and
approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is
required in this zone and none exist surrounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in
this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from surrounding single family uses.
r fir+'
There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50
foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail
corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest
currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these
properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan
Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not
apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are
not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected.
There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact
will invalidate the proposal and violate state law.
Public Testimony
Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms.
Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter,
Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be
protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms.
Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the
trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut?
Ms. Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and
impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and
mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow
water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the
wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago.
They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area.
The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be?
Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The
laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had
contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be
there to monitor them.
The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start
of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands, private property
or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for
clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no
consequence.
Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a
notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself
MWO M
had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal
starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree
preservation policy was just for show.
Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or
mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative
and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed
examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek
and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment.
Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt surrounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those
are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the
trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life.
The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't
provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was
allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on
this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak
issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction
defects repaired.
SEPA Appeal#2—Project Opponent TPWAG
Appellant Testimony
Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods
Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically
used the woods.
Mr. David Beedon is a member of the TPWAG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built
34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to
the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPWAG is composed of
five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The
purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming
out of this development.
He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there
and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some
changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are
teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedar River
Pipeline. The fence has been there at least 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the
City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has
never been signed no trespassing.
1%W11 NWO
There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine
separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These
are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15
minute walk.
Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the
school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting
down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the
school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and
twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a
member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the
property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping.
In 2010, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school
district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash
and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing
the fire pit.
Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated,
I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we
could to restore the beauty there."
Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone.
Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking,
bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses.
This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there.
Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal
maintenance of the paths.
Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The
topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades,
though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property
including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds,
deer, and owls. Mr. Beedon stated there are a rich variety of plants on the property. There are also at
least two geocaches on the property.
Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The
pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes
to improve the drainage and reduce flooding.
In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014
to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPWAG had asked the
school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the
request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer.
The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA impact, noting
the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact
under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to
adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and
the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and
others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The
Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the
public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by
December 5th.
Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist.
He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit
M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is
groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is
inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the
environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The
SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies
done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There
are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate.
Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His
presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA
checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the
greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local
region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the
northeast corner. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the
Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish
Waterway was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The
entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject
property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense
corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here
with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase 1 ESA. Mr.
Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested since the 1940s. The
oldest trees are about 65 years old.
Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water
channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and
northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in
NOrr
the area. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their
own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings.
There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies.
He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two
seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault
zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look
for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground
movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow
or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the
school district wouldn't allow it.
The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The
site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from
the City's Environmental Review Committee.
Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project
site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for
various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked
Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer
stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were
conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site
assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how
they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system.
Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released.
Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or
hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have
fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that
these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA
Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it
ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property.
Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part
of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental
Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented.
The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format.
Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz
and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater
saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy
season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero
err 040
inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured. This site needs additional
study to determine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read
definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report
shows so much water there that development without pumps may not be feasible. Groundwater is
also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the
homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands.
Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical report is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It
stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared.
There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the
surface in winter (8" from surface), but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was
paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has
geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow ground
creep or slumping.
The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table
and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This
may be why the developer has chosen a stormwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything
excavated below the surface will have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches will be full of water. If
you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or
it will float out of the ground. There need to be much more detailed studies.
The geotechnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present
at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer
stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep stormwater from flowing. Based on
our review, the deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES
report assumes the soil is permeable. The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping.
Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report. He believes it is inadequate
and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was done in too many disjointed steps. On page
8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further
study to determine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There
is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act.
They cannot discharge to a point source. There need to be better studies.
The Environmental Review Committee report states the project will result in minimal loss of
vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current proposal. According to the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here.
The removal of existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site.
The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more worried about
views than the more critical water issues.
Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too preliminary. The issue
of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will
affect neighbors.
Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't
make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist.
Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr.
Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the
drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are
no studies for groundwater hydrology. There isn't enough information to form a drainage report.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring,
piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there.
We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage
report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be
additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater.
A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed
within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater.
Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B). Mr.
Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA
provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr.
Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirements for an EIS.
Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying
property. He stated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase 1
environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase 1 ESA
and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He
responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would
typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention
without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr.
Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken
throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there are high levels of
water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing
for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge.
Mr. Neugebauer stated stormwater is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for
heavy metals. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top of page 2 states the site is
suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additional
studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed construction and
engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr.
Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is
now for a reason. It allows for adequate public comment. Later phases do not.
Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site
isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He stated there is forested land
around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads
surrounding the project. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrological issues
affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the northeast and
east are not developed.
Applicant Response
Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this
project. He also reviewed the public comments and will respond to them. He's responding
specifically to letters from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the
traffic counts were conducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out
for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As
such, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrollment of school at the time, which is
within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary
schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlough claimed
to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the
traffic volume was 30% higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes
fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low
enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or B at all of the
surrounding intersections. The intersection operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable
LOS that would require mitigation.
Mr. Jones responded to another comment about the impact of new residential traffic on school
pedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning. The
residence peak happens after school is out. The projected increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way
is 10-45 +/- trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute
during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time
period. The school traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic
won't mix with school traffic volumes.
Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be
much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th
and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase
in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard.
There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone
area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed
collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four
year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between
Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a
seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along
that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year,
though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this
location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th
Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to
see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There
are sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure 1).
Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are
concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13
in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM
Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review
of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control
of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay
will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in
both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay
under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary.
Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control
personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing
guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire
traffic control personnel they don't already have.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr.
Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr.
McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a
minor arterial. Mr. Jones stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west
and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would
go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds Avenue. They revised the
study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study.
For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake
vr/
Youngs Way. Some would go to SE 16th Street; others would go to Royal Hills. Other traffic would
go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th
Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's proposed roads. Mr. Jones stated the
development will have roads designed to the current standards.
Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her
company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40).
Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a
qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique.
Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands
review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of
species from the USFW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with
the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what
was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and
habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a
wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat
here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's not directly
connected to the Cedar River corridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 foot wide
water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 40% slope and then the
Bonneville Power Administration's easement to the Cedar River corridor. It's discontinuous,
isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use
practiced here.
Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal
listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and
Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of
woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480
acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor. It is possible the woodpeckers are
foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's
bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insects. The DFW would
require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not
result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these two listed species.
Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific
requirements for habitat protection.
Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the
wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the
wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split
rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out.
Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the
letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the
City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed
species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of
wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with
anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring
on the site. With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is
a highly disturbed, isolated patch.
Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no
direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as
proposed will protect the downstream areas.
Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa
described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like.
Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He
is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream
studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had
visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation
and stream identification. He used the ACOS, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the
property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the
wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the
wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline
dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are
influenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during March and June to
view where the water was by season.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall
record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for
that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the
record.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr.
Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these
extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term `aquake
regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and
didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr.
Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer.
Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter
will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He
is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz
stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't
provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report.
Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a
licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of
Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimony and had
visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K, page 33). Ms.
Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer.
Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they
related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Coglas stated his role was initially to review the
AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments.
With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard
practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some
outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his
firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt
Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately
characterized on site conditions.
The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's
nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district
and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for
development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation
was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended
use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking,
then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate
for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked
at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is
determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type
of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity.
Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to support construction and
engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the
project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical
report that may or may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't
know yet where they'll need more specific information.
With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He
stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the
water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES
report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site
is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical
penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland
studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the
whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are
recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the
impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that
precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds
geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table
that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the
case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across
Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in
elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep
environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till
layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction.
Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will
the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater
facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base,
storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where
he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the
beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the
trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the
groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't
concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case,
there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced.
Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for
the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes
suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil.
Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call
any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference.
Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and
its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's
criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40%
criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr.
Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site.
err'`
Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA
now NRCS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working
fields, it was good to know which soils had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of
erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However,
they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion
is managed through engineering solutions.
Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 miles north.
We live in a tectonically active environment. There might be a splay or other features under Tiffany
Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is
sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure or development would
require more studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a low seismic
hazard here, according to the City.
With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES
also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine
hazards.
Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical
issues.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He
was also hired to respond to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr.
Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The
groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these
environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater
seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering
or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated seams. In the Kent
Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The
water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't
document any observed groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak
groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season.
The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero
elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but
that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwater
system might need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that
the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas
stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the
22 acres dug on September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit
A7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or
hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties.
He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site.
Mr. McMonagle referred to Page 1 of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be
reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained
in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation,
review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if
Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of
whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report
which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round
right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the
season.
With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know
exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater
or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will
probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will
be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas
showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit
was 10.5', though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the
only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit#11, to a depth of 8.5'.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the
geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward.
Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project
and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release
states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement
with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage
basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least
a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that
property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the
present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres).
It's just an historical remainder.
Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean stormwater into wetlands is a common practice. The
drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland.
With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding
communities, in conformance with current city code.
hr'
Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is
preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested
from sub-consultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage
design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is usually a
fine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked
whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr. Talkington
stated it wasn't contingent.
Staff Response
Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the
City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files
and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee
responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general.
Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the
Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been
sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and
other acts of nature. The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ALOE).
There is a bit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the
capability of metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 80 year
event of 10,000cfs. In the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't
occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU.
Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in
his review of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to other sites in the city. The
steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on
the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or so. The City does not require additional slope
stability analysis.
With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient
numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to
see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require
extra analysis. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of
the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this
proposal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical
information is needed for the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the
information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site. The AES
didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require
secondary review. The City determined the AES report was adequate.
SAW
Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the
placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is
groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do
a buoyancy calculation to determine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the
vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault.
In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will
prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and
discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will discharge
into a wetland.
Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the
downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that
takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be
required for the project. The permit stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That
will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must
be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued.
Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with
all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater
impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement
in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along
the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance
during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and
test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings.
Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping
the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require
more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the
proposed vault is the best solution.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater
table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater
level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be
addressed during construction.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school
district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't
have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will
get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary
Wrr' 4010
constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated
the initial design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle asked if
the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would
typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information
from the applicant.
Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee
stated it could.
Ms. Rocale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies
will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to
determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development. The appellant has asserted
there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project has
been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with
these studies, including the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices of Application
released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the revised SEPA
checklist.
With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak.
Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schultz. Otak affirmed
the final wetland determination (Exhibit A5). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the
applicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then affirmed all
of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPWAG appellant regarding tree
preservation for wildlife on site.
With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones of Transpo Group.
Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are
mitigated.
Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the
requirement of a 15 foot buffer.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no
specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned
about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it?
W me
Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched
groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the
contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at
atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the
groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He
stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with
the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the
upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space
and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the
groundwater is and where it's going.
Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources
cannot be wetland hydrology.
Preliminary Plat
Staff Testimony
Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the
Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the
R8 zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There are 1,300
trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single
family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site.
The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has
received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPWAG and
conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) issued a MDNS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed.
The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses,
density, construction mitigation, and others.
The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There
will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category
II and two Category III). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of
buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th
Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption.
Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas,
wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. Ms. Timmons described the
Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide
harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the
Comprehensive Plan as conditioned.
14W 1400
The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The
only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but will be conditioned to
meet the standard.
The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could
with minor modifications.
Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site.
These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be
open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height.
With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked
for modifications to wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised.
There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides habitat for non-listed species. The
tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory,
approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be
preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant
proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others.
In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of
approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail.
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There
were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate
1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A
SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an
additional condition of approval to address sight distance concerns. Staff has also recommended
additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated.
With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem lots. Staff would like to see the applicant
revise these lots to comply with code or provide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are
preferred to reduce curb cuts.
Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all
fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks
will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA
mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street.
Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009
Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a
downstream analysis for stormwater conveyance.
AW
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does
not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property.
Applicant Testimony
Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval
along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers
asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff
report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the
client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land
the district cannot use.
Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are
requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested
issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City
had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to
policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose
a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two
pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer.
With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs.
They feel the City will agree with this revision.
Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must
be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition
related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced
in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not
apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment
B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4
does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that
establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit
AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City.
You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the
proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has
recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated,
we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction
impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights.
Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding
an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a specific instance when this will not work.
rot 10`
Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site.
The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to
extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The
City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced
plantings.
Condition 17 is a typographical error.
Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue.
Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant is
providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the 1,331sf of
additional buffer the applicant is.proposing.
Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions 1, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons
stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner,
Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to
request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would
be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they
were told they didn't need to.
Mr. Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the
finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill
on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with
reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall above Tract A
and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height
from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their
case, the finished grade is the top of the wall.
Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc.
The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA
standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the
plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to
maximize lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions,
they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to decrease
impacts.
For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared
driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used
Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City
would also require Lot 11 to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be
at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of
rrr rr r"
the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under
which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been
corrected.
For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They
have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17
to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract.
For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to
comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement.
For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access
the shared driveway.
With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared
driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four.
Public Testimony
Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these
people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a
valuable resource. The Cedar River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here
because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the
development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is
much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years
ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed
an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes
will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater
areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to
provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on
April 14, 2014.
Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is
important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no
concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking
away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future
generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated
woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development.
This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it
was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being torn down. If
the citizens hadn't become active, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be
heard and care about the environment.
W*`
Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews for Henley Homes
Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a comprehensive review.
Staff Rebuttal
Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This code
allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number of driveways accessing the street. staff
does not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see Lots 11 and 78
to access abutting shared driveways.
e
ATTACHMENT B
The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE)
EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURING HEARING
SEPA Appeal Exhibits
Exhibit A: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as
Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below)
Exhibit B: Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated
Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below)
Exhibit C: Environmental Checklist (June 10, 2014)
Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design
Elements)
Exhibit E: Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (November
24, 2014)
Exhibit F: Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25,
2014)
Exhibit G: Commitment for Title Insurance
Exhibit H: TPWAG Letter to Renton School District (September 10, 2014)
Exhibit I: Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014)
Exhibit J: Henley Appeal
Exhibit K: Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits
1.a.HEX Staff Recommendation Report
b. Pre-Application Notes
C.Wetland Determination (October 30, 2013)
d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014)
2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas
3.RSD Resolution No. 0312/13
4.SPU Letter(November 4, 2014)
5. Drainage Release
6.Site Maps and Aerial Photos
7. Airsoft Guns Documentation
8.Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts
9. COR COW Meeting (September 9, 2013)
10. Area Water Well Logs
11. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014)
12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa
13. Grete Associates Report, 2008
Exhibit L: TPWAG Appeal
Exhibit M: TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits
19. TIR Report (November 12, 2013)
Mr 0
21. TIA Report (November 2013)
23. Tree Protection Report (November 13, 2013)
24. SEPA Checklist (November 13, 2013)
39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site
40. Professional Qualifications—Steven Neugebauer
41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17, 2014)
47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (November 18,
2014)
48. TPWAG Correspondence with Renton School District
Exhibit N: Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18, 2014)
Exhibit O: Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit P: Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit Q: TPWAG Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit R: City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit S: Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit T: Pre-Hearing Order
Exhibit U: McMonagle Notice of Appearance
Exhibit V: Flatley Resume
Exhibit X: Lee Resume
Exhibit Y: Declaration of Timmons
Exhibit Z: Not Used
Exhibit AA: Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly)
Exhibit AB: Letter to Editor (Donnelly)
Exhibit AC: 5 Photographs (Donnelly)
Exhibit AD: TPWAG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28,
2014)
Exhibit AE: City of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014)
Exhibit AF: Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014)
Exhibit AG: Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue
December 7, 2014)
Exhibit AH: Title Report/Chain of Title (TPWAG)
Exhibit Al: Roenicke TPWAG Summary Testimony
Exhibit AP Garlough TPWAG Summary Testimony
Exhibit AK: Timeline
Preliminary Plat Exhibits
Exhibit 1: HEX Report
Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 4: Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014)
Exhibit 5: Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter(June 3, 2014)
Exhibit 6: Habitat Assessment (January 16, 2014)
Exhibit 7: Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012)
Exhibit 8: Drainage Report (February 24, 2014)
Exhibit 9: Traffic Impact Analysis (April 23, 2014)
Exhibit 10: Public Comment Letters: '10.1-10.70
Exhibit 11: Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014)
Exhibit 12: Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014)
Exhibit 13: Independent Secondary Review - Traffic
Exhibit 14: Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (April 3, 2014)
Exhibit 15: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (July 9, 2014)
Exhibit 16: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February 11, 2014)
Exhibit 17: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12, 2014)
Exhibit 18: Landscape Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 19: Transportation Concurrency Approval
Exhibit 20: Renton Trails and Bikeways Map
Exhibit 21: Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report
Exhibit 22: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22, 2014)
Exhibit 23: Public Meeting Notice
Exhibit 24: Notice of Application Affidavits
Exhibit AL: Staff PowerPoint Presentation
Exhibit AM: Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8, 2014)
Exhibit AO: Shared Driveway
Exhibit AP: Jones, Photographs
Exhibit AQ: Henley Homes Reviews from Internet
CITY OF RENTON
FEB 2 7 W5
1 RECEIVED
2
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11
RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park
12 Preliminary Plat
RULING ON RECONSIDERATION13REQUESTS
14
Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals )
15
16
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE
17
18 Summary
19 The Final Decision issued on January 8, 2015 is left largely unchanged as a result of reconsideration
20 requests filed by the SEPA Appellants and the applicant. The changes authorized by this decision
will be implemented in a REVISED FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION, issued on
21 the same date as this accompanying ruling. The applicant's reconsideration request was originally
22 filed as a Request for Clarification and all of the applicant's requests were granted as they just helped
clarify the intent of the Final Decision. The SEPA Appellants requested substantive changes and
23 most of those requests were denied. Since the applicant denied access to the SEPA Appellants to
24 conduct wetland studies at the project site, the SEPA Appellants were authorized to admit additional
wetland evidence during the reconsideration process. However, this new evidence merely proved25cumulativeandwasnotsufficienttoovercomethefindingsmadebyOtak, the independent third
26 party reviewer of the applicant's wetland determinations. A condition will be added requiring
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1
1 compliance with stormwater regulations that pertain to roof run off. Although compliance with these
2 requirements is already required during engineering review for final plat approval, the requirements
are called out in the conditions of approval to ensure that engineering staff makes a priority of
3 ensuring that stormwater wetland impacts are addressed as contemplated in the City's stormwater
4 regulations.
5 Background
6 This ruling responds to two reconsideration requests. The SEPA Appellants requested
7 reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned matter by letter dated
January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22,
8 2015 directing the SEPA
Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the9
Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants submitted a modified request for reconsideration on
10 January 28, 2015 within the time frame required by the January 22, 2015 order. Since the SEPA
Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for11
reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The applicant's request for reconsideration replaced an
12 earlier request for clarification. An Order on Request for Reconsideration 11 was issued on January
29, 2015. The final reply deadline was set for February 10, 2015. This deadline was extended to13
February 11, 2015 by email order dated February 4, 2015.
14
15
Evidence/Argument Relied Upon
16
R-1 Administrative Record established at the close of the hearing on December 8, 2014.
17 R-2 Henley Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015.
18 R-3 SEPA Appellant Request for Reconsideration dated January 28, 2015 in addition to pictures
of wetlands taken on January 16, 2015 as included in the SEPA Appellant January 22, 201519requestforreconsideration.
20
R-4 Henley February 4, 2015 Response to Request for Reconsideration
21
22
R-5 City February 5, 2015 Response to Request for Reconsideration
23 R-6 SEPA Appellant Reply dated February 9, 2015
24 R-7 Henley Reply dated February 9, 2015.
25
1
R-8 Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 2
Nmme
I
14W
1 R-9 Order on Request for Reconsideration 11 dated January 29, 2015.
2 Henley Request for Reconsideration
3
The Henley request for reconsideration was originally submitted as a request for clarification and
4 was largely uncontested. The requests are addressed individually below using the numbering system
5 of Ex. 2 as follows:
6 1. P. 28, line 9 should read "10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement" instead of"15
foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement". The revised MDNS condition imposed by7theFinalDecisionimposesa10-foot perimeter landscaping requirement and this
8 supersedes any conflicting background language in the decision.
9 2. The applicant asserts that the reference to the "10 foot wide on-site landscaping strip for
10
all lots" in MDNS Condition No. 6 is too ambiguous. This quoted language was taken
from recommended Condition No. 3 of the staff report, which also combined the on-site
11 landscaping strip with perimeter landscaping requirements and also provided no further
clarification on the location of he "on-site landscaping strip". The applicant made no12
further effort to clarify the language when it requested revision to Condition No. 3 in its
13 December 8, 2014 request for revised conditions, Ex. AM. Now the applicant asserts and
the City has no objection to the assertion that the language is ambiguous. MDNS14
Condition No. 6 will be clarified to note that the "on-site landscaping strip" is the
15 frontage landscaping required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1).
16 3. Specific lot references in MDNS Condition No. 6 will be removed. MDNS Condition
17 No. 6 will read as follows:
18 The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site
street frontage landscape strip as required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1) for all lots and a 1019
foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining
20 walls are four or more feet in height. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height
of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to21
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit
22 approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover
23 as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development.
24 4. Conclusion of Law No. 3(E) of the Final Decision shall be renumbered as Conclusion
of Law No. 7.5.
25
26
5. Condition of Approval No. 3 is deleted.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 3
I SEPA Appellant Request for Reconsideration
2 The SEPA Appellants' request for reconsideration is addressed by topic below, following the order
3 presented by the SEPA Appellants in their request for reconsideration, Ex. 3:
4 1. Wetland New Evidence. The SEPA Appellants request admission of photographs taken
5 January 16, 2015. In their reply, Ex. 6, the SEPA Appellants also present evidence regarding
climatic conditions taken from Weatherspeak. The evidence is admitted because the SEPA
6 Appellants were denied an opportunity to do their own wetland assessment on the subject property.
7 The evidence presented by the SEPA Appellants would not normally be admitted due to the strict
8 prohibition on admission of new evidence as outlined in the Examiner's January 22, 2015 Order on
Reconsideration. Although of course the appellants could not have photographed the flooded
9 conditions present on January 16, 2015 prior to the close of the hearing, the type of evidence
10 supporting their claim (e.g. that the time of the wetland delineation was during an unusually dry
period, etc.) could have been made from other sources, such as eyewitness testimony and soil11samples. RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) does allow for the introduction of new evidence that was not
12 reasonably available during the hearing, but this provision needs to be strictly construed to be
consistent with the "one hearing" objectives of the Regulatory Reform Act as discussed in the Order
13 on Reconsideration. If RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) is interpreted as authorizing a hearing participant to
14 augment the record any time they find a new piece of corroborating evidence to support their case,
the reconsideration process simply becomes a "do-over" opportunity for hearing participants to fill
15 in gaps in their case they should have covered the first time around. New evidence should only be
16 admitted if there was no other evidence available to the hearing party that could have equally
proven their point.
17
In this case, the SEPA Appellants weren't otherwise given a reasonable opportunity to argue that18
the conditions taken during the wetland delineation conducted by the applicant were unusually dry
19 and may have lead to inaccurate results. Since delineations are largely based upon soil and
vegetation samples and observations, the SEPA Appellants most effective way to prove their point20wouldhavebeentodotheirownwetlanddelineation. However, the applicant denied the SEPA
21 Appellants property access to conduct such a delineation. For this reason, the SEPA Appellants
should be granted substantial flexibility in presenting evidence on the presence and location of22wetlands. Through the actions of the applicant, the SEPA Appellants have been forced to rely upon
23 secondary evidence to support their position. If this type of evidence arises for the first time during
the reconsideration period, it is fair to let them use it. The Weatherspeak evidence presented in the
24 reply was available during the hearing, but it was used as rebuttal to points raised by the applicant
25 during reconsideration argument. Given the flexibility due the SEPA Appellants on wetland
evidence, the Weatherspeak evidence is also admitted.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 4
W W
1 2. Wetland Delineations. Wetland boundaries were accurately delineated. The new evidence
2 presented by the SEPA appellants (January 16, 2015 photographs, Ex. 3) shows that standing water
extended beyond the wetland boundaries staked by the applicant on January 16, 2015. The SEPA
3 Appellants also provided evidence in Ex. 6 that the conditions existing when the applicant's wetland
4 delineations were conducted were exceptionally dry. This evidence and the other arguments and
evidence presented by the SEPA Appellants during the hearing in chief is not sufficient to overcome
5 the expert opinions and delineation work performed by the applicant and the independent third party
6
experts (Otak) that reviewed the work. The SEPA Appellants do raise valid points, but the
fieldwork done by the applicant's expert was verified by the third party experts (Otak) on March 17,
7 2014, an exceptionally rainy month. As noted in p. 2 of Ex. 14, one of the Otak reports:
8 Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall
9 amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amountfor
March (National Weather Service); ...
10
In the Ex. 14 report Otak further identified that during their March 17, 2014 site visit that standing
1 I water extended from a depth of several inches to 1.5 feet deep beyond delineated wetland boundaries.
Despite these findings and conducting its visit in an exceptionally wet spring month, Otak still12concludedthatthedelineationswereaccurate. As noted in the applicant's reconsideration response,
13 Ex. 4, a wetland delineation is not based exclusively on the presence of water, but rather is based
upon several factors including hydrology, soils and vegetation. The issues raised by the SEPA
14 Appellants certainly puts the conclusions of the applicant's expert into question, but those concerns
are put to rest by Otak's third party review. There is no reason to doubt the objectivity or
15 competency of Otak's review and for that reason it proves determinative on the wetland issues.
16 3. Buffer Averaging. The SEPA Appellants identify areas where the project encroaches into
wetland buffers. The SEPA Appellants do not dispute that these encroachments were authorized as17partoftheapplicant's buffer averaging and they do not identify how the buffer averaging plan fails to
18 meet applicable City buffer averaging standards. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be
concluded that the averaging plan found to be code compliant by third party reviewer Otak and City
19 Staff fails to meet City standards.
20 4. Trees. The SEPA Appellants assert that a ten-foot wide buffer in front of retaining walls
would not be sufficient to obscure the walls from view. No evidence is referenced or explanation21profferedastowhythebufferwouldbeinsufficient. The final decision on this matter contained a
22 detailed review of the evidence on the sufficiency of the buffer width and the SEPA Appellants did
not identify any error in this analysis. The ten foot wide buffer is still found to be sufficient.
23
5. Stormwater. The SEPA appellants assert that the removal of trees will reduce 75% of the
24 property's ability to process storm water and that a 24" discharge pipe as proposed by the appellant is
inadequate to handle stormwater. It is determined that the City's stormwater regulations provide for25adequatestormwatermitigation.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 5
1 The City of Renton has adopted the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual under RMC 4-
6-030(C). This manual requires that stormwater runoff rates and volumes match pre-development,2 forested conditions. In short, the City's stormwater regulations already require stormwater systems to
3 be designed to take into account the impact of tree removal and are also designed to assure that all
stormwater facilities, including pipes, have adequate capacity to handle stormwater run-off. The
4 applicant has prepared a preliminary set of calculations in its Technical Information Report, Ex. A,
att. 8, which addresses the reduction in natural stormwater retention occasioned by the loss of trees.5 The SEPA appellants have not identified any deficiencies in these calculations or the regulations that
require them. Condition No. 2 of the MDNS also requires a Level 2 downstream analysis, which will6
verify the adequacy of pipe sizes. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the City's
7 stormwater regulations are determinative on the adequacy of stormwater mitigation. Further, in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary on the applicant's compliance with those stormwater
8 regulations, City engineering staffs finding of adequacy on the preliminary calculation is also
determinative.
9
6.Roof Runoff. The SEPA Appellants assert that the proposed diversion of rooftop run off into10wetlandsviolatesCitystormwaterregulations. The Appellants also assert that roof top run off will
I I mix with pollutants in yards and then flow into wetlands. The applicant responds that the roof top
runoff is proposed to be diverted away from polluting surfaces so that no mixing will occur. The
12 applicant also asserts that compliance with stormwater manual requirements will be achieved during
final engineering review.
13
City engineering staff have determined that the proposal's proposed stormwater system will comply14withapplicablestormwaterregulationsasconceptuallyproposedforpreliminaryplatreview. The
15 SEPA appellants have not specifically identified how any part of the proposed system would fail to
comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roof runoff and its interaction with wetlands.
16 Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to assign remaining compliance issues to
engineering stage final plat review, as contemplated in the City's subdivision review regulations.
17 However, to remove any doubt, a condition of approval will require that (1) roof run-off that impacts
wetlands will not be allowed to mix with any polluting surfaces; (2) Category 2 wetlands may not be18structurallyorhydrologicallyengineeredforrunoffquantityorqualitycontrolasrequiredby
19 KCSWDM Reference 5; and (3) City staff shall require design adjustments as authorized by
KCSWDM 1.2 to the extent necessary to ensure that wetland hydrology is not adversely affected by
20 the proposal.
21 5. Traffic. The SEPA Appellants assert that the conversion of SE 18th St. and 124th Place SE
from cul de sacs to throughways to serve the project is not sufficiently mitigated and will reduce their22propertyvaluesby $30,000. The reduction in property values is new evidence that cannot be
23 considered during reconsideration since that information was reasonably available to the SEPA
Appellants during the hearing in chief. The SEPA Appellants also make several suggestions for
24 revising access routes to the project site. It is too late to consider these types of suggestions after the
close of the hearing. Any change to access would require a re-evaluation of traffic impacts, which
25 could take substantial investigation and study by both the applicant and staff. Since the record is
26
closed, the opportunity for that type of analysis is gone. If any of the suggestions were made prior to
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 6
low!"' vwr+'
1 the close of the hearing, the SEPA appellants should have identified where in the record the
suggestion was made and why the staff and applicant response were deficient. In the absence of that2typeofinformation, the SEPA Appellant requests for revision cannot be considered.
3
4 DATED this 26th day of February, 2015.
6 Phi A.01W,chts
7 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 7
CITY OF RENTON
I S
JAN 2 8 2015
RECEIVED
1 CITY CLERICS OFFICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11
RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park
12 Preliminary Plat
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
13
RECONSIDERATION II
14
Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals )
15
16
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE
17
The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-
18 captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was
issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA
19 Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the
20 Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants have submitted a modified request for
reconsideration on January 28, 2015 within the time-frame required by the January 22, 2015 Order.
21 Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a
timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The reconsideration requests from both
22 the SEPA Appellants and the applicant will be distributed to the parties of record of this proceeding
23 for response and reply.
24 It is recognized that once again the SEPA appellants are attempting to introduce new evidence in the
record and that applicable legal standards only allow new evidence under very limited circumstances.25 This places the applicant in the difficult position of arguing against the admission of new evidence
26 while at the same time having to respond to the new evidence in case the evidence is admitted. The
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1
I applicant is given the opportunity to limit its response to evidence in the record and reserve the right
to respond to newly presented evidence if any such evidence is admitted. If the applicant chooses this2
course of action, the examiner will rule on the admissibility of evidence after the submission
3 deadlines outlined below and then provide an additional opportunity for response to new evidence by
the applicant and final reply by the SEPA appellants before ruling on the reconsideration requests. In
4 the alternative, the applicant may "cover all bases" and argue against the admission of new evidence
while also presenting new evidence to the extent necessary to respond to any new evidence from the5SEPAappellantsthatisadmittedintotherecord.
6
7 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
8
9 1. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until
5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for
10 Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants on January 28, 2015 and the Request for
Reconsideration submitted by the applicant on January 22 2015. Only persons who participated
11 in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the
12
issues raised in the requests for reconsideration.
13 2. The SEPA Appellants and the applicant shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a
written reply to the responses to their own reconsideration requests.
14
15 3. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner
16 at olhrechts[Lm (a gnwil.coin; Rocale Timmons at RTMinwns0 Rcntonwa.go%; Renate Beedon at
rento n-oppositesC comca,t.net; Nancy Rogers at. NRo ers@Cairncross.cotn and Cynthia Moya
17 at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to
Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.18 Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this
19 Order.
20
DATED this 29th day of January, 2015.
21
t
22 Phi A.Olbrcchu
23
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
i Date: Wed,Jan 28, 2015
To: City of Renton
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw Li)gmail.com
CITY OFRENTON
dam
City of Renton
JAN 2 8 20151055GradyWay C;,i
Renton, WA 98057 RECEIVED
CIN CLERK'S OFFICE
From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net
1725 Pierce Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572)
Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Revised and Amended Request for
Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of
a hearing examiner's decision if a party of record believes the decision is based on "an erroneous procedure,
errors of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior
hearing." TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates
Renate Beedon as the designated representative.
References
Letter entitled, "RE:The Reserve at Tiffany Park - Preliminary Plat- Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals -
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE - Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts - City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated
Jan 8, 2015.
Scope
The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and
on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination
under SEPA.
The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via
the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter.
An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse
impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental
statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require
an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous.
The Hearing Examiner is entitled to consider newly discovered evidence not reasonably available at the
prior hearing.
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 8
r
Wetland Determination, Measuring and Staking
Newly Discovered Evidence
Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015
TPWAG removed all photographs of the wetlands taken on January 16, 2015. These photographs were
simply provided to show that the wetland boundary markers and wetland buffer markers are standing
in bodies of water. Photographs of this condition were not readily available at the time of the hearings
because the wetland studies were performed after a 3 month draught (2013) or after unusual we
seasons (2014) of the year. The photographs that have been removed show typical conditions in
January and bring into question the delineation of the limits of the wetlands and suggests the
boundary of Wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated.
RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) provides that "any interested person feeling that the decision of the Hearing
Examiner is based on "erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery
of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing" may make a Request for
Reconsideration. Thus the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to consider this limited
discovery of new evidence.
TPWAG believes that the wetland photographs removed from this Revised/Amended Request for
Reconsideration fall into this category of evidence and should be considered by the Hearing Examiner.
TPWAG requests that they be allowed to resubmit these photographs as newly discovered evidence.
Problems
One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked.
As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been
done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have
been conducted. An EIS would clearly provide the city and all interested parties with information that
is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment.
The original study by OTAK pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz.
The OTAK study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than described in the original study
submitted by Schulz.
After the Applicant received the OTAK study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz
and OTAK. At that on-site meeting the Applicant apparently convinced the OTAK consultants that the
original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both
reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of OTAK studies. TPWAG
requested minutes for this meeting from the City of Renton and was told that there were no minutes
because this was a "field trip" and that the two revised wetland reports from Schulz and OTAK were
record enough. Apparently, there is no written record of what was said and decided by whom during
this off-site meeting in the woods.
One thing the participants of the "field trip" did agree on is the addition of wetland D.
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 8
OTAK Secondary
Review Memo-43-1,
We are providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots (in
particular lots 70, 79 and 80) appear to encroach onto the wetlands B and C.
Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it
looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland.
VWCUrTNOAAM CLE~KM•
PM
e\ ` REBF•RYS AT TIFFANYPARK
r
iii'! tb Tc r s t•
WaBIT 11
These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (Date is too small
to read).
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 8
w
The maps provided by thr iplicant show that plats and streets al-- ,dy encroach onto wetland
boundaries acknowledges ,,y the Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are co{,._ct in our assumption that the
wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that all the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the
Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the
wetland code/regulations, etc.
We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or
oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development.
We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again
A visit to the City of Renton Clerk's office on Monday,January 26, 2015 by TPWAG revealed that
several sets of original drawings were incomplete, thus we were unable to study these drawings in
conjunction with our request for reconsideration. The city planner, Ms. Timmons, told TPWAG that
the drawing dated August 2014, is "old". This "old" drawing showed the presence of a storm water
retention pond rather than a vault as presented during the Hearing Examiner's meetings in 2014.
After Ms.Timmons left, we looked for newer drawings but could not find any. The City Clerk staff told
us that they were not in possession of newer drawings.)
Relief Requested
Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses
to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property)
Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time
to find an expert who is willing to work with private citizens, allow adequate time for the expert to
prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. TPWAG requests that it be invited
should such a meeting take place.
Direct the Applicant and City Staff to make a complete set of original drawings available for review by
the public as soon as possible to support this process.
Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by
Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter.
Trees
Problems
A 10 foot buffer around the property is inadequate, not only because of esthetic value but also
because it does not provide sufficient protection from the high winds that occur regularly in our area.
During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public
testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed
all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees.
Relief Requested
Require a buffer of at least 20 feet around the property
Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or
carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use
that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees.
Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code
compliance.
Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees.
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 8
If trees are damaged and ry -t be removed, require Applicant to red- ' -:e the damaged trees with
equivalent *mature* trees, _.id prohibit them from using any of the ,riginal canopy from the
removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow.
Storm Water
Problems
Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75% of the property's ability to process
storm water.
24" pipe (as proposed by Applicant) is barely good enough for a 10-year storm. 100-year storms are
common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the
neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development.
Relief Requested
Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street.
Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water to pass through it) on all streets,
sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site.
Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns) to minimize
the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site.
TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance
with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted
King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled:
Core Requirements#2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements#4 Conveyance Systems. The City of
Renton has some added amendments for special community situations.
Roof Runoff
Problems
Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides
used in the yard it becomes a pollutant.
Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to
flow control per Core Requirement#3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments
per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5.
KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be
structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands.
We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.)
Applicable Laws
The Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration provides that "applicable laws are not
considered new evidence." The Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines are part of the King County Surface
Water Design Manual. Section 6.2 of the KCSWDM provides "roof runoff is subject to flow control per Core
Requirement#3. Section 1.2 of the KCSWDM provides that where there is potential impact to wetland
hydrology, "DDES may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology reference guidelines in
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 5 of 8
Reference Section 5. Therefore th' -ection is merely summarizing applical'--law and should be considered by
the hearing examiner.
Relief Requested
Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines
Traffic
Problems
Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed
development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However, that analysis did not
address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet cul-de-sacs into arterials
for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day- mostly on SE 18th Street- by
Applicant's own estimates).
Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a cul-de-
sac is significant.
We have researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings
showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a $30,000 loss in property
value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the development go forward. The city has
noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the
development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. (Roenicke Testimony.)
Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but
two cul-de-sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)!
We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect the applicant to respect the
property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing its profit by
unfairly externalizing its costs to the neighboring property owners.
Relief Requested
We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law.
Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development.
Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has
to buy existing houses to create such access).
Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th
Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the
proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from
Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street.
Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street.
Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good
sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than
is SE 16th Street.
1. Re-open the north end of Beacon Way SE to Puget Drive SE.
2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the
newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial
traffic on SE 16th Street to leave their neighborhood.
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 8
t
Environmental Impact Statement
Problems
An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse
impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental
statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not
require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous.
The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal
hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions
at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in
which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention
vault, drainage and retaining walls, weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental
impact statement.
Relief Requested
The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project.
Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our
issues.
Thank you.
RENATE BEEDON
President
cc:
Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmonsLcDRenton,va.gov
Nancy Rogers mailto:NRoaersid)Cairncross.com
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 8
t E
4 4A,
y
Iti'vaiNib
CedarT4sRiver
a Grdft
Severlk s
impact
m
OCSE :-. ttitM1St p ASF Qc. cw
to4 tl.idren ddw 1%
e y young ren.. m
R
tau
Ow - inn K A
aVA
4
Severe h
LU
SE Ct
impact
fy rcpt ed enakinby bLe+
py '
N'
SE ISM St F many+
rkd"
Cr, i:-veicpmer,t
4 p g se1"
1 Pwa&, Cdo Vue w Severe
impact
SE 21st St Zt
GradeVhb
chidwe
SE 160th St _ Sr ced .. - -
SE lfi th St-_
SEIM St -v-
wvkwkka
aCNK.Kle K .camps" l ou irs4,10
SESE16tstSt
SE 162nd St a i SE 162nd St
SE 162nd St 4 SE 163rd St
SE 163rd St
SP d3d
7 b.ar,rS $E%ft%tst SE
SE 164th St SE 164thSt
Figure 1 -Area Map
TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 8 of 8
f
Technical Memorandum
To: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
City-of Renton - Current Planning
10230 NE Points Daae From: Darcey Miller, Senior Wedand Scientist
Suite 400 425) 739-7977
Kirkland, RA 98033
Phone(423)8224446 Copies:
Fax(423)827-9377
Date: April 3, 2014
Subject:Reserve at Tiffany Park
Wedand Delineation Review
Project No.: 32385.A
This review pertains to the Preliminary-Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City- of
Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the Citi-of
Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffanv Park,
to the north of SE 158" Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by
the City- of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide
comments regarding its applicability to the Renton NIunicipal Code (RN1C), specifically, Section 4-3-
050, Critical Areas Regulations.
The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of
the City-code:
Vetland Determination:Reserve at Tiany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28,
2014;
Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany-Park Preliminary=Plat,prepared by Barghausen Consulting
Engineers, Inc., signed February-27, 2014.
Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated
November 12, 2013,and revised February 24, 2014.
The Wetland Determination identifies three Category-2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the
site,which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers,respectively. The report indicates that
wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the
requirements for buffer averaging described in the R IC.
K:Aproject\32300\32385:A\Reports\Cri6cal_areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doe
Rocale Timmons, SeniorPlanner, City ofRenton Page 2
Reserve at Tiffany Park 1L"etland Review Apri13,2014
Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17, 2014, to confirm whether the wetland
delineation was consistent with the IYlarhington State Vetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
Ecology 1997), as required by the RhIC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March
31, 2014. Please note that the wedand delineation was performed in June 2013,whereas the rainfall
amount as of March 17,2014,was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March
National Weather Service);and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March.
Comment 1 — Delineation Method
The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation
manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Vashington State
Vetlands Identification and Delineation Alanual(Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.NI.4.a.
Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the
methodology required by the RMC.
Comment 2—Survey Map
We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags,which is necessary for confirming
the wetland delineation.As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field;
however, ifwe have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not
need to be replaced.
Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags
from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition,missing wetland flags should be replaced
as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges.
Comment 3—Wetland A
We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However,we could not find some of the
flags (including Wetland A-1) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas
extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1,A-3,A-5, and A-6. In these
areas,we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology
mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014,in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated
flagged) wetland,inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We
agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland,which is
required to have a 50-foot buffer.
Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the
early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the
revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans.
K:\project\32300\32385. \Reports\Critical Areas Review Nlemo_2014_0403.doc
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, CityofRenton Page 3
Reserve at Tiany Park lf'etland Revieav April3,2074
Comment 4—Wetlands B and C
During our site visits, standing water extended generally- 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated
edges of Wetlands B and C. In addition,Wetlands B and C are not separated by upland area; they
appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014,inundation ranged from several inches
to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation
mainly- salmonberry>and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority-of these
areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category-2 wetland,
which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands B and C are connected (one
wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category-2.
Recommendation: Wetlands B and C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged
during the early growing season (before mid-Nlay). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wedand
B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report
and project plans.
Comment 5—Wetland D
We agree with the majority-of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, although the wetland
appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wetland
D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category-2 wetland.
Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the
early growing season (before mid-flay). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the
revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans.
Comment 6—Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW)
An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side
of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is
southwest of(in line with) 18`h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long
and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and
hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on Nfarch 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface
to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the Ri'NIC for a
Category 3 wetland,which is required to have a 25-foot buffer.
Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be
delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If
permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on
the plans, along with the buffer.
K:\proiect\32-300\323853\Reports\Critical Areas Review blemo_2014_0403.doe
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 4
Reserve at Tiffany Park If'etland Review April 3, 201.1
Comment 7—Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW)
Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Nlercer Island Pipeline Right-of-
way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands;if so,
they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site.
Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not
extend onto the property.
Comment 8—Wetland in Southwest Corner of Site
A wetland was observed in the southwest corner of the site, to the north of SE 18`h Street and
southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan
blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On Nlarch 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation
were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of
SE 18`h Street.
Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and
added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans.
Comment 9—Flowpath from Wetland B
During our March 17, 2014 site visit,water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to
the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3,4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar
River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the floxvpath onsite on Nlarch 17`h
was
approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the
stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed
and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the
flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow
strong enough to round their edges. During our Nlarch 31, 2014 site visit, no water was observed
along the flowpath that had been observed on Nlarch 17`h. Standing water was present at Wetland B
beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland.
No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek,
approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per
RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes).
Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/after
high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream.
Recommendation: No action is necessary.
K:\project\32300\32385. \Reports\Critical areas Review N1cmo_2014_0403.doc
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 5
Reserve at Tiffany Park Fetland Review April 3,2014
Comment 10—Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW)
The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest
of the southwest corner of the Tiffany-Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as
FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland
see Photograph 6).
Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and
added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans.
Comment 11—Buffer Averaging
The buffer averaging proposal in the Wedand Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets
all of the requirements in RNIC 4-3-050.NI.6.£ However,revisions to wetland edges will likely
change this proposal.
Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with
the any necessary-revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite.
Comment 12—Temporary Buffer Impacts
Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (Preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers
that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary-buffer impacts are not discussed
in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report.
Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary-
impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace
those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of
60°,o design.
Encl. Photographs
K:\project\3_'300\32355.1\Reports\Critical:areas Revim Dlemo_2014_0403.doc
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 6
Reserve at Tiffany Park Vetland Revie2v April 3,2014
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1: Wedand A, near southern delineated edge (3/17/14)
Photograph 2. Offsite wetland on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17/14)
K:\project\32300\32385-k\Rt--ports\CriticaI Areas Review Nlemo-2014-0403.doc
y, •t sir.. 1 S
k.
va.`
FIF
a /•le-
41 r
ZI
kA
k.
T
t < Y
1+_
n }, •,,a .. y: -
x
s,gad' .. ...,,,. ,..;-
fa
v
y1 1.
t, ,
ice+•~/ .••^•` ./ /t ,, t"S
J` t
f "+ ,
mow.{ /°
T .
4
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11
RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park
12 Preliminary Plat
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
13 RECONSIDERATION
14
Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals )
15
16
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE
17
The SEPA Appellants have requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the
18 above-captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. Since the reconsideration request affect
parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties of record who testified at the hearing and19Citystaffwillbegivenanopportunitytorespondtotherequestforreconsiderationbeforeadecision
20 on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be based upon evidence that is already
in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing or entered as an exhibit at the
21 hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request.
22 The SEPA Appellants do not appear to be aware that once a land use hearing is closed, no new
23 evidence may be considered except under very limited circumstances. Their reconsideration request
appears to include photographs and reports that were not admitted into the administrative record of
24 this appeal. The restriction on new evidence arises from the Regulatory Reform Act requirement that
there be no more than one public hearing on a land use permit application. RCW 36.70B.050(2)
25 provides that city and county land use permit review procedures only authorize one open record
26 hearing per project permit application or consolidated project permit application. The purpose of this
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1
I requirement is to provide for a more efficient permitting system by preventing decision makers from
holding one new hearing after another ad infinitum as new factual issues occur and also to prevent2
public confusion about when to participate in an on-going series of public hearings. See RCW
3 36.7013.010. Allowing new evidence after the close of a hearing essentially creates a second hearing.
Renton's land use ordinances must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the one hearing
4 rule of the Regulatory Reform Act. The hearing on this matter was closed on December 19, 2014, the
last date that evidence was authorized for the hearing of this application. No new evidence is allowed5afterDecember19, 2014, except as authorized by the Regulatory Reform Act or the Renton
6 Municipal Code.
7 Given that the SEPA Appellants may not have been aware of the restriction on new evidence, they
will be given an opportunity to reformulate their reconsideration request so that it is properly limited8toevidencethathasbeenadmittedintotherecordofthisproceeding.
9
10 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
11 1. The SEPA Appellants have until 5:00 pm, January 28, 2015 to re-submit their Request for
12 Reconsideration so that it does not contain any new evidence.
13 Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until
5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for
14 Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants in response to the January 28, 2015 deadline.
Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All
15 comments are limited to the issues raised in the Request for Reconsideration subject to the January
16 28, 2015 deadline.
17 3. The SEPA Appellants shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to
18 the responses authorized in the preceding paragraph.
19 4. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner at
olbrechtslati'tit n ail.com; Rocale Timmons at Renate Beedon at
20 rentor-opposites a comeast.net; Nancy Rogers at. NRog,:r's a CLlimcross.coni and Cynthia Moya at
CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to
21 Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
22 Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this
Order.
23
5. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be
24 drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding.
25 Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not considered new evidence
and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's request for
26 reconsideration.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
1
2 6. In order to prevent confusion, the City Clerk's Office is directed to not distribute this Order
3 to the parties of record until the SEPA Appellants have submitted a revised Request for
Reconsideration pursuant to the terms of this Order. When that revised Request is submitted,
4 the City Clerk's Office should distribute the revised Request for Reconsideration along with
this Order to the parties of record. The January 21, 2015 Request for Reconsideration should5notbedistributedtothepartiesofrecordatanytime (unless of course someone makes a
6 specific request for a copy).
7
DATED this 22nd day of January, 2015.
9 Plir A.albrmhts
10
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3
CITY OF RENTON
r
JAN 2 2 2015
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1 4
i-
6- S C H&
January 22, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts
City of Renton
1055 Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat
City File No. LUA13-001572—Request for Reconsideration
Dear Examiner Olbrechts:
This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and
applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to
RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a Hearing
Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on "an erroneous procedure,
errors of law or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be
reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for
review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-100(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to
ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request;
however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for
clarification and correction of technical errors.
1.There may be errors of fact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error
referencing a"15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a
10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement."
2.There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7— 10. Here, the first portion of
Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its
landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this
Condition also goes on to address the 10 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls
facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. The linkage of those two
issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise
clarify that there is a difference between the 10 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and
the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal.
nrogers2cairncross.com
direct:(206)254-4417
102743372.DOCX;2}
Hearing Examiner Phil OlbrJ,
January 22, 2015
Page 2
The record reflects that these are two separate issues. Specifically, the City Staff Report to the
Examiner(Exhibit K.La), at p. 13, described how 10-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by
RMC 4-4-070(F)(1), which provides: "Ten feet(10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public
street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with
building setbacks less than ten feet (10'). In those cases, ten feet (10') of landscaping shall be required
where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot
front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then
described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff
was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two
things: (1) "a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and(2) a"15-foot wide vegetated buffer
surround the subject site..."
We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions.
3.There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4—5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line
11, which text lists Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text,
and Examiner's Condition Lb, which revises MDNS Condition 6, calls for a 10 foot wide area of
perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface,
so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in
the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated.
As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a"cut"
wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line ofthe plat, meaning there can be no
visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is
already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised, the list
of lots should include only Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, plus a note that as to Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94, the
revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in
Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4
feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the
buffering requirement.
Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design
continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the
perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that
an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list of lots entirely and
instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas
where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side ofthe
wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring
property owners."
02743372.DOCX;2}
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrci, _s
January 22, 2015
Page 3
4.There may be errors of fact or law on pp. 28 - 29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height.
The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA
Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 ofthe
Examiner's Decision.
5.There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should
be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4.
Thank you for your time and attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
v
Nancy Bainbridge Rogers
NBR/kgb
cc: Rocale Timmons
02743372.DOCX;2}
z
Date: Wed,Jan 21, 2015
To: City of Renton
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
CITY OF RENTOIV
City of Rentonr
y Wa1055GradWay JAN 1 2015
Renton, WA 98057
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net
1725 Pierce Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98058
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP- Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572)
Request for Reconsideration
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-
8-110(E)(13). TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates
Renate Beedon as the designated representative.
References
Letter entitled, "RE:The Reserve at Tiffany Park- Preliminary Plat- Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals -
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE - Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts- City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated
Jan 8, 2015.
Scope
The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and
on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination
under SEPA.
The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via
the Hearing Examiner)to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter.
An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse
impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental
statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require
an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous.
Wetlands
Problems
Wetland determination, measuring and staking
One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked.
As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been
done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 20
been conducted. An EIS ild clearly provide the city and all inte _.,ced parties with information that
is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment.
The ORIGINAL study by Otak pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by
Schulz. Specifically, this study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than the original study
submitted by Schulz.
After the Applicant received the Otak study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz
and Otak. This was an on-site meeting where apparently the Applicant convinced the Otak
consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at
and compare both reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of Otak studies.
One thing they did agree on is the additional wetland D.
OTAK Secondary
Review Memo-4-3-1•
As you can see from the pictures taken On January 16, 2015, the wetland boundary markers and in
some cases even the wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. This is NOT after a
record rainfall, but during a typical day in January. This is of great concern to us, as it suggests that
the boundary of wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated.
7,
M
elr
e
t
h
r
4
1aa
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 20
Vy k
T
a
s w
1 is 4 •. t 'l , " ` :`'' a 7 _
S t Y P ;
4 t
1,
R r-y,y
ra
RKyfAn
k
1` b+r '
k,:
t tl III II S '
j'*
9
1'4 i, k 4d'.
yr
i
T
r .
ti 4
f
r fit, `
j y¢
t
t'
1
2
y'„ 3 5' FF l% y..q4. ). Y'3 + A ( r r ,; -}.
f v
fF '
Y P
i t fit 3f_e ••
k ...
F ,, J
r t
s, t 5 :yrs
Ott- 4`°, „_
x.
s„ F l
r r
gyp'
4.' - f - ra. r ti
1
5
a^
Image 8477 ea s s a•
o
411 4LI
y
r
4 t
a axisEE4ve.
F
c
fp/
A^
y
e
v k
Image ,,
3
1
six' _...
x
1 i.
ff. rs
7 i ' Mfr } y P` r .I }..
r
L
t d
e r
3
Image , y.r'r`
e
if
C Y
Si { j
2 v ..+'"'
l
a •
l 4` F. Al rR .a ..
r ./
r
ts
y
waf
1,'a
R
t,
t
4't
v
i4
Y`
u ,
ti
1
P'.
f S y i t.`•.
fff
i
a
k
i
i
Y
1
s
ffjj
w'.. t
e
3 {" t4 if
4 a`
bn
vs f71r
c1 x tE'"& .: • ?. fs r+ f,#t r.,e vw.
N
a y
IK
t
J
ry
3'a
r x•
k ."
t .-
y;,,,,
t C
w'e »°
M1 „F;'F. r.. p ... i 1n...
YpKy - 'rt .."'`" j;- .+u.;„ wn..a•
A,
s r 1
y _
N
i
tr,' t i 5 r sF z q `..r\a ,,,:'{ '' it J
1 't t- y
k{ as y , t '
j+;
s: ,sL,rrf, t• -
At
fig
z v,
w
s s
t a.
r "'"*'4.,
y'_`'J'. ysz ryF J!{r . . -. 'Ft :,:,, ,,,,•.,ar,rte-'•
Y 4• f Y ?``Frw.
51
9d"' r t*
i r x r r
f
y
Y
a. ., _.
r :... fib'° w' $'
e
d w
TPWAG Request for • •- • 11 of 20
t a
We are supplying copy of a topographical map showing the location of trees and wetlands upon which
we indicate location of photos taken on January 16, 2014.. (Topographic Survey, Renton School
District, February 2008)
t,
6,
Renton School District Survey Map r rs N ' - azs
z__
ej
c
ie \3 v
31
56
1 \
x—
H WIRD
GRPI
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 12 of 20
We are also providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots
are appearing to encroach onto the wetlands B and C, in particular lots 70, 79 and 80.
RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK
1
ow
mwmu
4
i
M a w'6
EXHIBIT 11
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 13 of 20
r
f?LAdE.J?Y LiNChf" :L rr tvn,a picarrn.waucmm:.:.mec
rSp,t...,a.. ..
FOR
r
f RESE.RYE AT TIFFANY PAS'
cry._,.,.,.,..........._'`..`.' ,
S v yA 1 r.AIMwDRMWA.aw« sem; fi
a4gy Yi"iRE sxa rn* s
r
9
w
M
t
y r.a fres i
esi
i
EXHIBIT 18
Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it
looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland.
These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (date is too small
to read).
In addition,on the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" the wetland is encroached even more
than on the previous maps. In other words, it appears that the wetlands keep shrinking to make room
for proposed lots.
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 14 of 20
The photos taken on January 16 clearly show that several wetland boundary and wetland buffer
markers are clearly inside of the wetland boundaries and/or buffers. This is of great concern to
TPWAG. The maps provided by the Applicant show that plats and streets already encroach onto
wetland boundaries acknowledged by the Applicant. If we,TPWAG, are correct in our assumption
that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that the wetlands are bigger than depicted by
the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore
the wetland code/regulations, etc.
We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or
oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development.
We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again
Relief Requested
Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses
to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property)
Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time
for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results.
Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by
Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter.
Trees
Problems
During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public
testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed
all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees.
Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or
carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use
that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees.
Relief Requested
Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code
compliance.
Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees.
If trees are damaged and must be removed, require Applicant to replace the damaged trees with
equivalent *mature* trees, and prohibit them from using any of the original canopy from the
removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow.
Storm Water
Problems
Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75%of the property's ability to process
storm water.
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 15 of 20
24" pipe (as proposed by A:, .icant) is barely good enough for a 101 .r storm. 100-year storms are
common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the
neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development.
Relief Requested
Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street.
Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water through it) on all streets, sidewalks and
driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site.
Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns)to minimize
the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site.
TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance
with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted
King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled:
Core Requirements#2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements#4 Conveyance Systems. The City of
Renton has some added amendments for special community situations.
Roof Runoff
Problems
Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides
used in the yard it becomes a pollutant.
Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to
flow control per Core Requirement#3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments
per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5.
KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be
structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands.
We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.)
Relief Requested
Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.
WN
LI
Wetland hydrology
Protection guidelines.F
Traffic
Problems
Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed
development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws.
However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE
from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles
per day- mostly on SE 18th Street- by Applicant's own estimates).
Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a Cul-De-
Sac is significant.
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 16 of 20
o "Usually the differ. .: in pricing is someplace between 6% 16% depending on what type of
traffic is traveling on your busy street and at what times."
http://www.realestateabc.com/homeguide/selling-busy-street.htm)
o "For instance, you may have a stellar home, but if it's on a busy street, its value will
undoubtedly be less than a comparable home on a road less traveled. Potential rezoning of
adjacent areas also can affect comps: If that lovely forest behind your home is due to become a
sea of condominiums, your home's value is likely to be less than a similar home that will retain
its forest view." (http://www.realtor.com/home-values/HomeValuesFag.aspx)
o "Nevertheless, the single obstacle to getting anyone interested in our home is the close
proximity to the access road. ... It needs to be priced alot less than the comps. ... around here it
seems a house siding a busy street sells for 10-15% less than the same house inside the
subdivision." (http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/Tips-Suggestions-to-Sell-House-Near-Busy-
Street/17954/)
o "How much do you think the street knocks off the price tag? ... I'd say 10-25%, depending on
the street." (http:Hforums.redfin.com/t5/Seattle/Selling-House-on-Busy-Street/td-p/53731)
Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but
two Cul-De-Sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)!
We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect them to respect the property
rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing their profit by unfairly
externalizing their costs to the neighboring property owners.
With this proposed development, we estimate that Applicant will effectively be taking$1,560,000 from
surrounding property owners without compensation. We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure
equal protection under the law.
o Based on City of Renton Plat maps.
o Based on Zillow.com for typical property values of$300k.
0 14 houses along SE 18th Street with severe 15% impact.
0 4 houses along 124th Place SE with severe 15% impact.
o Another 50 houses on surrounding roads with 5% impact.
o Thus, 18 property owners lose an estimated $45,000 each and 50 property owners lose an
estimated $15,000 each.
o Meanwhile Applicant's preliminary plat map shows that they intend to build 26 houses along
their Cul-De-Sacs, giving an estimated 26 * $45,000 =$1,170,000 in additional profit for
Applicant.
Relief Requested
Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development.
Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has
to buy existing houses to replace with roads).
Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th
Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the
proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from
Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street.
Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street.
Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good
sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than
is SE 16th Street.
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 17 of 20
1. Re-open the end of Beat . Way SE to Puget Drive SE.
2. Close the intersection at SE16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the
newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial
traffic to leave their neighborhood.
i
v§
190d Poyad kill,Dr$E
r .
Frte"
t`>' ldFa1 9`e Sf t
ltiVl
qG Pkq L
1b
re\
QS 5 SE 16th St SF SE. 3 n9LLad+reri:xt th.• , ttakeq
7th St
rF
M
E SF MSE}trt'
r
C,F
F9' 3;a S
aSE
o rtL sF i rr 9
CL
D roc sF f
SF
n
o SE 18thCt C:uk•,L-;Sura
yw SE 157th St F TMwyPark _- A 1'1
6
dyo
to SF 20th Ct 1111%
4- FF75j
u` `F•V
Pae
u p! SE IsosCaudceCafe;.:l'.c F:
SE 21st St
Ile i
taKade Y:<!.m 6 c SF7
hist
SE 160th St rF SE 160th St
SE 160th St
W N v,ca.=cus
SE lblst St
Schnc; S N {:ac&Park. sr
SE 162nd St
fF SE 162nd St
r
wN
SE 162nd St SE 163rd St W
SE 163rd St W a a a x t
t L
SE 164th St
N10
SE 164th St
SE 164th St SE 164th it
ar rc.
Figure 1 -Area Map
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 18 of 20
Environmental Impact 5tatemed
Problems
An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse
impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental
statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not
require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous.
The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal
hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions
at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in
which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention
vault, drainage and retaining walls weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental
impact statement.
Relief Requested
The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project.
Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our
issues.
Thank you.
qko1
RENATE BEEDON
President
cc:
Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov
Nancy Rogers maiIto:NRogers@Cairncross.com
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 19 of 20
h 1
O
f
9 Royal H;11s Or SE
9sPSE
open severe'zs
at S SE 16th 5ticpact marSE
Psi
S`,
be`
O A
P
Q`}
e ke Y°ung,close ii 7th St m m
df, 4yn yP Y SE
ii fF F SF fi S t'4G
fP W7 h
Am.
Fb%
9 e
a SFS V, A_
S.A .h nJ Aevere eP9
sF
t° `PSF f impact rF
SE 19r6Ct
proposed C k;.:u ,:••asFfsmsdvelopmenttSE157thStFTiffanyparkA
LLJ
Tf m
yw
N N SE 20th Ct
or j SF S> v
SEISt <Sfhr} —s:5IC3recu.c E severe o,
impact
SE 21st St
IlA`
r
c'
SF'
7hStCF:Rear.
crR SE 16LYh St speed v SE 160th Stbumps
SE 160th St
N vca:,us speed
z: a ->bumps
t -r p 2 SE 161st St
1 Carcadr Pxk sis i••
s
SE 162nd St rF P SE 162nd St <
S
CON
SE 162nd Si SE 163rd St ^W
N y
NWtxN
H y
SE 163rd St
speed 19
SE 1(rith St E bumps SE 164th St SE
SE 1641h St SE 164th St
Figure 2 -Area Map
TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 20 of 20
Technical Memorandum
To: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
City of Renton-Current Planning
10230 hE Points Drive From: Darcey Miller,Senior Wetland Scientist
Suite 400 425) 739-7977
Kirkland, WA 98033
Phone(425)8224446 Copies:
Fax(425)827-9577
Date: April 3, 2014
Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park
Wetland Delineation Review
Project No.: 32385.A
This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of
Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant,Novastar Development,Inc., to the City of
Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park,
to the north of SE 158th Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by
the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide
comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3-
050, Critical Areas Regulations.
The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of
the City code:
Vetland Determination:Reserve at Tiany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28,
2014;
Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat,prepared by Barghausen Consulting
Engineers, Inc., signed February 27,2014.
Technical Information Report,prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc., dated
November 12,2013,and revised February 24,2014.
The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the
site,which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers,respectively. The report indicates that
wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the
requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC.
K:\project\32300\32385:1\Reports\Critical Areas Review\femo_2014_0403.doc
i
Rocale Timmons,Seniot Planner, City ofRenton Page 2
Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Apri13,2014
Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17, 2014,to confirm whether the wetland
delineation was consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March
31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013,whereas the rainfall
amount as of March 17, 2014,was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March
National Weather Service); and on March 31,2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March.
Comment 1 — Delineation Method
The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation
manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Washington State
Wetlands Identification and Delineation Alanzral(Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.M.4.a.
Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the
methodology required by the RMC.
Comment 2—Survey Map
We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags,which is necessary for confirming
the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field;
however,ifwe have a detailed map and some of the flags remain,all of those missing flags may not
need to be replaced.
Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map shoeing all of the surveyed wetland flags
from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition,missing wetland flags should be replaced
as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges.
Comment 3—Wetland A
We agree with portions ofWetland A's delineated edges. However,we could not find some of the
flags (including Wetland A-1) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas
extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1,A-3,A-5,and A-6. In these
areas,we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology
mainly inundation). On March 17,2014,in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated
flagged) wetland,inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We
agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland,which is
required to have a 50-foot buffer.
Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the
early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the
revised Wedand Determination Report and project plans.
K:\project\32300\32385:\\Reports\Critical Areas Review 1\femo_2014_0401doc
r t
Rocale Timmons,SeniorPlanner, City ofRenton Page 3
Reserve at Tiffany Park Vetland Revieav April 3,2014
Comment 4—Wetlands B and C
During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated
edges of Wetlands B and C. In addition,Wetlands B and C are not separated by upland area; they
appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014,inundation ranged from several inches
to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation
mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these
areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland,
which is required to have a 50-foot buffer;however, because Wetlands B and C are connected (one
wetland),the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2.
Recommendation: Wetlands B and C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged
during the early growing season (before mid-May). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wetland
B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report
and project plans.
Comment 5—Wetland D
We agree with the majority of the wedand flag locations on Wetland D,although the wetland
appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wetland
D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland.
Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the
early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the
revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans.
Comment 6—Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW)
An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side
of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is
southwest of(in line with) 18`h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long
and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup,reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and
hydric soils.`Wetland hydrology observed on March 17,2014,ranged from saturation at the surface
to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the RMC for a
Category 3 wetland,which is required to have a 25-foot buffer.
Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be
delineated, classified,and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If
permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on
the plans,along with the buffer.
K:\project\32300\32385,k\Reports\Critical.Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc
i
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 4
Reserve at Tifany Park Wetland Review April 3, 2014
Comment 7—Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW)
Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-
way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands;if so,
they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site.
Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not
extend onto the property.
Comment 8—Wetland in Southwest Corner of Site
A wetland was observed in the southwest corner of the site,to the north of SE 18`h Street and
southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberrv, Himalayan
blackberry,and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation
were observed,and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of
SE 18`h Street.
Recommendation: The wetland(if it is determined to be one) should be delineated,classified,and
added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans.
Comment 9—Flowpath from Wetland B
During our March 17,2014 site visit,water was observed flowing generally west out of Wedand B to
the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3,4, and 5),then offsite into the Cedar
River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17`h was
approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches.Vegetation on the edges of the
stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum.A defined stream channel with bed
and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the
flowpath;however,these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow
strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31,2014 site visit,no water was observed
along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17`h. Standing water was present at Wetland B
beyond the flagged wetland edge),but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland.
No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site.The closest stream is Ginger Creek,
approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River,per
RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes).
Given the above information,it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/after
high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream.
Recommendation: No action is necessary.
K:\project\32300\32385A\Reports\Critical Areas Reeiew tiiemo_2014_0403.doc
Rocale Timmons, SeniotPlanner, City ofRenton Page 5
Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Aprd13,2014
Comment 10—Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW)
The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW,to the southwest
of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as
FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils;therefore, the area appears to be a wetland
see Photograph 6).
Recommendation:The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and
added to the revised Wedand Determination Report and plans.
Comment 11—Buffer Averaging
The buffer averaging proposal in the\Vetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets
all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-050.M.6.f. However,revisions to wetland edges will likely
change this proposal.
Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with
the any necessary revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite.
Comment 12—Temporary Buffer Impacts
Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (Preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers
that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed
in the Wetland Determination Report,nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report.
Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary
impacts to wetland buffers,including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace
those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of
60% design.
Encl. Photographs
K:\project\32300\32385. \Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0-V)1doc
Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 6
Reserve at Tiany Park Wetland Reviev April 3,2014
PHOTOGRAPHS
r
5
Photograph 1: Wetland A,near southern delineated edge (3/17/14)
f.
Photograph 2. Offsite wetland on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17/14)
K:\project\32300\32385A\Reports\Critical Areas Review D1emo_2014_0403.doc
FITms
gam'
441
7 fid'' w
k r
i.<
t
i
it x., A a :w , - ..
t Fes', •y'<a,- -.. ;. r t f µ ;,;n S',M.:
a
t 1 t t 1 i
i
IPAAr
pYYS-
T
r
tt`'
4..c-S$4x' -.,
t r
yry•- 4 a,k
r d r.
y
3 T
L
f .{r#.'. .7,•<.' •C ,yn..ytt * 4 4`." iPd y1 i`,
t ,
t -h(avrc h34olO° 'Prete-,c ii&"gvicLU n s,`l ,p4t
a
SECTION 6.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WQ FACILITIES
runoff is unaffected by whether or not the runoff is detained. Therefore.facilities such as wetponds,
which are sized by a simple volume-based approach that does not route flows through a detention facility.
are the same size whether they precede or follow detention.
Note that facilities which are sized based on volume and vv-hich include routing of tlows through a
detention facility,such as the detailed sand filter method.arc significantly smaller when located
downstream of detention.even though the same volume of water is treated in either situation. This is
because the detention facility routing sequence stores peaks within the pond and releases them at a slow
rate,reducing the size of the sand filter pond subsequently needed(the volume needed to store the peaks
need not be provided again in the sand filter pond).
Flow Volume to be Treated
When water quality treatment is required pursuant to the core and special requirements of this manual, it is
intended that a minimum of'95%of the annual average runoff volume in the(8 year)time series.as
determined v`ith the KCRTS model,be treated. Designs using the WQ design flow(as discussed above)
will treat this minimum volutne.
Treatable Flows
As stated in Chapter I.only runoff Brom target pollution-generating surfaces must be treated using the
water qualit) tacility options indicated in the applicable water quality menu. These surfaces include both
pollution-generating-impervious surface and pollution-generating pervious surface. "Target"means
that portion from which runoff must he treated using a water qualit) facility as specified in Chapter I.
Pollution-generating impervious surfaces arc those impervious surfaces which are subject to vehicular
use or storage of erodible or leachable materials.wastes,or chemicals:and which receive direct rainfall or
the run-on or blow-in otrainfall. Por subdivisions.target pollution-generating impervious surfaces
typically include right-of-way improvements(roads),parking areas and driveways that are notfulls,
disperser)as specified in Section 1.2.3.2. Metal roofs are also considered to be pollution-generating-
impervious
ollution-generatingimpervioussurfaceunlesstheyaretreatedtopreventleaching. Pollution-generating-pervious surfaces
arc those non-impervious surfaces subject to use of pesticides and fertilizers, loss of soil.or the use or
storage of erodible or leachable materials,wastes,or chemicals. For subdivisions.target pollution-
generating pervious surfaces typically include lawns and landscaped areas that are notfirllv dispenser)
and from which there will not be a concentrated surface discharge in a natural channel or man-made
cote eyance system from the site.
The tbllowin_points summarize v,ihich site tlows must be treated and under what circumstances:
All runoff Brom target pollution-generating inipervious surfaces is to be treated through the water
quality facility or facilities required in Chapter I and specified in the Chapter 6 menus.
Runotf ti-om lawns and landscaped areas generalI}oyerflo"s toward street drainage systems where it
is comeyed to treatment facilities along with the road runoff. However.sometimes runoff fi-om
backyards drains into open space or buffer areas. In these cases,buffers may be used to provide the
requisite water qualit} treatment provided(I)runoff sheet flows into the buffer or a dispersal trench is
provided to disperse flows broadly into the buffer,and(2)the flow path through the pollution-
generating area is limited to about 200 feet.
Drainage from impervious SUrfaces that are not pollution-generating(such as most roots)or are not
target pollution-generating surfaces may bypass the treatment facility.11 Roof rtmoff is, however.
still subject to t1mx control per Core Requirement 43. Note that metal roofs are considered pollution-
generating unless they are treated to present leaching.
Available data on the quality of roof runoff was examined. Although there are instances of polluted roof runoff,they tend to be
related to galvanized roofing materials or industrial processes. There is also data that suggests the pollutant concentration of
atmospheric fallout decreases with vertical elevation. See"Water Quality Thresholds Decision Paper,"April 1994..King County
Surface Water Management Division(now Water and Land Resources Division).
1/912009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual
6-18
d
SECTION 12 CORE REQUIREMENTS
TABLE 1.2.3.A
SUMMARY'OF FLOW CONTROL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE FOR IMPACT MITIGATION"
IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREA-SPECIFIC FLOW CONTROL FACILITY REQUIREMENT
DOWNSTREAM Basic Flow Control(FC)Areas Conservation FC Areas Flood Problem FC Areas
No Problem Identified Apply the Level 1 flow control Apply the historic site Apply the existing or historic
Apply the minimum area- standard,which matches existing conditions Level 2 flow control site conditions Level 2 flow
specific flow control site conditions 2-and 10-year standard,which matches control standard(whichever is
performance criteria.peaks historic durations for 50%of 2- appropriate based on
yr through 50-year peaks AND downstream flow control area)
matches historic 2-and 10- AND match existing site
year peaks conditions 100-year peaks
Type 1 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control No additional flow control or No additional flow control or
Conveyance System Hold 10-year peak to overflow T, othermitigation is needed other mitigation is needed
Nuisance Problem peak(2)(3)
Type 2 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control No additional flow control is No additional flow control is
Severe Erosion Apply the existing site conditions needed,but other mitigation needed,but other mitigation
Problem Level 2 flow control standard(')(') may be required4) may be required)
Type 3 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control
Severe Flooding Apply the existing site conditions Apply the historic site If flooding is from a closed
Problem Level 3 flow control standard to conditions Level 3 flow control depression,make design
peak flows above the overflow T standard. If flooding is from a adjustments as needed to
peak. If flooding is from a closed closed depression,make meet the"special provision for
depression,make design design adjustments as needed closed depressions" 3 s
adjustments as needed to meet the to meet the"special provision
special provision for closed for closed depressions"(3)r5)
depressions"tags)
Potential Impact to Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control
Wetland Hydrology as DDES may require design DDES may require design DDES may require design
Determined through a adjustments per the wetland adjustments per the wetland adjustments per the wetland
Critical Area Review per hydrology protection guidelines in hydrology protection guidelines hydrology protection guide-
KCC 21A.24.100 Reference Section 5 in Reference Section 5 lines in Reference Section 5
Notes
More than one set of problem-specific performance criteria may apply if two or more downstream drainage problems are
identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement#2. If this happens,the performance goals of each applicable
problem-specific criteria must be met. This can require extensive,time-consuming analysis to implement multiple sets of
outflow performance criteria if additional onsite flow control is the only viable option for mitigating impacts to these problems.
In these cases,it may be easier and more prudent to implement the historic site conditions Level 3 flow control standard in
place of the otherwise required area-specific standard. Use of the historic Level 3 flow control standard satisfies the specified
performance criteria for all the area-specific and problem-specific requirements except if adjustments are required per the
special provision for closed depressions described below in Note 5.
z Overflow T,is the return period of conveyance system overflow. To determine T requires a minimum Level 2 downstream
analysis as detailed in Section 2.3.1.1. To avoid this analysis.a T,of 2 years may be assumed.
3 Offsite improvements may be implemented in lieu of or in combination with additional flow control as allowed in Section 1.2.2.2
p. 1-28)and detailed in Section 3.3.5.
4) A tightline system may be required regardless of the flow control standard being applied if needed to meet the discharge
requirements of Core Requirement#1 (p. 1-21)or the outfall requirements of Core Requirement#4(p. 1-54),or if deemed
necessary by DDES where the risk of severe damage is high.
st Special Provision for Closed Depressions with a Severe Flooding Problem:
IF the proposed project discharges by overland flow or conveyance system to a closed depression experiencing a severe
flooding problem AND the amount of new impervious surface area proposed by the project is greater than or equal to 10%
of the 100-year water surface area of the closed depression,THEN use the"point of compliance analysis technique"
described in Section 3.3.6 to verify that water surface levels are not increasing for the return frequencies at which flooding
occurs,up to and including the 100-year frequency. If necessary,iteratively adjust onsite flow control performance to prevent
increases. Note.The point of compliance analysis relies on certain field measurements taken directly at the closed
depression(e.g.,soils tests,topography etc.). Ifpermission to enterprivate property for such measurements is denied,
DDES may waive this provision and apply the existing site conditions Level 3 flow control standard with a mandatory 20%
safety factor on the storage volume.
1/9!2009 2009 Surface Water Desien Manual
1-36
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
REFERENCE 5
WETLAND HYDROLOGY PROTECTION
GUIDELINES
DOE GUIDE SHEET 1B: STORMWATER
WETLAND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
DOE GUIDE SHEET 2B: GUIDELINES FOR
PROTECTION FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS
OF MODIFIED RUNOFF QUANTITY
DISCHARGED TO WETLANDS
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009
E
Guide Sheet 1B: Stormwater Wetland Assessment Criteria
Excerpted from 2005 DOE Stormwater Manual for Western Washington
This guide sheet gives criteria that disqualify a natural wetland from being structurally or
hydrologically engineered for control of stormwater quantity, quality, or both. These
criteria should be applied only after performing the alternatives analysis outlined in
Guide Sheet IA.
1. A wetland should not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity
or quality control and should be given maximum protection from overall urban
impacts (see Guide Sheet 2, Wetland Protection Guidelines) under any of the
following circumstances:
In its present state it is primarily an estuarine or forested wetland or a
priority peat system.
It is a rare or irreplaceable wetland type, as identified by the Washington
Natural Heritage Program, the Puget Sound Water Quality Preservation
Program, or local government.
It provides rare, threatened, or endangered species habitat that could be
impaired by the proposed action. Determining whether or not the
conserved species will be affected by the proposed project requires a
careful analysis of its requirements in relation to the anticipated habitat
changes.
It provides a high level of many functions.
In general, the wetlands in these groups are classified in Categories I and 11 in the
Washington State Wetland Rating System of Western Washington."That publication is
available on-line at httpaiwww.ecv.«a.gov/biblio/sea.htmles.
2. A wetland can be considered for structural or hydrological modification for runoff
quantity or quality control if most of the following circumstances exist:
It is classified in Category IV in the"Washington State Wetland Rating
System of Western Washington". In general, Category IV wetlands have
monotypic vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat
features, and are isolated from other aquatic systems. Any functions lost
through hydrologic or structural modification in a Category IV wetland
would have to be compensated/replaced.
The wetland has been previously disturbed by human activity, as
evidenced by agriculture, fill. ditching, and/or introduced or invasive
weedy plant species.
s
The wetland has been deprived of a significant amount of its water supply
by draining or previous urbanization (e. g.,by loss of groundwater
supply), and stormwater runoff is sufficient to augment the water supply.
A particular candidate is a wetland that has experienced an increased
summer dry period, especially if the drought has been extended by more
than two weeks.
Construction for structural or hydrologic modification in order to provide
runoff quantity or quality control will disturb relatively little of the
wetland.
The wetland can provide the required storage capacity for quantity or
quality control through an outlet orifice modification to increase storage of
water. rather than through raising the existing overflow. Orifice
modification is likely to require less construction activity and consequent
negative impacts.
Under existing conditions the wetland's experiences a relatively high
degree of water level fluctuation and a range of velocities(i.e., a wetland
associated with substantially flowing water, rather than one in the
headwaters or entirely isolated from flowing water).
The wetland does not exhibit any of the following features:
Significant priority peat system or forested zones that will
experience substantially altered hydroperiod as a result of the
proposed action;
Regionally unusual biological community types,
Animal habitat features of relatively high value in the region (e.g.,
a protected, undisturbed area connected through undisturbed
corridors to other valuable habitats, an important breeding site for
protected species);
The presence of protected commercial or sport fish:
Configuration and topography that will require significant
modification that may threaten fish stranding;
A relatively high degree of public interest as a result of, for
example, offering valued local open space or educational,
scientific, or recreational opportunities, unless the proposed action
would enhance these opportunities;
The wetland is threatened by potential impacts exclusive of stormwater
management, and could receive greater protection if acquired for a
stormwater management project rather than lett in existing ownership.
There is good evidence that the wetland actually can be restored or
enhanced to perform other functions in addition to runoff quantity or
quality control.
There is good evidence that the wetland lends itself to the effective
application of the Wetland Protection Guidelines in Guide Sheet 2.
The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff. Local regulations
often prohibit drainage diversion from one basin to another.
The wetland allows runoff discharge at the natural location.
Guide Sheet 213: Guidelines for Protection from Adverse
Impacts of Modified Runoff Quantity Discharged to Wetlands
Excerpted from 2001 DOE Stormwater Manual for Western Washington
1. Protection of wetland plant and animal communities depends on controlling the
wetland's hydroperiod, meaning the pattern of fluctuation of water depth and the
frequency and duration of exceeding certain levels, including the length and onset of
drying in the summer. A hydrologic assessment is useful to measure or estimate elements
of the hydroperiod under existing pre-development and anticipated postdevelopment
conditions. This assessment should be performed with the aid of a qualified hydrologist.
Post-development estimates of watershed hydrology and wetland hydroperiod must
include the cumulative effect of all anticipated watershed and wetland modifications.
Provisions in these guidelines pertain to the full anticipated build-out of the wetland's
watershed.
This analysis hypothesizes a fluctuating water stage over time before development that
could fluctuate more, both higher and lower after development; these greater fluctuations
are termed stage excursions. The guidelines set limits on the frequency and duration of
excursions, as well as on overall water level fluctuation, after development. To determine
existing hydroperiod use one of the following methods, listed in order of preference:
Estimation by a continuous simulation computer model—
The model should be calibrated with at least one year of data taken using a
continuously recording level gage under existing conditions and should be run for
the historical rainfall period. The resulting data can be used to express the
magnitudes of depth fluctuation, as well as the frequencies and durations of
surpassing given depths. [Note: Modeling that yields high quality information of
the type needed for wetland hydroperiod analysis is a complex subject. Providing
guidance on selecting and applying modeling options is beyond the scope ofthese
guidelines but is being developed by King County Surface Water Management
Division and other local jurisdictions. An alternative possibility to
modeling depths, frequencies, and durations within the wetland is to model
durations above given discharge levels entering the wetland over various time
periods (e. g., seasonal, monthly, weekly). This option requires further
development.]
Measurement during a series of time intervals (no longer than one month in
length)over a period of at least one year of the maximum water stage, using a
crest stage gage, and instantaneous water stage, using a staff gage--The resulting
data can be used to express water level fluctuation (WLF) during the interval as
follows:
Average base stage=(instantaneous stage at beginning of interval +
Instantaneous stage at end of interval)/2
WLF =Crest stage- Average base stage
4
Compute mean annual and mean monthly VLF as the arithmetic averages for each
year and month for which data are available.
To forecast future hydroperiod use one of the following methods, listed in order of
preference:
Estimation by the continuous simulation computer model calibrated during pre-
development analysis and run for the historical rainfall period—
The resulting data can be used to express the magnitudes of depth fluctuation, as
well as the frequencies and durations of surpassing given depths. [Note: Post-
development modeling results should generally be compared with
predevelopment modeling results, rather than directly with field measurements,
because different sets of assumptions underlie modeling and monitoring. Making
pre-and post-development comparisons on the basis of common assumptions
allows cancellation of errors inherent in the assumptions.]
Estimation according to general relationships developed from the Puget Sound
Wetlands and Stormwater Management Program Research Program, as follows
in part adapted from Chin 1996):
Mean annual WLF is very likely (100% of cases measured)to be <20
cm (8 inches or 0.7 ft) if total impervious area (TIA)cover in the
watershed is<6%(roughly corresponding to no more than 15% of the
watershed converted to urban land use).
Mean annual WLF is very likely (89%of cases measured)to be> 20 cm
if TIA in the watershed is> 211% (roughly corresponding to more than
30% of the watershed converted to urban land use).
Mean annual WLF is somewhat likely (50% of cases measured)to be>
30 cm (1.0 ft) if TIA in the watershed is> 21%(roughly corresponding to
more than 30% of the watershed converted to urban land use).
Mean annual WLF is likely (75%of cases measured)to be> 30 em, and
somewhat likely (50%of cases measured)to be 50 cm (20 inches or 1.6 ft)
or higher, if TIA in the watershed is>40%(roughly corresponding to
more than 70%of the watershed converted to urban land use).
The frequency of stage excursions greater than 15 cm (6 inches or 0.5 ft)
above or below pre-development levels is somewhat likely(54%of cases
measured)to be more than six per year ifthe mean annual WLF increases
to> 24 cm (9.5 inches or 0.8 ft).
The average duration of stage excursions greater than 15 cm above or
below pre-development levels is likely(69%of cases measured)to be
more than 72 hours if the mean annual WLF increases to>20 cm.
2. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands with relatively high vegetation
species richness and apply to all zones within all wetlands over the entire year. If these
limits are exceeded,then species richness is likely to decline. If the analysis described
above forecasts exceedences, one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5
should be employed to attempt to stay within the limits.
Mean annual WLF (and mean monthly WLF for every month of the year)does
not exceed 20 cm. Vegetation species richness decrease is likely with: (i)a mean
annual (and mean monthly) WLF increase of more than 5 cm (2 inches or 0.16 ft)
if predevelopment mean annual (and rnean monthly) WLF is greater than 15 cm,
or(2) a mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF increase to 20 cm or more if pre-
development mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF is 15 cm or less.
The frequency ofstage excursions of 15 cm above or below predevelopment stage
does not exceed an annual average of six.Note: A short-term lagging or
advancement of the continuous record of water levels is acceptable. The 15 cm
limit applies to the temporary increase in maximum water surface elevations
hydrograph peaks)after storm events and the maximum decrease in water
surface elevations (hydrograph valley bottoms)between events and during the dry
season.
The duration of stage excursions of 15 cm above or below predevelopment stage
does not exceed 72 hours per excursion.
The total dry period (when pools dry down to the soil surface everywhere in the
wetland)does not increase or decrease by more than two weeks in any year.
Alterations to watershed and wetland hydrology that may cause perennial
wetlands to become vernal are avoided.
I The following hydroperiod limit characterizes priority peat wetlands(bogs and fens
as more specifically defined by the Washington Department of Ecology)and applies to
all zones over the entire year. If this limit is exceeded, then characteristic bog or fen
wetland vegetation is likely to decline. if the analysis described above forecasts
exceedence, one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 should be
employed to attempt to stay within the limit.
The duration of stage excursions above the predevelopment stage does not exceed
24 hours in any year.
Note: To apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to
be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing
conditions at the wetland being analyzed and then used to forecast post-
development duration of excursions.
4. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands inhabited by breeding native
amphibians and apply to breeding zones during the period 1 February through 31 May. If
these limits are exceeded,then amphibian breeding success is likely to decline. If the
analysis described above forecasts exceedences, one or more of the management
strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limits.
The magnitude of stage excursions above or below the pre-development stage
does not exceed 8 cm, and the total duration of these excursions does not exceed
24 hours in any 30 day period.
Note: To apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to
be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing
conditions at the wetland being analyzed and then used to forecast post-
development magnitude and duration of excursions.
5. If it is expected that the hydroperiod limits stated above could be exceeded, consider
strategies such as:
Reduction of the level of development;
Increasing runoff infiltration [Note: Infiltration is prone to failure in many Puget
Sound Basin locations with glacial till soils and generally requires pretreatment
to avoid clogging. In other situations infiltrating urban runoff may contaminate
groundwater. Consult the stormwater management manual adopted by the
jurisdiction and carefully analyze infiltration according to its prescriptions.]:
Increasing runoff storage capacity, and
Selective runoff bypass.
6. After development, monitor hydroperiod with a continuously recording level gauge or
staff and crest stage gauges. If the applicable limits are exceeded, consider additional
applications of the strategies in step 5 that may still be available. It is also recommended
that goals be established to maintain key vegetation species, amphibians, or both, and that
these species be monitored to determine if the goals are being met.
CITYOF RENTON
Me 01
JAN 0 8 2015
RECEIVED
1 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11
RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park
12 Preliminary Plat
FINAL DECISION
13
14
Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
15
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE
16
17 I.SUMMARY
18
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into single-family
19 residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18`h Street and bordered
by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline20alongtheeasternpropertyboundary. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the
21 extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. Two appeals
of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State
22 Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The
23 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the
applicant submitted the second appeal. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The
24 TPWAG SEPA appeal is denied. The applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. The Critical Areas
25 Exemption is approved.
26 TPWAG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1
VOW 1%0r
1 subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property
2 is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal
years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPWAG argues that the loss of this long-time
3 recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in
4 this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or
worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any
5 SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development.
6 Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through
that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a
7 position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one
8 exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with
surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental
9 review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The
applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls10
of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not
11 similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MDNS
mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer12thesewallsfromneighboringuses.
13
TPWAG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies,
14 hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic
15 hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by
experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling
16 than the expert testimony provided by TPWAG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that
17 must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any
probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional
18 mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the
19 property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous
waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for
20 hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase
21 I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the
review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of
22 review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to
23 verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site.
24 The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's
MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to
25 revised language for Conditions 1 and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the
26 1 applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
fir we
1 of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining
2 proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view.
3 A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience
and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of
4 hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings
5 of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision.
6 CONTENTS
7 I. SUMMARY................................. 1
8 II. TESTIMONY....................................................................................................................... 3
III. EXHIBITS............................................................................................................................ 3
9 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT.......................................................................................................... 4
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW................................................................................................ 24
10 SEPA APPEAL........................................................................................................... 24
PRELIMINARYPLAT.............................................................................................. 3011VI. DECISION 39
12
13 II. TESTIMONY
14 Please see Attachment A for testimony summary.
15
III. EXHIBITS
16
Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the1hearingareasfollows:
18
Exhibit AS: City ofRenton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11,
19 2014)
Exhibit AT: TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 14, 2014)
20 Exhibit AU: TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 2014)
21
Exhibit AV: Henley Response to TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 2015)
Exhibit AW: Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15,
22 2014)
Exhibit AX: Hearing Examiner Ruling—Late Filing (December 15, 2014)
23 Exhibit AY: Henley Response—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 19,
2014)
24 Exhibit AZ: Henley Reply—City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response
25 December 19, 2014)
Exhibit BB: City of Renton—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December 22, 2014)
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3
vy r
1 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
2
3
1. Applicant. Henley USA, LLC.
4 2.Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was
held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City5Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by
6 December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal.
City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and7preliminaryplatcomments.
8
Substantive:
9
10 3.Project Description and Appeal.
11 A. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the
12 subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96
lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18`"
13 Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island
14
Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the
15 preliminary plat.
16 The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A
17 small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed
lots would range in size from 4,500sf to 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399s£ Under either the 96
18 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition
19 to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage,
access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer
20 along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary
21 access extended from 124th Place SE.
22 The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or
mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30% tree retention requirement. Adequate tree23
retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest
24 at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three
Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands B and E). The
25 applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through
26 portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4
1 The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis,
2 Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary
studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application.
3
B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the
4 proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the
5 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Caimcross & Hempelmann on behalf of
Henley USA, LLC.
6
7
1.Applicant SEPA Appeal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MDNS
conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful
8 obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat.
9 a.MDNS Condition 1. The applicant argued MDNS Condition 1 should be
10 revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary
version of the geotechnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested
11 the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final
12 geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant
then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. 1, which is found to adequately
13 address pertinent environmental impacts:
14
All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the
15 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences,
Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final16
City-approved geotechnical report.
17
b.MDNS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MDNS Condition No. 3
18 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree
19 upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts.
20 MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows,
21 The applicant shall be required to retain 30% ofthe significant trees on site with
22 exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees
located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas
23 and their associated buffers.
24 The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or
modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by25WashingtonForestryConsultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30%
26 retention requirement(Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 11).
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5
I City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that
2 are being mitigated by the MDNS condition. The City argued the MDNS Condition prevents
the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)(i) to replace trees and
3 instead requires retention of significant trees.
4 The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants,
5 Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's
SEPA 30% tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or
6 mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of
7 these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just
the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated
8 new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional
9 significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be
retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated
10 he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which
11 might be viably preserved.
12 Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant
13 agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval,
14
15 The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree
retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impact
16 trees proposedfor retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and
17 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit
approval.
18
C.MDNS Condition 6. MDNS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested
19 portion of the applicant's appeal. MDNS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA
20 responsible official required a 15-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the
development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5, this perimeter has been reduced to ten
21 feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring
22 view.
23 2.TPWAG SEPA Appeal. TPWAG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging
both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The24
impacts identified by TPWAG are addressed in FOF No. 5.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6
1 4.Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential
2 development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is
bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides
3 is single family residential (R-8), though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east.
4 5.Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse
5 environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined
in Finding of Fact No. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed.
6 The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the
7 project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other
impacts not related to either appeal but related to the preliminary plat are discussed below.
8
A. Applicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the9
Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is
10 determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable
significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to11
nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter
12 areas in front of the retaining walls.
13 1. Proposed Development Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding
14 Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately),
the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts
15 because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A
16 site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding
neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of
17 trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than
18 surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest
increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this
19 difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The
20 developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed
residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density
21 requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties
22 are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456
square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed
23 lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding
24 developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is
lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of
25 the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical
26 areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7
I lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they
2 do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in
the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the
3 separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood.
4 2.Loss of Trees Not a Probable Significant Environmental Impact. It is
5 determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City
code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
6 In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary
7 to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed,
thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring8properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this
9 impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not
qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all
10 development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in
11 COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by
the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or
12 significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The
13 existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is
arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the
14 subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining
15 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a
significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially
16 with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining
17 walls.
18 The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also
tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the19applicantcanbemadetomitigateagainstthelossofavoluntaryaesthetic
20 benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had
no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding21
property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic
22 benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by
development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not23animpactcreatedbythedevelopment, since those trees could have been
24 removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the
code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain25perimeterlandscapingorthattheyprovideasimilaraestheticbenefittothe
26 surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 8
N"dr
1 trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable
2 why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision
expressly requiring such a perimeter.
3
3.Retaining Walls Create A Probable Significant Adverse Environmental
4 Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in
5 excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the
6 proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are
7 retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a
finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be
8 lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding
9 grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls
are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock
10 and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high.
11 During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for
reduced retaining wall heights.
12
A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28,13
2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these
14 easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the
development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high15
retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The
16 applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height.
These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences,17
especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the
18 view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they
change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly19twostoriestallinplaces. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by
20 the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94)1.
21 When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the
22 significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air
or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for
23
24 1 In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot
alternative (Exhibit 2). The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the25TreeRetentionPlanrecommendedtheeliminationofLot1ofthe97lotalternativetomaintain30%tree retention.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9
rrNr' ri
I retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This
2 serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower
than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also
3 tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is
4
required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on
retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or
5 more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to
6 create probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
7 4.Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully Mitigates Retaining Wall Impacts.
The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a8tenfootperimeterlandscapingstrip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot
9 buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot
wide buffer with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense
10 screen in 10 years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant
11 a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's
arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site-
12 obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any
13 material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that
staff s 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own
14 arborist2
and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good
15 explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is
determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist
16 will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such
17
18 1 Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character of the project
site. See Exhibit A1,page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A.1,the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for
19 the loss oftrees on its property. Further, staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b).
This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing. This standard does
20 serve as a good analogous standard for retaining wall impacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot
high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of
21 aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous
landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does
22 show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation.
Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as
23 subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and
only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far
enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection24beyondatenfootbuffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation,the imposition of a ten foot
buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as25concludedbytheCity's arborist.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10
rr 01
I will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse
2 environmental impacts.
3 Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are
four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the
4 view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of
5 approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for
site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining
6 walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close
7 to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94.
8 B.TPWAG SEPA Issues.
9 1.Aesthetic Impact Due to Loss of Trees. The appellants argue there is a
10 significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the
exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development
11 does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic
12 incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in
Finding of Fact 5.A.1, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally
13 wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the
14 applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in
Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30% of the trees. The applicant has had
15 no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding
16 property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic
benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an _
17 impact created by the development, since those trees could have been
18 removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether
the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to
19 neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be
20 required by this decision to obscure retaining walls.
21 2.Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous
materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property
22 had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there
23 might be hazardous materials on site based on this former user. For the past 65
years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly
24 healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of
25 any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify
overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11
1400
I the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further
2 environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access to
perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase 1
3 Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even
4
after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of
the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the
5 project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains
6 unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the
results of the Phase 1 ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no
7 hazardous materials on site.
8 3.Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to
9 wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had
sufficient information to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant
10 submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5),
11 a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical
Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent
12 secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion
13 of Law 3.13 below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie
showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably
14 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These
15 multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the
wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any
16 additional information that could have made any material difference in the
17 official's conclusions.
18 No significant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat
connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's19bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered
20 species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as
marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from21theCedarRivercorridorbytheMercerIslandPipelineeasement, a residential
22 street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power
Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy23humandisturbanceonthesiteincludingrecreationalwalkers, bikers,
24 unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including
forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of
25 Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands
26 and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12
I both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due
2 to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present.
3 4.Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to
assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are
4 anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the
5 applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was
reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit
6 K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a
7 geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional
paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical
8 improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary
9 geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW
provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental
10 impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11-335.
11
The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away,
12 though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are
unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground13
movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate
14 several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a
shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic15
Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has
16 provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's
request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work17fortheapplicantgoingforward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified
18 there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page
21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater,19 the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his
20 opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and
surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed21residentialarea. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger
22 of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family
residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the
23 surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable
24 significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards.
25 5. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information
26 to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13
N.01
1 structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are
2 landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to
bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or
3 slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide
4 activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested
access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the
5 appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test
6 pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above,
the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by
7 Earth Solutions,NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no
8
landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The
City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred
9 with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a
professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil10
engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20'
11 feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project
site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There are no sensitive or12
protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has
13 less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of 15 percent to
35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas.14
Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability
15 analysis for these areas.
16 The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were
17 insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient
numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater
18 on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault
19 area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis
during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not
20 typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process.
21 Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a
determination of impact on the site (See Decision Attachment A, Page 24).
22
Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are23determinativeontheslopestabilityissue. He clearly reviewed the
24 geotechnical reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or
additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also
25 compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do
26 not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14
Nwoo
1 that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to
2 assess the slope stability of the project site.
3 6.Groundwater, The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate
information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable
4 significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The
5 appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on
site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They6notetheyrequestedaccesstoperformtheirownstudiesbutweredenied.
7 Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation
tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic
8 conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer
9 review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a
revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The
10 wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and 15).
11 The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided
a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on
12 site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information
13 provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information
sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold
14 determination with respect to groundwater impacts.
15
There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The
16 appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it
undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the17Shultzwetlandsreport (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by
18 Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all
demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface19inallwetlandareas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of
20 wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour
throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water
21 intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation
22 drains and the stormwater vault.
23 The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched
24 groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred
with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25,
25 respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all
26 over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15
Vl
1 topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped
2 by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when
cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from
3 perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment
4
A, page 22). Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed
no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant
5 groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though
6 there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will
require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its
7 test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that
8 groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the
feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement.
9
Mr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The
10 entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to
11 the proposed development on similar topography and soils. There is no
indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities;
12 infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have
13 failed due to perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Coglas noted the
presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management
14 practices are followed.
15 Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Coglas and the substantial
16 weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is
determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse17groundwaterimpacts.
18
7.Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information
19 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The
20 City required a Level 1 downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow
Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to
21 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an
22 existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of
the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have
23 therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to
24 building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not
exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be
25 required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the
26
conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16
1 established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream
2 analysis for '/4 mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met
before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these
3 conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage
4 of review to evaluate down stream impacts.
5 8.Discharge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into
wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
6 The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off
7 are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed
drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse
8 impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is
9 in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King
County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from
10 roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution
11 generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any
citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of
12 any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading
13 of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant,
noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into
14 wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the
15 wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and
federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the
16 codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further
17 noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be
required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are
18 released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background
19 and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be
issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater
20 discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice
21 for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the
proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant
22 adverse environmental impacts.
23 9. Air Quality. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated.
24 During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks
and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the
25 subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with
26 respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17
ern' 00'
1 functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the
2 record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air
quality.
3
4
C. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminary Plat
5 1.Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any
significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three
6 of the wetlands are Category 2; the others are Category III. The applicant
7 submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc.
October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to
8 revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage
9 detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the
site perimeter(February 28, 2014).
10
11 Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by
an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland
12 analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April
3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by13Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of
14 recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised
Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment155)
16
At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the1
protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern
18 regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms.
Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to19
perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. In her
20 study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site.
She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human21intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper
22 fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists
23
currently.
24 The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water
quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The25
applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(f)). The
26 buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18
1 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas
2 significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff
are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering
3 on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the
4 proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be
required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating
5 appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit
6
approval.
7 The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent
8 buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the
applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18`" Street
9 RMC 4-6-060). This area (219sf) has already been impacted by past
infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas10
exemption with mitigation for the impact.
11
The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres)
12 and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to
13 increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used
to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02
14 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated.
15
Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staffs review and approval of
16 wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland
regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse
17 impacts to wetlands.
18 2.Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention
19 because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C).
The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The20firstversionisa97lotalternativethatdoesnotachieve30% significant tree
21 retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves
30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection
22 Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree
23 retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation
measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and
24 is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to
25 pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19
14OW S%00-11
I No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the
2 administrative record.
3 6. _A_ acyof Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been4reviewedbytheCity's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific
5 infrastructure/services are addressed as follows:
6 A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service
7 boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20th Court, in
SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone.
8 Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton
9 sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18th Street.
10 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient
11 resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision
of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family12lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City
13 emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal
Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is
14 paid at time of building permit issuance.
15
C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order
16 to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval
17 requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for 1/4 mile from the project site to determine if
the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The
18 applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated
19 February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is
consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton
20 Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will
21 be required during engineering review.
22 D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space
23 standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-115,
which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any
24 specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district.
25 However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open
space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20
AW
I The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace
2 to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements.
3 E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated
4 infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat;
SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve
5 project traffic include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky
6
Road, S. Puget Drive, and 108th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently
served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within
7 the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake
8
Youngs Drive SE and 123rd Avenue SE.
9 Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related
to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service,10
sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection,
11 the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See
12
Exhibit 10).
13 The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup,
November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received,14
staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the
15 applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating
measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an16acceptablelevelofservice, except the intersection of Benson Drive S/S Puget Drive,
17 which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of
AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to18thisintersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify
19 additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of
service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of20buildingpermits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts
21 created by the proposal.
22 The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe
23 Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing
obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied
24 by an MDNS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21
Wo
N40011
I Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for
2 sight distance analysis at the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection. The report
identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA
3 does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation
4 measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of
the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection sight distance and recommend
5 appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study
6 intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16th
Street.
7
8
The vertical curve of SE 16th Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve
obstructs sight distance where SE 16th Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car
9 speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery
When Wet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE 16th Street northeast of Beacon Way SE10
which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the
11 project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a
SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for12
a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest
13 directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th Street (east of
Beacon Way SE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this
14 intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional
15 information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 116th
Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFFANY PARK"
16 with a left arrow and "CASCADE"with a right arrow.
17
Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure18
along SE 16th Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and
19 spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The
City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not
20 desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up
21 time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire
engines and aid cars.
22
23 Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivity, connections to
neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary,24 and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (.See Exhibit 10.22). No
25 frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public
26 streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City's
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22
vole o,W
1 complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5
2 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide
sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are
3 required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring
4 developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E.
5 City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds
6 Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and
determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional
7 development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at
8
this location.
9 As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per
10 acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access.
11 Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The
developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours,12
construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the
13 Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to
construction.
14
15 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking
16 for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code.
17 G. Schools. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional
students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Tiffany Park Elementary180.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site)
19 and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides
that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions20forsafewalkingconditionsforstudentswhowalktoandfromschooland/or bus stops.
21 Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the
subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported
22 to school via bus.
23
As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways
24 which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for
25 safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23
AW
wd01
I Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park
2 Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue
SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way
3 intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake
4 Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of
students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18th Street intersection,
5 which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical
6 safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure
was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE
7 181h Street and Lake Youngs Way.
8
No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton
9 School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students
10 who will be attending Nelson Middle School.
1 I A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to
mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to12
the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit
13 application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and
14 would increase to $5,541.00 on January 1, 2015.
15 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
16
17 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall
18 hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and
RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA
19 appeals.
20 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The majority of the subject property is zoned
21 Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned
Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for22residentialdevelopment. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single
23 Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density(RLD).
24
SEPA APPEAL
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24
NOW'
1 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (1) there are
2 unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official
has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be
3 separately addressed below.
4 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts
5
The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS
6 is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-
7
11-330(l)(b). WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable"as follows:
8 Probable`means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in `a reasonable probability ofmore
than a moderate effect on the quality ofthe environment' (see MVAC 197-11-794). Probable is9usedtodistinguishlikelyimpactsfromthosethatmerelyhaveapossibilityofoccurring, but
10 are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test.
11 If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there
12 are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental
impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold
13 determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to
substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed14
under the clearly erroneous standards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the
15 SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision
maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-110-16 (E)(12)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff
17 shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-110(E)(12)(a).
18 1 B. Adequate Environmental Review
19
The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately
20 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 reasonably21sufficienttoevaluatetheimpactsofaproposal. WAC 197-11-335.
22
C. No Grounds for an EIS.
23
TPWAG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the24issuanceofanenvironmentalimpactstatement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in
25 Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPWAG
26 qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPWAG has not identified an
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25
I I impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably
2 assess impacts.
3 D. Perimeter Landscaping.
4 MDNS Condition No. 6 is modified to only require 10 foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining
5 walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90,
93 and 94.
6
The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards7donotrequirebufferingandthatthosestandardsshouldbedeterminativeinassessingtheneedfor
8 landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.70B.030(3) and RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a)
does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for
9 environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development
10 regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the
development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW1143.21 C.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate
12 impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body
13
of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact.
Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the14
proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to
15 adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of
impact. See RCW 43.21 C.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the16
landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of
17 the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent ofthese regulations that rigid and inflexible design
18 standards be imposed, but rather that minimum standards be set."
19 The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would
adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the
20 subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of
21 typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any
perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must
22 have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the
23 proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal will involve
up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it,
24 which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the
25 vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the
impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council
26 considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26
I mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining
2 walls.
3 The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the
densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an4adequatejustificationforbuffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a
5 difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative
guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that
6 reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse.
7 Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the
proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project,
8 differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council
9 would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter
requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi-
10 family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the
11 Proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
12 Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a
SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA13
mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the
14 City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of
the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of15otherSEPApoliciesthatpromoteaestheticcompatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii)Provide that one of
16 the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive
plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic17
quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping Provides aesthetic
18 appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the
community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new19developmenttoprovideanattractivestreetscapeinareassubjectedtoatransitionoflanduses. All of
20 these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such
landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against
21 the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the
22 lower surrounding residential densities.
23 The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable
24 because homes would lose yard space. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose
some lots. Given the judicial construction of"reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss
25 of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27
ftw 1"0111
I As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant
2 adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 5, the solid walls created
by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the
3 opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a
4 mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall
should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an
5 objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do
6 not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative
retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go
7 through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated
8 for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the
views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those
9 portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 15
10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS.
11 E. Retaining Wall Height.
12 The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff will not be adopted. Renton does
not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is13nothingintherecordthatestablishesthepotentialforanyadverseimpactsotherthanaesthetic, and
14 those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staff s recommended landscape perimeter.
15 The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (1) whether the City's fence and
16 hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply,
whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040
17 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050
18 is to regulate the material and height of "fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC.
However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(1)
19 provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be
20 measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence
strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence
21 acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that
22 project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to
wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the
23 language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls.
24 In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4-
25 4-040(C)(1) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a
26 height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 28
400, 4/
1 I clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which
2 would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in
light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used
3 instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the
4 place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to
retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040.
5 Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to
6 stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well.
7 Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code
provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see
8 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1.
9 As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully
mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report.
10 Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height.
11
F. Loss of Recreational Use.
12
The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding13communityfordecadesandthatitslossisaprobablesignificantadverseenvironmentalimpact. The
14 loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to
SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's
15 detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create
16 demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards.
17 As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights
claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority18
to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking,
19 this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently
pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants20actuallysucceedinpersuadingacourtthatthepublichasprescriptiverightstothepublicschool
21 property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial
22
relief to prevent development of the proposal.
23 No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of
that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to
24 the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further
25 environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (1)
the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public
26 repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29
fir.
1 borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its
2 property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason, the loss of recreational use should
not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review.
3
Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental4impactforpurposesofSEPA, its loss would not qualify as a probable significant adverse
5 environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements
are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share
6 contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as
7 development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these
requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of
8 building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no
9 open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's
park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or
10 trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's
11 detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to
the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system.
12
13 PRELIMINARY PLAT
14 6.Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable
15 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
16 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles ofacceptability:
17 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions ofthe City Zoning Code.
18
2. Access: Establish access to a public roadfor each segregated parcel.
19
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied20becauseofflood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may
21 be required as a condition ofapproval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
22 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
23 supplies and sanitary wastes.
24 RMC 4-4-080(I)(7):
25 a. Benefits of. Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and
26 thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 30
w„r V
I opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged whenfeasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517,
2 5-8-1995)
3 b. Where Permitted: Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize ajoint use driveway where
such joint use driveway reduces the total number ofdriveways entering the street network, subject to4theapprovaloftheDepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment. Joint use driveways
5 must be created upon the common property line of the properties served or through the granting ofa
permanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint6useaccesstothedrivewayshallbeassuredbyeasementorotherlegalformacceptabletotheCity.
7
7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report in the portions
8 related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by
9 reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by
this decision as well.
10
As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road11 (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are
12 proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot 11
and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues
13 to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number
14 of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the
same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways.
15 However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 11 is problematic because the
16 driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to
allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared
17 driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation
18 or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and
pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 11 is not an
19 unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the
20 driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a
limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul
21 de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The
22 approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots
78-81 in shared driveways.
23
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any24impactstocriticalareasandwillnotcausefloodingproblems. As determined in Finding of Fact No.
25 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 31
I I RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
2 ofthe Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards...
3 8.The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
4
in Finding I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
5
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
6 or street(according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
7 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18th Street and 124th
8 Place SE, both public roads.
9 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location ofall streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
10 City.
11 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the
administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads,
12 SE 18th Street and
124th Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards.
13 Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal.
14 RMC 4-7-120(C): Ifa subdivision is located in the area ofan officially designed[sic]trail,
15 provisions shall be madefor reservation ofthe right-qf--way or,for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
16
11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is
17 designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain
18 right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SE (see
Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the
19 designated trail across the extension of 124th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant
20 shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE
extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail.
21
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, shortplat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
22 with the following provisions:
23
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
24 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health ofthe future residents (such
25 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
26 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 32
WO' r/
1 a. Flooding/Inundation: If'any portion ofthe land within the boundary ofa preliminary plat
2 is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion ofthe subdivision must have the approval of
the.State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner
3 shall consider such subdivision.
4 b. Steep.Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the
5 creation ofa lot or lots that primarily have slopesforty percent (40%) or greater as
measuredper RMC 4-3-050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which
6 development may occur, shall not be approved.
7
8
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
9 Clearing Regulations.
10 4. Streams:
11
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies
12 ofwater, and wetland areas.
13
b. Method: I a stream asses through an o the subjectproperty, a lan shall be resentedfpgYfJpp
14 which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an
overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance ofthe natural channel and stream15bed.
16
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling ofwater shall be discouraged and allowed only when
17 going under streets.
18 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of
19 debris and pollutants.
20 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.13, the stormwater
21 design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.13, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping
22 or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as
23 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.A.
24 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
25 dedication ofland or providingfees in lieu ofdedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
26 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 33
Now
I requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
2 Resolution.
3 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
See also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 3.F above.
4
5 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
6 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
7 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
8
14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE918thStreetand124thPlaceSE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two
10 public streets which did not exist previously.
11 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12 15. As conditioned.
13 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
14 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
15 16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial.
16 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment ofall streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
17 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets ofless than one hundred twentyfivefeet (125) are not desirable, but may be18approvedbytheDepartmentuponashowingofneedbutonlyafterprovisionofallnecessarysafety
19 measures.
20 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
21 approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards.
22 RMC 4-7-150(E):
23 1. Grid:A grid streetpattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
24 predominant streetpattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
25 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
26 within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 34
lkse r`
1 ofroads andpathways. Implementation ofthis requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
2 Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3
3. Exceptions:
4
5 a. The gridpattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the number oflinkages
or the alignment between roads, where the followingfactors are present on site:
6
7
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
8 ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
9 4. Connections: Prior to adoption ofa complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions ofthe grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
10 within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
11
S. Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern exceptforproperties in the Residential
12 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 shall13
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use ofalleys) is notfeasible...
14
15
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 Of where due16
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
17 possible.
18 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by
19 creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are
currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6
20 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above.
21 The cul de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of
two pipeline easements. The criterion is met.
22
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,23 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
24 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
25
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 35
u+,
1 119. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage
2 improvements.
3 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions ofgreater depth than an average lot4shallbeimprovedwithtemporaryturnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
5 required in certain instances to facilitatefuture development.
6 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the
7
presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential
development.
8
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
9 to curved street lines.
10 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement
11 quoted above.
12 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
13 access easement street per the requirements ofthe street standards.
14 22. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street.
15 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
16 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
17 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
18 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
19 23. As previously determined and as conditioned, the proposed lots comply with the zoning
20 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density.
21 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.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
22 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
23 twentyfeet (20) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle ofcul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum ofthirtyfivefeet (35).
24
24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the25minimumfrontagewidthrequirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 27, each of these
26 lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 36
I discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan
2 which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths
and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements.
3
RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio greater than four-to-
4 one (4:1).
5
25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width
6 requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion.
7 RMC 4-7-170(F):All lot corners at intersections ofdedicatedpublic rights-of-way, except alleys,
8 shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15).
9 26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion.
10 RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permittedfor new plats to achieve the minimum density
I 1 within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the minimum density.
12 Minimum Lot Size and Pipestem Width and Length: The pipestem shall not exceed one hundredfifty
13
feet (150) in length and not be less than twentyfeet(20) in width. The portion ofthe lot narrower
than eightypercent(80%) ofthe minimum permitted width shall not be usedfor lot area calculations
14 orfor the measurement ofrequiredfront yard setbacks. Land area included in private access
15 easements shall not be included in lot area calculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another.
16 27• The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling
units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prohibited. The applicant has proposed several
17 pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these
18 lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an
alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of
19 all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now
20 proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5.
21 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be requiredfor the maintenance and operation ofutilities as
22
specified by the Department.
23 28. As conditioned.
24 RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all naturalfeatures such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such naturalfeatures should be preserved, thereby25
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 37
1 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There
2 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above.
3 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 no4costtotheCityanddesignedinaccordancewithCitystandards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
5 eightfeet (8) into each lot iifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
6
7
30. As conditioned.
8 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'9 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
10 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (.Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacityfor the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
11 detention capacityfor future development ofthe lots. Water qualityfeatures shall also be designed to
12 provide capacityfor the new street pavingfor the plat.
13 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City
drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6. The City's stormwater standards,14
which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during
15 civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
16 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offire hydrants shall be
17 designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
18
19
31. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review.
20 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
21 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
22 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
23 maintenance and operation ofutilities as specified by the Department.
24 32. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As
25 conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials
above the utilities.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 38
001 Moe
1 I RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
2 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduitfor 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
3 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
4 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
5 shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
6 final ground elevation and capped The 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.
7
33. As conditioned.
8
9
RMC 4-7-210:
10 A. MONUMENTS:
11 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 surveys12
shall be per the City ofRenton surveying standards.
13
B. ,SURVEY.'
14
15 All other lot corners shall be markedper the City surveying standards.
16 C. STREET SIGNS:
17 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
18 34. As conditioned.
19
20 VI. DECISION
21 The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area
exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following22conditions:
23
24
3 All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff
25 report. Those references are accurate. However, the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the
staff report,which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 39
W erre;
1 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination
2 of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below:
3 a. MDNS Condition 1 shall be revised as follows:
4
All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the
5 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences,
Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final6City-approved geotechnical report.
7
8
b. MDNS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following:
9 The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site
landscape strip for all lots and a 10 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping10adjacenttoareaswheretheretainingwallsarefourormorefeetinheight, specifically
11 in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94.
Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The
12 final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
13 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping
shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the14DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment.
15
2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot
16 width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the
17 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The
average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted
18 to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
19
3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting
20 curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plat and landscaping plans
21 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval.
22
4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are23
elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street
24 intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and
installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street25intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by
26 the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 40
ter'
1 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those
2 lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12-
14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to
3 take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed
4 access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot 11 may access the public street
directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
5 Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for
6 such lots,is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording.
7 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site,
including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. The applicant8
shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide
9 appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8-
120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior10toconstructionpermitapproval.
11
7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from12constructionactivitiesshallberestoredwithappropriategrading, soil amendments, and the
13 planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The
revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project14Managerpriortoconstructionpermitapproval.
15
8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional
16 wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland
17 E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E
buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18th Street. To provide an additional
18 offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14
19 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall
provide enhancement to the Wetland `E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18th Street, as well
20 as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan
21 shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval.
22
23 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those
parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and
24 signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval.
25
10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought
26 to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction.
PRELIMINARY PLAT -41
I 11. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree
2 retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not
impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and
3 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
4
12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required
5 construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE
extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the6
construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project
7 Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to
8
construction permit approval.
9 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through
the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan10Reviewerpriortoconstructionpermitapproval.
11
14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E12fromtheproposedright-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,
13 the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit
approval.
14
15 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a
shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall meet minimum lot width requirements
16 along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.1) (a minimum of 80% of the required lot
17 width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage
along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In
18 order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take
19 primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
20
21 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side
lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in
22 width. Specifically,proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet
23 in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
24
17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots25
lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street
26 right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically,
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 42
I proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to
2 meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative
plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting
3 minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access
4 easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them
pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
5 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
6
18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond
7 be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7-
080M.2.
8
9 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance
agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for10
all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted
11 to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and
12 Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat.
13 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the
City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of
14 building permits.
15 21. All road names shall be approved by the City.
16 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
17 Department.
18 23. 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') into each lot
19 if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development.
20 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
21 installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line.
22 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling
corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the23Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot
corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all24streetnamesignsnecessaryinthesubdivision.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 43
1 DATED this 8th day of January, 2015.
2
f
3 Phi A.
4 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
5
6
APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES
7
8 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
9 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
10 request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
11 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). Anew fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
12 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th
13 floor, (425) 430-6510.
14 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
15
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 44
r.r N"Ne
ATTACHMENT A
The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
LUA13-001572,ECF, PP, CAE)
TESTIMONY SUMMARY
SEPA Appeal#1 —Applicants
Applicant Testimony
Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA
MDNS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the
current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 and#6. They believe it's better for
the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's
arborist work with the City's arborist to assure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They
requested amendments to Condition 3. In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MDNS. It would
impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly
burdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary
because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. There are two rights of
ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River
Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is 100 feet wide. There is already substantial buffering
between existing uses and the project site.
They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K11).
Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis. They appealed Condition #1. Staff felt that Condition #1
would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised
geotechnical report. The applicant agrees.
With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter
buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law
that establish a nexus of rough proportionality. That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior
to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had
held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each
other. That is not the case here.
With respect to Condition #3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MDNS to the
staff's current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the
applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with
relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that
4. 1-
allows for replacement of trees through mitigation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)). The condition is
overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant
environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to
preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently
damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't
intending to clear cut. They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down
through inadvertent damage. If so, those will be properly mitigated.
With respect to Condition #6, the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MDNS condition it was a
minimum 15 foot buffer" which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is
no significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here.
There is no legal authority or justification by the City to require Henley to protect one use from
another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own
yards.
As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that
are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single
family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is
more on critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two
pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average
buffer goes up to 100 feet between homes from this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside
of rough proportionality.
Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Mr. Talkington
described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts for single family
projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary
plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into more detailed engineering
design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-11,
the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat. There
was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention
requirement. They eliminated Lot 1 from the original submittal.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging
including 50 feet in Tracts B and M and near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a
10 foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum
proposed buffer is 10 feet. By Tract G, the buffer is 100 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet
wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the property boundary,
though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in
Tract H, G and J. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width
is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six
r` rr"'
lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the
project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors.
With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic,
though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is
grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes
or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge
and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A
building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building
permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today.
Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this
was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is.
In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be
rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall
elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining
the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing
grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra
stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the
project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff
Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline.
The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and
the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This
wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to
prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a
fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the
walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6
feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders
the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be
willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height.
Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically
Conditions #3 and#6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staffs buffer requirements to screen the
adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons
agreed to relevance.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington
referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will
provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no
significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics.
ftw I./'
Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those
retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to
include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by
reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a
plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than
grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers
asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for
retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist.
Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he
provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two
locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that
would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most
efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading.
Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington
stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets
in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as
part of the buffer.
Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr.
Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at
how the buffer would impact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms.
Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he
wanted the project outcome to be pleasing.
Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as
much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared
one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a
question for the geotechnical engineer, however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid.
Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington
stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would
need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington
said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space.
Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington
stated he didn't know.
Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his
education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban
forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects
4 r.oe
of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he
has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that
doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree
protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to
the most recent layout.
Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means
he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot
trees and street trees, in 10 years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush
community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are
also well treed.
Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The
August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his
understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his
understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement without field judgment.
The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of
188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than
they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken.
Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the
grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge
trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand.
Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He
did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root
protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of
the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and
how for each edge tree.
Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included
in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is
anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped
tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust
clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After
that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright
asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees.
400 4010
Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He
stated he has no doubt this project will retain more than 30% of trees even accounting for field
adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50%
sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 10 foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he
understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with
Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the
50% screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a
15 foot buffer would add a few more trees, but not a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright
thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney
objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed. Mr. Wright stated
the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few
in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new
houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the
gaps.
Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there
were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding
property owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers.
There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They
will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the removal of so many trees would
impact the surrounding property owners. Mr. Wright said it's aesthetic. There is no other impact.
Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as
is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a
valuable contribution to the environment.
In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on
the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where
the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoods. They didn't
include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening
in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they
plant in a 10 foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in
10 years. A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of
buffer.
City Testimony
Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The
City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during
construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition#3 is solely designed to require a tree
retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not
detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the
significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition
defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation.
With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to
surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately
addresses these impacts.
Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his
education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr.
Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy
cover. He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a
subdivision. This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to
retain as much canopy as possible. lie believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a
minimum 30%.
In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural
vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation,
but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 feet.
To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are
some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more
planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers
are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and
adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy.
Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to
trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer
is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He
stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers
asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees
on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that
oversight. He said he didn't.
Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr.
Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had provided SEPA mitigation measures
to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the
Ave
condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He
stated it could.
With respect to MDNS Condition #6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet
wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers
asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar
with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was
not familiar with specific policies.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his earlier testimony
Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed
areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at
Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near
the project.
Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing.
He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any
knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo.
Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure #3 it sounds as if
the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is
failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is
intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation
measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City.
For mitigation measure#6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation.
Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts.
Applicant Testimony
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot
buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11-
14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All
other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing.
Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014.
As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions #1
and#3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma
and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and
approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is
required in this zone and none exist surrounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in
this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from surrounding single family uses.
14W 4r/
There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50
foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail
corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest
currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these
properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan
Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not
apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are
not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected.
There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact
will invalidate the proposal and violate state law.
Public Testimony
Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms.
Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter,
Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be
protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms.
Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the
trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut?
Ms. Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and
impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and
mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow
water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the
wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago.
They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area.
The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be?
Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The
laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had
contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be
there to monitor them.
The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start
of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands, private property
or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for
clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no
consequence.
Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a
notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself
Nftw
had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal
starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree
preservation policy was just for show.
Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or
mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative
and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed
examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek
and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment.
Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt surrounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those
are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the
trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life.
The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't
provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was
allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on
this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak
issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction
defects repaired.
SEPA Appeal#2—Project Opponent TPWAG
Appellant Testimony
Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods
Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically
used the woods.
Mr. David Beedon is a member of the TPWAG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built
34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to
the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPWAG is composed of
five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The
purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming
out of this development.
He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there
and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some
changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are
teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedar River
Pipeline. The fence has been there at least 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the
City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has
never been signed no trespassing.
There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine
separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These
are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15
minute walk.
Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the
school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting
down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the
school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and
twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a
member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the
property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping.
In 2010, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school
district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash
and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing
the fire pit.
Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated,
I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we
could to restore the beauty there."
Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone.
Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking,
bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses.
This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there.
Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal
maintenance of the paths.
Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The
topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades,
though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property
including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds,
deer, and owls. Mr. Beedon stated there are a rich variety of plants on the property. There are also at
least two geocaches on the property.
Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The
pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes
to improve the drainage and reduce flooding.
In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014
to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPWAG had asked the
tw 440,
school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the
request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer.
The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA impact, noting
the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact
under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to
adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and
the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and
others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The
Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the
public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by
December 5th.
Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist.
He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit
M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is
groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is
inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the
environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The
SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies
done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There
are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate.
Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His
presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA
checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the
greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local
region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the
northeast corner. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the
Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish
Waterway was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The
entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject
property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense
corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here
with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase 1 ESA. Mr.
Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested since the 1940s. The
oldest trees are about 65 years old.
Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water
channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and
northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in
MW
the area. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their
own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings.
There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies.
He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two
seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault
zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look
for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground
movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow
or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the
school district wouldn't allow it.
The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The
site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from
the City's Environmental Review Committee.
Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project
site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for
various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked
Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer
stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were
conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site
assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how
they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system.
Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released.
Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or
hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have
fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that
these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA
Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it
ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property.
Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part
of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental
Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented.
The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format.
Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz
and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater
saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy
season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero
inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured. This site needs additional
study to determine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read
definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report
shows so much water there that development without pumps may not be feasible. Groundwater is
also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the
homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands.
Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical report is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It
stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared.
There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the
surface in winter (8" from surface), but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was
paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has
geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow ground
creep or slumping.
The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table
and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This
may be why the developer has chosen a stormwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything
excavated below the surface will have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches will be full of water. If
you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or
it will float out of the ground. There need to be much more detailed studies.
The geotechnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present
at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer
stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep stormwater from flowing. Based on
our review, the deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES
report assumes the soil is permeable. The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping.
Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report. He believes it is inadequate
and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was done in too many disjointed steps. On page
8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further
study to determine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There
is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act.
They cannot discharge to a point source. There need to be better studies.
The Environmental Review Committee report states the project will result in minimal loss of
vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current proposal. According to the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here.
The removal of existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site.
The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more worried about
views than the more critical water issues.
11w
Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too preliminary. The issue
of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will
affect neighbors.
Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't
make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist.
Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr.
Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the
drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are
no studies for groundwater hydrology. There isn't enough information to form a drainage report.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring,
piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there.
We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage
report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be
additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater.
A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed
within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater.
Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B). Mr.
Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA
provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr.
Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirements for an EIS.
Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying
property. He stated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase 1
environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase 1 ESA
and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He
responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would
typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention
without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr.
Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken
throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there are high levels of
water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing
for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge.
I%W 4we
Mr. Neugebauer stated stormwater is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for
heavy metals. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top of page 2 states the site is
suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additional
studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed construction and
engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr.
Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is
now for a reason. It allows for adequate public comment. Later phases do not.
Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site
isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He stated there is forested land
around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads
surrounding the project. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrological issues
affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the northeast and
east are not developed.
Applicant Response
Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this
project. He also reviewed the public comments and will respond to them. He's responding
specifically to letters from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the
traffic counts were conducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out
for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As
such, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrollment of school at the time, which is
within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary
schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlough claimed
to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the
traffic volume was 30% higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes
fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low
enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or B at all of the
surrounding intersections. The intersection operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable
LOS that would require mitigation.
Mr. Jones responded to another comment about the impact of new residential traffic on school
pedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning. The
residence peak happens after school is out. The projected increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way
is 10-45 +/- trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute
during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time
period. The school traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic
won't mix with school traffic volumes.
1".r 1*40'
Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be
much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th
and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase
in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard.
There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone
area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed
collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four
year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between
Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a
seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along
that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year,
though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this
location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th
Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to
see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There
are sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure 1).
Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are
concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13
in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM
Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review
of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control
of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay
will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in
both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay
under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary.
Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control
personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing
guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire
traffic control personnel they don't already have.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr.
Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr.
McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a
minor arterial. Mr. Jones stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west
and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would
go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds Avenue. They revised the
study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study.
For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake
We 1*400,
Youngs Way. Some would go to SE 16th Street; others would go to Royal Hills. Other traffic would
go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th
Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's proposed roads. Mr. Jones stated the
development will have roads designed to the current standards.
Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her
company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40).
Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a
qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique.
Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands
review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of
species from the USFW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with
the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what
was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and
habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a
wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat
here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's not directly
connected to the Cedar River corridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 foot wide
water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 40% slope and then the
Bonneville Power Administration's easement to the Cedar River corridor. It's discontinuous,
isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use
practiced here.
Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal
listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and
Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of
woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480
acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor. It is possible the woodpeckers are
foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's
bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insects. The DFW would
require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not
result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these two listed species.
Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific
requirements for habitat protection.
Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the
wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the
mw
N"Ove
wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split
rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out.
Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the
letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the
City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed
species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of
wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with
anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring
on the site. With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is
a highly disturbed, isolated patch.
Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no
direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as
proposed will protect the downstream areas.
Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa
described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like.
Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He
is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream
studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had
visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation
and stream identification. He used the ACOE, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the
property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the
wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the
wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline
dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are
influenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during March and June to
view where the water was by season.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall
record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for
that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the
record.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr.
Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these
extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term `aquake
regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and
didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr.
Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer.
ale
Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter
will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He
is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz
stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't
provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report.
Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a
licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of
Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimony and had
visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K, page 33). Ms.
Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer.
Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they
related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Coglas stated his role was initially to review the
AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments.
With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard
practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some
outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his
firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt
Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately
characterized on site conditions.
The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's
nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district
and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for
development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation
was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended
use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking,
then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate
for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked
at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is
determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type
of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity.
Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to support construction and
engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the
project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical
report that may or may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't
know yet where they'll need more specific information.
ftme rte/+
With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He
stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the
water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES
report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site
is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical
penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland
studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the
whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are
recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the
impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that
precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds
geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table
that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the
case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across
Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in
elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep
environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till
layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction.
Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will
the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater
facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base,
storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where
he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the
beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the
trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the
groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't
concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case,
there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced.
Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for
the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes
suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil.
Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call
any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference.
Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and
its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's
criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40%
criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr.
Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site.
Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA
now NRCS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working
fields, it was good to know which soils had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of
erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However,
they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion
is managed through engineering solutions.
Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 miles north.
We live in a tectonically active environment. There might be a splay or other features under Tiffany
Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is
sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure or development would
require more studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a low seismic
hazard here, according to the City.
With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES
also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine
hazards.
Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical
issues.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He
was also hired to respond to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr.
Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The
groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these
environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater
seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering
or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated seams. In the Kent
Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The
water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't
document any observed groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak
groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season.
The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero
elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but
that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwater
system might need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that
the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas
stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the
22 acres dug on September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit
foi N"W'
A7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or
hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties.
He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site.
Mr. McMonagle referred to Page 1 of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be
reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained
in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation,
review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if
Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of
whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report
which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round
right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the
season.
With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know
exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater
or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will
probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will
be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas
showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit
was 105, though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the
only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit#11, to a depth of 8.5'.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the
geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward.
Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project
and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release
states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement
with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage
basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least
a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that
property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the
present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres).
It's just an historical remainder.
Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean stormwater into wetlands is a common practice. The
drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland.
With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding
communities, in conformance with current city code.
N"90'`
Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is
preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested
from sub-consultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage
design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is usually a
fine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked
whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr. Talkington
stated it wasn't contingent.
Staff Response
Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the
City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files
and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee
responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general.
Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the
Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been
sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and
other acts of nature. The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE).
There is a bit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the
capability of metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 80 year
event of 10,000cfs. In the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't
occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU.
Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in
his review of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to other sites in the city. The
steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on
the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or so. The City does not require additional slope
stability analysis.
With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient
numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to
see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require
extra analysis. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of
the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this
proposal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical
information is needed for the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the
information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site. The AES
didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require
secondary review. The City determined the AES report was adequate.
NW 1.
Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the
placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is
groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do
a buoyancy calculation to determine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the
vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault.
In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will
prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and
discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will discharge
into a wetland.
Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the
downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that
takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be
required for the project. The permit stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That
will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must
be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued.
Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with
all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater
impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement
in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along
the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance
during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and
test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings.
Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping
the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require
more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the
proposed vault is the best solution.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater
table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater
level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be
addressed during construction.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school
district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't
have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will
get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary
r.r
constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated
the initial design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle asked if
the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would
typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information
from the applicant.
Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee
stated it could.
Ms. Rocale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies
will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to
determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development. The appellant has asserted
there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project has
been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with
these studies, including the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices of Application
released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the revised SEPA
checklist.
With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak.
Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schultz. Otak affirmed
the final wetland determination (Exhibit A5). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the
applicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then affirmed all
of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPWAG appellant regarding tree
preservation for wildlife on site.
With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones of Transpo Group.
Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are
mitigated.
Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the
requirement of a 15 foot buffer.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no
specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned
about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it?
Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched
groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the
contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at
atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the
groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He
stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with
the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the
upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space
and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the
groundwater is and where it's going.
Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources
cannot be wetland hydrology.
Preliminary Plat
Staff Testimony
Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the
Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the
R8 zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There are 1,300
trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single
family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site.
The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has
received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPWAG and
conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) issued a MDNS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed.
The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses,
density, construction mitigation, and others.
The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There
will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category
II and two Category III). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of
buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th
Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption.
Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas,
wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. Ms. Timmons described the
Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide
harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the
Comprehensive Plan as conditioned.
MW
The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The
only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but will be conditioned to
meet the standard.
The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could
with minor modifications.
Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site.
These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be
open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height.
With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked
for modifications to wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised.
There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides habitat for non-listed species. The
tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory,
approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be
preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant
proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others.
In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of
approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail.
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There
were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate
1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A
SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an
additional condition of approval to address sight distance'concerns. Staff has also recommended
additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated.
With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem lots. Staff would like to see the applicant
revise these lots to comply with code or provide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are
preferred to reduce curb cuts.
Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all
fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks
will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA
mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street.
Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009
Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a
downstream analysis for stormwater conveyance.
Awe
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does
not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property.
Applicant Testimony
Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval
along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers
asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff
report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the
client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land
the district cannot use.
Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are
requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested
issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City
had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to
policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose
a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two
pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer.
With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs.
They feel the City will agree with this revision.
Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must
be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition
related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced
in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not
apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment
B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4
does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that
establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit
AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City.
You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the
proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has
recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated,
we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction
impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights.
Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding
an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a specific instance when this will not work.
Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site.
The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to
extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The
City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced
plantings.
Condition 17 is a typographical error.
Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue.
Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant is
providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the 1,331sf of
additional buffer the applicant is proposing.
Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions 1, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons
stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner,
Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to
request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would
be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they
were told they didn't need to.
Mr. Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the
finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill
on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with
reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall above Tract A
and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height
from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their
case, the finished grade is the top of the wall.
Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc.
The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA
standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the
plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to
maximize lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions,
they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to decrease
impacts.
For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared
driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used
Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City
would also require Lot 11 to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be
at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of
the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under
which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been
corrected.
For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They
have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17
to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract.
For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to
comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement.
For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access
the shared driveway.
With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared
driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four.
Public Testimony
Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these
people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a
valuable resource. The Cedar River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here
because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the
development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is
much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years
ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed
an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes
will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater
areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to
provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on
April 14, 2014.
Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is
important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no
concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking
away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future
generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated
woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development.
This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it
was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being torn down. If
the citizens hadn't become active, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be
heard and care about the environment.
Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews for Henley Homes
Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a comprehensive review.
Staff Rebuttal
Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This code
allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number of driveways accessing the street. staff
does not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see Lots 11 and 78
to access abutting shared driveways.
ATTACHMENT B
The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE)
EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURING HEARING
SEPA Appeal Exhibits
Exhibit A: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as
Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below)
Exhibit B: Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated
Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below)
Exhibit C: Environmental Checklist (June 10, 2014)
Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design
Elements)
Exhibit E: Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (November
24, 2014)
Exhibit F: Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25,
2014)
Exhibit G: Commitment for Title Insurance
Exhibit H: TPWAG Letter to Renton School District (September 10, 2014)
Exhibit I: Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014)
Exhibit J: Henley Appeal
Exhibit K: Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits
1.a.HEX Staff Recommendation Report
b.Pre-Application Notes
C.Wetland Determination (October 30, 2013)
d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014)
2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas
3. RSD Resolution No. 0312/13
4.SPU Letter (November 4, 2014)
5.Drainage Release
6.Site Maps and Aerial Photos
7. Airsoft Guns Documentation
8.Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts
9. COR COW Meeting (September 9, 2013)
10. Area Water Well Logs
11. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014)
12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa
13. Grete Associates Report, 2008
Exhibit L: TPWAG Appeal
Exhibit M: TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits
19. TIR Report (November 12, 2013)
W
21. TIA Report (November 2013)
23. Tree Protection Report (November 13, 2013)
24. SEPA Checklist (November 13, 2013)
39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site
40. Professional Qualifications—Steven Neugebauer
41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17, 2014)
47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (November 18,
2014)
48. TPWAG Correspondence with Renton School District
Exhibit N: Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18, 2014)
Exhibit O: Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit P: Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit Q: TPWAG Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit R: City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit S: Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit T: Pre-Hearing Order
Exhibit U: McMonagle Notice of Appearance
Exhibit V: Flatley Resume
Exhibit X: Lee Resume
Exhibit Y: Declaration of Timmons
Exhibit Z: Not Used
Exhibit AA: Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly)
Exhibit AB: Letter to Editor(Donnelly)
Exhibit AC: 5 Photographs (Donnelly)
Exhibit AD: TPWAG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28,
2014)
Exhibit AE: City of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014)
Exhibit AF: Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014)
Exhibit AG: Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue
December 7, 2014)
Exhibit AH: Title Report/Chain of Title (TPWAG)
Exhibit Al: Roenicke TPWAG Summary Testimony
Exhibit AJ: Garlough TPWAG Summary Testimony
Exhibit AK: Timeline
Preliminary Plat Exhibits
Exhibit 1: HEX Report
Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 4: Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014)
Exhibit 5: Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (June 3, 2014)
Exhibit 6: Habitat Assessment (January 16, 2014)
Exhibit 7: Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012)
Exhibit 8: Drainage Report (February 24, 2014)
Exhibit 9: Traffic Impact Analysis (April 23, 2014)
Iftw
Exhibit 10: Public Comment Letters: *10.1-10.70
Exhibit 11: Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014)
Exhibit 12: Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014)
Exhibit 13: Independent Secondary Review - Traffic
Exhibit 14: Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (April 3, 2014)
Exhibit 15: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (July 9, 2014)
Exhibit 16: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February 11, 2014)
Exhibit 17: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12, 2014)
Exhibit 18: Landscape Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 19: Transportation Concurrency Approval
Exhibit 20: Renton Trails and Bikeways Map
Exhibit 21: Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report
Exhibit 22: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22, 2014)
Exhibit 23: Public Meeting Notice
Exhibit 24: Notice of Application Affidavits
Exhibit AL: Staff PowerPoint Presentation
Exhibit AM: Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8, 2014)
Exhibit AO: Shared Driveway
Exhibit AP: Jones, Photographs
Exhibit AQ: Henley Homes Reviews from Internet
CITY ATTORNEY
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 15, 2015
TO: Renton City Council
FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Appeal of Reserve at Tiffany Park
Dear Council:
On the attached sheet, you will find citations to the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision Upon
Reconsideration and in one instance on the Examiner’s Ruling on Reconsideration Requests,
from which the appeal is taken, listed under the various issues in the appeal letter.
Unfortunately, the summary of testimony in the Examiner’s decision is not numbered. I went
through and numbered the pages, but for ease of reference I have listed the name of the party
testifying and a few words summarizing the testimony that is relevant to the appeal issues.
I have not tried to review comment letters to the Administration or to the Council because the
scope of the appeal is limited to the Hearing Examiner’s decision and the issues appealed
therefrom. To reverse any part of the Examiner’s decision the Council must find a substantial
error in fact or law and rewrite that part of the Examiner’s findings, conclusions or decision
which the Council finds to be in substantial error.
Lawrence J. Warren
LJW: scr
Page 1 of 3
Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, City File No. LUA 13‐001572
Issues on Appeal from Appellant’s Letter of Appeal
The numbered paragraphs are the numbers from the appeal letter and the issues remaining are
set out verbatim:
3. The wetlands delineation has been done incorrectly. The hearing examiner's decision
fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment resulting from
the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to
the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input.
Testimony:
Pgs. 15 & 27 Neugebauer, Hydrologist and engineering – If there are wetlands, then
there is groundwater. Concerned about groundwater table. Comment from Larry:
Applicant offered no testimony about wetlands delineation.
Pg. 19 Schulz, Wetland ecologist – He did the wetlands delineation. OTAK reviewed
independently.
Pg. 20 Coglis, Geotechnical engineer – Did a peer review of geotechnical report and it
was valid.
Pg. 26 Timmons – OTAK found an extra wetland which is acknowledged by applicant.
Finding:
Pgs. 18‐19 Wetlands C.1 – Applicant has met all city, state and local regulations.
Decision:
Pg. 41 #8 – No conclusion about wetlands delineation as it was decided in the
Examiner’s Ruling on Reconsideration Requests pg. 5 #2. Wetland boundaries were
accurately delineated. The evidence and the other arguments presented by Appellants
are not sufficient to overcome the expert opinions and delineation work done by
Applicant and the independent third party experts (OTAK).
4. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the
project site is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable
adverse impact on the environment resulting there from.
Testimony:
Pgs. 12 & 83 Neugebauer – Should be a level 1 environmental assessment to show if
there is potential contaminants.
Finding:
Pg. 12 #2 – No evidence of contaminants. Applicant said it did Level 1. File it with the
City.
Page 2 of 3
Decision:
Pg. 43 #20 – Applicant shall submit Level 1.
5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse
impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the
detention vault, roof runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly
defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public
has little or no input.
Testimony:
Storm Drainage
Pg. 21 Coglis – Stormwater vault won’t float.
Pg. 25 Lee – City’s only concern is placement of vault.
Findings:
Downstream impacts
Pg. 17 #7 – The City is uncertain about the impact on one segment of the pipeline. Level
2 downstream analysis is required.
Roof runoff won’t have adverse impacts if compliant with applicable regulations.
Pg. 17 #8 – Restating Lee’s testimony that project complies with all city, state and
federal requirements with respect to stormwater.
Pgs. 18‐19 Wetlands C.1 – The discharge to the wetlands will not create a probable
significant environmental impact.
Conclusion:
Pg. 34 #12 – Stormwater design will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will
be protected.
Pg. 38 #33 – The proposal provides for adequate drainage.
Decision:
Pg. 44 #26 – Roof runoff that impacts wetlands shall not be allowed to mix with
polluting surfaces.
6. Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable
adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the
project, the hearing examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the
adverse impacts resulting from this extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries,
modular block retaining walls and lock and load retaining walls and provides inadequate
mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the community. Instead the decision
improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where
the public has little or no input.
Page 3 of 3
Testimony:
Pg. 3 Talkington, Civil engineer – Designed rockeries, cut walls that support the existing
lot and fill walls up to six feet tall. The cut walls will not be seen by the public in most
instances. Most of discussion relates to walls for the tree retention and buffers.
Finding:
Pg. 9 #3 – Fill walls create a probable significant environmental impact. Will impact
views when wall is over four feet tall.
Decision:
Pg. 40 #1.b – For walls over four feet tall, there shall be a 10‐foot wide sight obscuring
perimeter landscaping adjacent to the retaining wall.
7. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly
related to ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of
converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul‐De‐Sacs into arterials and
the reduction in property values resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic
studies should be performed to investigate and revise access routes to the project.
Testimony:
Traffic
Pg. 16 Jones – TranspoGroup – Even if you double traffic there will still be LOS (Level of
Service) A or B. Project traffic generally won’t mix with school traffic.
Pg. 26 Timmons – Perteet did independent traffic review and agreed with TranspoGroup
– traffic impacts can be mitigated.
Finding:
Pgs. 21–23 Item E – The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets.
Discussion of citizen comments and conditions to adequately mitigate follows.
Conclusion:
Pg. 34 #14 – The proposed internal roads meet city code.
Decision:
Pg. 42 #12 and 14 – Safe pedestrian crossing across 126th Place SE to be shown on
revised plat plan. Right‐of‐way or easement required for extension of 124th Place SE.