1
2
/ 2
  • Details
  • Annotations
Entry Properties
Tags
  x-robots-tag
Modified
10/25/2024 9:12:28 AM
Created
11/24/2015 12:23:42 AM
Path
\Department Folders\Community and Economic Development (CED)\Technical Services\Monument Cards\3001 - 4000\3377
Template
No template assigned
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnclave Full File rE - Denis' Law. - Mayon Clty Of: J 'June-9,2014 City Clerk -Bonnie l:Walton NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED,BY: Roger A: Paulsen' RE: Environmental ReviewDetermination, `Enclave at-Bridal Ridge;-LUA14-000241, ECF; PP To Parties of Records. . Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances; written appeal of the .Environmental Review.Committee's Determination as referericed has been filed with the City Clerk: NOTICE IS,HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be- reviewed.by the Hearing Examiner in.a he hying sch;eduled.'for 8:00 a.m.;Tuesday,June.24; 2014. The hearing Will take place.irrthe 7 Floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton; 1NX�98057.- Enclosed is copy, of the appeal filing. Also,enclosed is copy of Renton Municipal code section 4.-87110..E. regarding appeals of Environmental Review .decisions or recorrlmendations.. For additionalinformation or assistance; please feel free to cont at 425:430-6502.. Sincerely; Bonnie I: Walton.. City Clerk Enclosures (2)' cc:` Applicant Justin Lagers Owners Sally Lo.0 Nipert and G.Richard Oulmet Parties of Record ; Hearing Examiner JenniferHenning;Planning Director, Gregg Zimmerman,RW Administrator 1055 South Grady-Way• Renton,Washington 98057 (425)430-1 651 U/Fax(425)430-6516•'rentonwa,gov. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 FOR KING COUNTY ROGER A. PAULSEN AND JASON M. 9 PAULSEN, POA FOR JUDITH PAULSEN, 10Petitioner, CASE NO. 14-2-31273-3 KNT 1 I V. STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING RESPONDENTS 12 CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal OUIMET AND NIPERT AND Corporation, and PNW HOLDINGS, LLC,a WAIVING INITIAL HEARING 13 Washington limited liability company, PURSUANT TO RCW 14 Respondents, 36.70C.080(5) 15 16 STIPULATION 17 The parties to the above-captioned litigation hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 18 1. All claims against the landowners G. Richard Ouimet and Sally Lou Nipert 19 named as respondents in this action shall be dismissed without prejudice and without an 20 award of costs or fees to any party. All claims between petitioners Roger A. Paulsen and 21 Jason M. Paulsen, POA for Judith Paulsen (collectively, "Petitioners") and respondents 22 City of Renton and PNW Holdings, GLC(collectively, "Respondents") remain in.the case. 23 2. The initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters presently 24 scheduled for January 9, 2015 is hereby waived pursuant to RCW 36.700.080(5). 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER- l Van Ness Feldman., 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 [2 06) 623.9372 1 3. The defenses of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of standing, untimely 2 filing or service of the petition, and failure to join persons needed for just adjudication are 3 hereby waived, and the Petitioners' land use petition should be resolved by trial on the 4 merits in the assigned judicial department on April 20, 2015 as set forth in the Order 5 Setting Land Use Case Schedule dated November 17, 2014. 6 4. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.I I0(l), the City of Renton shall submit to the Court 7 no later than February 19, 2015 a certified copy of the record for judicial review of the 8 Hearing Examiner's decisions in this matter, as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use 9 Case Schedule. The parties agree that, pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(2), the record may 10 be shortened to avoid reproduction of portions of the record that are duplicative or not I 1 relevant to the issues raised in the Petitioners' land use petition. 12 5. The City shall provide Petitioners and PNW Holdings with a copy of the 13 certified record on the date the certified record is filed with the Court. Each party shall 14 pay the City's actual costs incurred in producing the copy of the certified record for that 15 party. And, Petitioners shall reimburse the City's actual costs incurred in producing the 16 certified record to be filed in the Superior Court, subject to potential future reimbursement 17 by the other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(4). The parties shall pay the City any 18 payments due under this paragraph within fifteen (15) days of receiving an invoice from 19 the City for the same. 20 6. Subject to potential future reimbursement by other parties pursuant to RCW 21 36.70C.110(4), Petitioners shall prepare at its expense and submit to the Court no later 22 than February 19, 2015 a verbatim transcript of the proceedings held on June 24, October 23 23, and October 27, 2014 before the City. Pursuant to RCW 36.700.1 10(2), Petitioners 24 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 2 Van Ness Feldman,., 719 second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 96104 (206) 623.9372 I may shorten the transcript to avoid transcribing portions of the proceedings that are not 2 relevant to the issues raised in Petitioners' land use petition. 3 7. Petitioners shall provide Respondents with a copy of the verbatim transcript on 4 the date the transcript is riled with the Court. Each respondent shall pay the court 5 repo;►ing firm that prepares the transcript directly for the amount billed for the copy ufthe 6 transcript for each respondent. 7 8. The Court should enter an Order reflecting the terms of this Stipulation, as set 8 forth below. 9 STIPULATED AND AGREED TO this day of December, 2014. 10 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 11 �, 12 By: 4Brnt Car n, WSBA #16240 13 1-1. Ray Liaw, WSBA#40725 Attorneys for PNW Holdings, Respondent 14 15 CITY OF RENTON, CITY A'T'TORNEY 16 17 By: �. Larry Wdren, WSBA#5853 18 Garmon Newsom II, WSBA 431418 Attorneys for City of Renton, Respondent 19 20 By- 21 G. Richard Ouimet,Respondent 22 %j By: 23 Sally 1.ou Mpe , Respond t 24 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER -3 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue Suite t150 Seat IIa Vi 6o i )4 (206) 623.9372 V 1 By; C �� / �t,X L� ' (�l t t Roger A. Paulsen, Petitioner 2 1 P( y ('rYt 3 By: t � (� �,- �(t (, 1 C1 tk It/titll tv? `� Jason M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M. Paulsen, 4 Petitioner 5 6 7 ORDER 8 This matter came before the Court on the above-joined Stipulation of the parties. 9 Based on the Stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 10 1, All claims by or against G. Richard Ouimet and Sally Lou Nipert in this action 11 are dismissed without prejudice and without an award of costs or fees to any party. All 12 claims between Petitioners and Respondents remain in the case. 13 2. The initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters is hereby waived 14 pursuant to RCW 36.70C.080(5). 15 3, The defenses of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of standing, untimely 16 filing or service of the petition, and failure to join persons needed for just adjudication are 17 hereby waived, and the assigned department of this Court has jurisdiction to and may 18 review and resolve Petitioners' land use petition on April 20, 2015 as set forth in the 19 Order Setting Land Use Case Schedule dated November 17, 2014. 20 4. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.I I0(1), the City of Renton shall submit to the Court 21 no later than February 19, 2015 a certified copy of the record for judicial review of the 22 Hearing Examiner's decisions in this matter, as set forth in the Order Setting Land Use 23 Case Schedule. Pursuant to RCW 36.700.110(2), the City may shorten the record to 24 avoid reproduction of portions of the record that are duplicative or not relevant to the 25 issues raised in the Petitioners' land use petition. STIPULATION AND ORDER -4 Van Ness Feldman ,,.,. 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98104 {208) 0 1 5. The City shall provide Petitioners and PNW Holdings with a copy of the 2 certified record on the date the certified record is filed with the Court. Each party shall 3 pay the City's actual costs incurred in producing the copy of the certified record for that 4 party. And, Petitioners shall reimburse the City's actual costs incurred in producing the 5 certified record to be tiled in the Superior Court, subject to potential future reimbursement 6 by the other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110(4). The parties shall pay the City any 7 payments due under this paragraph within fifteen (15) days of receiving an invoice from 8 the City for the same. 9 6. Subject to potential future reimbursement by other parties pursuant to RCW 10 36.70C.110(4), Petitioners shall prepare at its expense and submit to the Court no later 1 I than February 19, 2015 a verbatim transcript of the proceedings held on June 24, October 12 23, and October 27, 2014 before the City. Pursuant to RCW 36.700.110(2), Petitioners 13 may shorten the transcript to avoid transcribing portions of the proceedings that are not 14 relevant to the issues raised in Petitioners' land use petition. 15 7. Petitioners shall provide Respondents with a copy of the verbatim transcript oil 16 the date the transcript is filed with the Court. Each respondent shall pay the court 17 reporting firm that prepares the transcript directly for the amount billed for the copy of the 18 transcript for each respondent. 19 20 DONE I.1 64 1 M. this ►Lecember, 2014. 21 22 Judge p 23 24 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 5 Van Ness Feldman., 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 Presented by: 3 VAN NESS FELDjvtA LLP 4 ,�(r C 5 By:"'d V Brenf Carson, WSBA#16240 6 H. Ray Liaw, WSBA#40725 Attorneys for PNW Holdings LLC 7 8 Approved for Entry; Notice of Presentation Waived: 9 10 CITY OF RENTON, CITY ATTORNEY 11 1� By: 13 L ry Warren, WSBA#5853 Garmon Newsom II, WSBA#31418 14 Attorneys for City of Renton, Respondent 15 -16 G. Richard Ouimet,Respondent 17 I 18 By. SaILouert�d nt 5 P 19 By: Y 'VICL�t Ct.� �atir'J i��Gt F71,�1, , 20 R ger A. Paulsen,Petitioner 21 By: 22 *—on M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M. Bsen, Petitioner 23 24 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 6 Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue Su to 1156 Seattle, WA 98164 (206) 623.9372 diTY OF RENTON June 5, 2014 JUN 05 2014 City of Renton RECEIVED Attn: Hearing Examiner CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 South. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Appeal of the Environmental (SEPA)Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project#LUA14-000241, ECF, PP, dated May 19, 2014. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Appeal is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant-- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration and Appeals processes work in concert with one another. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Appeal Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Please note that I have also filed a concurrent Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2) with the understanding that if the Reconsideration Request is not granted, this appeal will be processed, and my appeal payment check cashed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be a series of missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected,I submit this Request for Appeal. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a previous Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this project (Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE Th Place/ 156`h AVE SE intersection,my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Appeal and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To 1 allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA,has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe I have the required standing to bring this Request for Appeal. Identification of Concerns for Which This Appeal is Requested The issues for which I request this Appeal relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice process associated with the original SEPA Threshold Determination. Point of Appeal#1. Transportation The proposed access to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge project site is via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156`''Avenue SE,just north of the 156th Ave SE and 142nd Place intersection (Preliminary Plat Plan,Exhibit C). In response to concerns raised in my earlier Request for Reconsideration (dated April 16th) the applicant commissioned an additional Traffic Study on April 22nd, and submitted an Addendum (Attachment D) to the original Traffic Impact Analysis. The Addendum, dated April 29, 2014, concluded that the two proposed site access streets will operate at an acceptable level of service (C) for future conditions. Subsequent to the April 22nd Traffic Study and the April 29th Addendum, the City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156t'Ave SE and 142nd Place intersection. Reference the May 5th letter from Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22nd letter from Mr. C.E.Vincent, CED Administrator (Attachment F). On May 19th, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) met to consider my April 16th Request for Reconsideration, and retained its threshold Determination of Non-Significance— Mitigated,with one additional mitigation measure: Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156`h Ave. SE/ SE 142nd PL[Sic.• intersection]and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156`''Ave. SE / SE 142"'PL intersection. The ERC Meeting Summary (attachment G) includes on page 2, the following statement: With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The first reason for this appeal is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern,including the intersection at 156th Ave. SE / SE 5th Pl., and the intersection of 154th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL.. The City was aware of the plan to install the new traffic signal,but failed to consider its impact on the proposed development when it issued its threshold Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated on May 19th. It is very likely, based upon the longer queue times associated with a signalized intersection, that the level of service associated with ingress and egress at the two new access streets, as well as at adjacent 2 existing streets such as SE 5t'Place,will actually prove worse than has been modeled to-date for an un-signalized intersection. While the Level of Service of the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd Pl.intersection may end up "improved" as a result of the new signal, the record lacks my data or anal sis for understanding the potential adverse i=acts associated with the new sipal as it relates to the new points of ingress and egress. Until such an analysis is completed and made available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process,it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets level of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Point of Appeal#2 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A) and my original Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit B) I remain concerned that the City's "Notice of Application ...." (Exhibit H) with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engggemen_ t in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22nd. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22nd, the opportunity to provide input that would inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the original Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on June 24th'and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting once again to raise here. Requested Outcomes of Appeal Based upon each of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Appeal, I ask that the Hearing Examiner take the following action: • Withdraw the May 19`'', 2014 Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant work with City staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE 5d'Place. • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application 3 and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request Appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Respectfully Submitted, Rog n 6617 SE 5`''Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—R. Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit B —Request for Reconsideration (April 16`'') Exhibit C—Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D—Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E—Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F—C.E.Vincent Letter Exhibit G—ERC Meeting Summary Exhibit H—Notice of Application and Proposed Mitigation.... 4 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ JdingCa�rentonwa.Qov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms.Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge",Project#LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22 . I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 EXHIBIT A. The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project.by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health safe and welfare for the existingresidents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south)from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPN determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code),I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination pLior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RoizerAPaulsen1cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 EXHIBIT B April 16,2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project#LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood,documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant-- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen,I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated,and file this request in a timely manner,leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end,I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request,and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community,I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected,I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner,and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A),and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5' Place/ 156th AVE SE intersection,my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 1 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project,absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA,has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons,I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project,and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern#1.Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B,dated December 27,2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically,this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant,and relied upon by the ERC,the author states as follows: "The scope of this analysis ' based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Benton Poli Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis forNew Development". By relying upon this report,the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project,as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development,attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this,where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20,a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed,and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions,among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use,the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and information,and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious,in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page#7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: `The Trak ImpactAnalpis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Senice(LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity..." This report goes on to conclude that: "...the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Senice(LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 150 Avenue SE/SE 142""Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156`h/ 142nd Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156`h Ave SE/ 142nd intersection is the ONLY exi_stinn intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent did not require additional existing intersection to the proposed project(SE 5d'Place), the ERC information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45minon December 17d'), the analysiscompletelyfailed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156 at SE 5 Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact,as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections,despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern#3 Transportation Ironically,in light of Concerns #1 and#2 above,when one digs deeper into the March 31,2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156`h, but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "..,impose left turn restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D,Page 10 of 11,Transportation Item#3). This already contemplated"remedy"identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156h/ 142nd intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy"will 3 force this traffic to the right,or north,onto 156`'', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`''/ SE 5t' PL intersection,and other intersections to the north along 156`i'Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156`',the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC,and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination,the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting,by reference,the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer,we find that,other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31,2014 Report(Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `7t is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact(sic)the City of Kenton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements." Unfortunately,nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156`''/ 142"intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law(RCW 58.17 &the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true,there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156d'/ 142nd or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:,the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency,a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below,dated April 15,2014 from Steve Lee,Dev.Engineering Manager,it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)...". This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15d') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process,and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From: Steve Lee Sunt Tuesday,April 15,2014 21:14 AM TO; CityClerk Records cc Jan ilfian.Jill Ding;Neil it.Watts,Jennifer T.Henning:Rohini Nair subject RE:New Public Records Request-PRR-14-085(Paulsen) Attachmenw Tra.nspoConcPolicy140415.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City pro—cess ferr 6srteurrency,standards and Process relating to Renton Cade Section 4-6-070. 1 believe this is the information Mr.Paulsen is seeking: The information,as extracted from The approved City Comprehensive Plan,provides Mr.Paulsen hove the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section,4-6-070 nates that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance,or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 4-6-070 A.1,or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)(ord.5675, 12-3-20312). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initlal response with the statement,"Within the City of Renton,the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper (and nr+icr Cemetery Road)makes it in feasible to provide additional access.Widening 1-405(which the state is pursuing)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th S€to access Cemetery Road." Thanks. -Steve Lee,PE,MS,CESCC City of Renton Dev.Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 Sleeerentonyya xoV Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter(Exhibit A),I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (S-EPA)review of this protect. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22ad. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 until April 22'd,the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. (see Exhibit E"Notice of Application...") As a result,the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22nd,and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again,to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns,and as part of this Request for Reconsideration,I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour,including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5`''Place and 156d'Ave. SE,and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156`'' • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process,I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed,the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5d'Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B—Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C—Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D—Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E—Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 EXHIBIT C THE EM LAVE AT BFdDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX 66n E - #..8'."�'��i ;'„"C- � ':_-.�...�--'?y�,+� .Se:T. F+^�-'..a:%n."^'S"-_i_"�-"_+�-= _•$' — "—� - exa EBS_ 04 HayT T i� i t t t ea (�( `— it 4v 7a rs ..r. r l tp, Ia- 61 ��r --�,. -�..�._. •-: fid \'L� —.— 4 R 4444.4 R�C444R4494 i i i l : f gb caas:aaa 'li 'e � $g _ � II ISLE-�E Etl(;a mcg " $I $s °�S Al a Z irk 116 171 10 it ���<€ ea ° T g yp[ p $ 1 l K ZT vasa 9- � �^ as EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by ri NCRTH € T TRAFF-AC E*X c7,--RTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 �'�'c7RTHYtrES�T ri�.aFf-ec �x��-�rs rraffay 11410 E 124th St. #590 K rkta id,VI 98034 Phone;425,5 :4118 Fax:425. 22,1311 April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 51h PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: S No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. The 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AMI PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge + queues were observed to back up from the 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5th PI/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142" PI/ 156th Ave SE Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5th Pl./156th Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/156th Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142"d PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th PI. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th PI. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 1h PI/ WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) 156th Ave SE North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 15.2) South Site Access/ NA NA WB (B 13.3) 156th Ave. SE. SE 142n, PI / Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) 156th Ave SE (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142"d Pl. SE/156th Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge s SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince nwtraffex.com_or IarryCa nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, AL c� q _ bit Ii NA—L - "l Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 EXHIBIT E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ty� © eff1to M E M- G R A N D ' U M DATE: May 5,2014 TO: Chris Barnes;Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmail.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4G4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer: Of these, only orie accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the lav„enforcement reports of the five accidents.. h:\division.s\tra nspor.tat\operatio\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc EXHIBIT F Denis Law Cl of Mayor `I S r1t !R' + -- Community&Economic Development Department May 22;2Q14 C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator. Roger Paulsen 6617 SE stn Place Renton,WA 98059 RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr.`Paulsen: As part of the review of your Requestfor Reconsideration,the City conducted an independent study of the 156tH Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection.The study concluded`thatthe 156tH Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection warrants.the installation of a traffic signal.The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection,the City's Environmental Review Committee(ERC).has decided to require the. developer to.pay their fair share,for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding. becomes available. I If you have any further questions on this matter, please cor�tact7ill:Ding, Project Manager at. . (425) 430-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.go.y. i Sincerely,. C.E. "Chip„Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERE Members Bonnie Walton,city clerk Justin Lagers,Applicant.. Sally Lou Niper,Owner G.Richard Ouimet,Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hal • 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057 a rentonwa.gov EXHIBIT G Denis Law'. Mayor . Clty-Of- f 1 v �t Community,&Economic-Development'Department May 19,2014 : C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator. - Roger Paulsenth .. 5617 SE,5: Place Renton,WA 98059 Subject:.'" R.ESPONSE-TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. ..Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary.Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP;ECF.. Dear-Mr...Paulsen The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)-held a meeting on May 19;.2014 to consid"er j your Request:for "Reconsiderati:on, submitted Apr11 15,:2014.:Please find at to this Tetter a"copy of the dt-cision of dour Request for Reconsideration'signed:by th'e members of the ERC including.one.new.SEPA mitigation measure; If you have any questions, please contact theproject manager;Jill Ding; at (425).430-65.98' or via.'em.ail at.jding@rentonwa.gov. " Sincerely; � 4e "�-- Gregg.Zimmerman Environmental Review.C6rnmittee, Chair. Attachments cc: . ` Bonnie Walton;.City Clerk. l.ustin"Lagers/Applicant - ...Sally Lou Nipert/.Owner. G.Richard Ouimet/Owner i Parties of Record. Renton City Half• 1055-5outh GradyWay•• Renton,Washington 980.57.. rentonwa gov" i i City of ti DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O- R A N D O M DATE: May 19,2014 j TO: Environmental Review Committee(ERC) FROM: Jill Ding,Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA14-000241)SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5, 2014). — - a ea•l eriod�thaterided on _- �=� �:•- The Di�#S-M was�pukilish�d on•Apr-o•14;�2014 with an pp p 2014. A request for reconsideration of-the SEPA determination was received"on"April-17; - 2014 from Roger Paulsen.The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27, 2013)relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item#1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment:The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis.After the receipt of the request for reconsideration,the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014).The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156'x'Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis.After conducting the additional analysis,the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system.The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h_\ced\planning\current planning\projects\14-000241.jiU\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx Environmental Review co. tee Page 2 of 4 May 19,2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. i is The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve.The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS E designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this � intersection,staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection.A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips =0.00687 x$500,000=$3,435)shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS)Analysis for the 156th Rvenue SE/SE 142�"d�Street'intersectioii; it did-' fanclude LOS analysis for the` 156 Avenue SE/SE 5 Place intersection. i Staff Comment: Item#2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the"study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5%increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development".The proposed development would not result in a 5%increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision.The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds,the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project.Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the I i hAcedlplannin&urrent planninglprojects114-000241"jiU\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx. � i EnviroocueztalReview C`_Lmittoe Page 3of4 i May 19,2014 ��A�nueS��E�Place intersection will remain atCwith or without the propo sed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation iswarranted for the subject project. � 3' Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't > submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment � period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. ! S�taff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RIVIC 4-8-090.The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may beprovided atthe public | hearing. |naddition, any party who requested tobemade aparty ofrecord / would receive the applicable SEPAdetermination,which provides a14day ` appeal period.The notice'is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would � have been notified of the public comment period,the date of the hearing, and � has the opportunity tobecome aparty ofrecord and receive additional information onthe project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City,which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th | u Avenue =Street intersection,staff reonmnendsthat`the^ERwCret'a'i�nt�h�-e =o`n.e" � �as`fbUovs�em� � DSN�KwiffinvpaiVneas / 2- Project construction 'actconstoction sbeU be required tocomply with the recommendations � outlined inthe submitted Geotechnical Engineering StudypreparedbyEartb ' | Solutions, NVV (dated February Ei20l4). 3. Due to..the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE l4Jn* Place and the proposal 1nadd additional trips tnthe existing situation,the proposed project shall beresponsible for paying their fair share of m nu the cost ofanrvvsigna|tobeinstalled atthe 1S6 Avenue SE/SE 142 Street intersection. A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PK0peak hour trips=O.O0687x$50O,0OU=$3,4]5) shall bepaid prior to / the recording ofthe final pfat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00p'nm.onJune G, 2814' Appeals must befiled inwriting together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RIVIC 4-8-110 and more information may be , obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (42S)43O-6S1U' � n�o�obb�u�on�no�u�du�ou dot800z yboobo�gmj'o�.l4'0K�4lj��/ ��om� ---------- Environmental Review Co lee Page 4 of 4 May 19,2014 Date of decision: May 19,2014 signatures: IV12Y It',ZU:14 S. Gregg Zimm r a .,Adm5nistrator �1. r Mark Peterson,Administrator Public Works epartment Date Fire & Ernjergen ices Serv- Date Services Terry Higashiyama,Administrator Community Services Department Date C.E. "chip"'Vincent, Administrator Department of Community& Date Economic Development h-\ced\ptanniag\cwTentplanning\projwts\14-000241-jiU\ei-c reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdDcx EXHIBIT H City of NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 - tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156t'Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project_ Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 50,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC 19675 SE 36'h Street$ulte 105, Mercerisiand,WA 98040/EML:Justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental($EPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 22,2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CEO—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: City Of{ CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Dens e City Of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on th) e C ty Zoniing M p, Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation. The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development, and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The fallowing Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geatechnlcal report. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CEO—Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by S:oo PM on March 24,2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on-April 22,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton, if you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project, CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Tel: (425) 430-5598; Eml:idina rentonwa.gov ® 1 0 11111 1 (� uu =PLEASE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98D57. Name/File No.:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-00241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: 6/6/2014 RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE 4-8-110 APPEALS: E APPEALS TO HEARING EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: 1. Applicability and Authority: a. Administrative Determinations:Any administrative decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing,filed with the City Clerk. b. Environmental Determinations:Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to RMC 4-3- 090,Shoreline Master Program Regulations,when any proposal or action is granted,conditioned,or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official,the decision shall be appealable to the Hearing Examiner under the provisions of this Section. 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: a. When a reconsideration request has been submitted,the matter shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration.A new fourteen (14)calendar day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. b. In order to request reconsideration,the person or entity must have been made a party of record,or submitted written comments to City staff prior to the issuance of the determination for which the reconsideration is being requested. 3. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by state law or exempted by a state or federal agency,only the applicant,City or a person who has been made a party of record prior to the issuance of a decision may appeal the administrative or environmental decision. In order to appeal the person or entity shall be aggrieved or affected by the administrative or environmental decision. In order to be aggrieved,the person or entity must demonstrate the following: a. An injury in fact,in that the person or entity will be specifically and perceptively harmed;and b. That the interest the person or entity seeks to protect is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated. 4. Time for Appeal:Any such appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk's office,together with the applicable appeal fee,within fourteen(14)calendar days of the final decision or publication of the final decision,whichever occurs later,except in the case of a Final EIS, in which the appeal shall be made within twenty(20)calendar days of the publication of the final decision. 5. Clarification of Appeal: If the appeal is unclear and does not sufficiently explain the basis for the appeal, the Hearing Examiner may issue an order requiring that the appellant amend the appeal within ten (10)calendar days of the date of the order. If the appeal is not satisfactorily amended within the time allowed, it shall be dismissed. 6. Motions:The Hearing Examiner may dismiss an appeal,without hearing,when it is determined by the Hearing Examiner to be untimely,without merit on its face, incomplete,or frivolous.Any application to the Hearing Examiner for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing,shall be in writing, stating the reasons for the request and setting forth the relief or order sought.Written motions shall be received at least five(5) business days in advance of the hearing. 7. Parties:The parties in appeal hearings shall be the City,the applicant,and the appellant(s), if different from the applicant or the City. No other persons shall be allowed to testify unless serving as a witness to one of the parties. 8. Notice of Hearing Required:A written notice of the time and place of the hearing at which the appeal shall be considered by the Hearing Examiner shall be mailed to the applicant,all parties of record in the case, 1 6/6/2014 and to the officer from whom the appeal is taken not less than ten (10)calendar days prior to the date of the hearing. 9. Format of the Appeal Hearing:The appeal hearing will be of an informal nature, but organized so that testimony and other evidence can be presented efficiently.An appeal hearing shall include at least the following: a. An introductory outline of the procedure by the Hearing Examiner. b. Presentation by the appellant, including any witnesses. C. Cross-examination,if any,of appellant and appellant's witnesses. d. Presentation by City staff,summarizing the staff analysis and including any witnesses for the City. e. Cross-examination,if any,of City staff and staff's witnesses. f. Presentation by the project applicant, if different from appellant, including any witnesses. g. Cross-examination of any of the project applicant and applicant's witnesses. h. Rebuttal testimony and closing by City staff. L Rebuttal testimony and closing by applicant, if different from appellant. j. Rebuttal testimony and closing by appellant. 10. Prehearing Conference:The Hearing Examiner may schedule and hold a prehearing conference when it appears that the orderly and efficient conduct of the hearing will be served,or that settlement of the appeal through such a conference is likely.A prehearing conference may,among other things, consider: a. Simplification of the issues. b. The existence of undisputed facts to which the parties are willing to stipulate. C. The identification of witnesses and documentary or other evidence to be presented at hearing. d. Any reasonable needs any party may have for discovering the details of the case the other party intends to present. e. The imposition of reasonable time limits. Based upon the discussions and agreements at such a conference,the Hearing Examiner may enter a prehearing order,which shall govern subsequent proceedings. If the case is settled at such a conference,the Hearing Examiner shall enter an order reciting the terms of the settlement and dismissing the appeal. 11. Content of the Record:The record of an appeal hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner shall include at least the following: a. The notice of appeal and any amendments. b. The staff analysis responding to the appeal and all accompanying documents, including the papers that comprise the record of the decision subject to appeal. C. Additional documentary or physical evidence received and considered, including all exhibits filed. d. The Hearing Examiner's decision. e. Electronic recordings of the proceedings and/or an accurate written transcription thereof. 12. Hearing Examiner Decision: a. Substantial Weight:The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding.The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. b. Hearing Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria:The Hearing Examiner may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings,or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: L In violation of constitutional provisions;or ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency;or iii. Made upon unlawful procedure;or iv. Affected by other error of law;or 2 6/6/2014 V. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted;or vi. Arbitrary or capricious. C. Time for Hearing Examiner's Decision: Each final decision of a Hearing Examiner,unless a longer period is mutually agreed to in writing by the applicant and the Hearing Examiner,shall be rendered within ten(10)business days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings. d. Collateral Estoppel(Issue Preclusion):The Hearing Examiner may deny a party's request to relitigate one or more issues or determinative facts decided or ruled upon in a previous litigation if the party against whom the collateral estoppel doctrine is to be applied had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.The party requesting application of the collateral estoppel doctrine must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that(1)the issue decided in the earlier proceeding was identical to the issue presented in the later proceeding;(2)the earlier proceeding ended in a judgment on the merits;(3)the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to,or in privity with a party to,the earlier proceeding;and (4)application of collateral estoppel does not work an injustice on the party against whom it is applied.The Hearing Examiner may apply collateral estoppel, sua sponte. e. Res Judicata(Claim Preclusion):The Hearing Examiner may apply a prior ruling or summarily decide an action or appeal if the current, pending or proposed action or appeal is substantially identical to a prior action or appeal in four(4) respects (1)the same persons and parties or a person or party in privity with the prior person or party;(2)causes of action that substantially involve the same rights or interest,the same evidence,an infringement of substantially the same rights or interests,or the two(2) actions or appeals arise out of substantially the same facts;(3)subject matter is identical or substantially the same;and(4)at least one or more of the parties are bound by the prior judgment or ruling.The party requesting application of the res judicata doctrine does not have to prove each factor, but must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that application of res judicata is appropriate.The Hearing Examiner may apply res judicata,sua sponte. f. Full and Fair Opportunity: Failure to seek or obtain evidence or information that existed at the time of the prior proceeding does not establish that a party did not have a full or fair opportunity to litigate an issue or change the subject matter of an action or appeal. 13. Optional Request for Reconsideration: a. When a reconsideration request has been submitted,the matter shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration.A new fourteen(14)day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. b. In order to request reconsideration,the person or entity must have been made a party of record prior to the close of the hearing, participated in the hearing or have submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. 14. Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council: Unless a specific section or state law providing for review of decision of the Hearing Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or other body,all other appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be made to the City Council within fourteen (14)calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's written report. 3 CITY OF RENTON June 5, 2014 JUN 0 5 2014 City of Renton RECEIVED Attn: Hearing Examiner CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 South. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Appeal of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project#LUA14-000241, ECF, PP, dated May 19, 2014. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Appeal is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant-- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration and Appeals processes work in concert with one another. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Appeal Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Please note that I have also filed a concurrent Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2) with the understanding that if the Reconsideration Request is not granted, this appeal will be processed, and my appeal payment check cashed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be a series of missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Appeal. Stands As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a previous Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this project (Exhibit B),and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`'' Place/ 156th AVE SE intersection,my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Appeal and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To 1 allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe I have the required standing to bring this Request for Appeal. Identification of Concerns for Which This Appeal is Requested The issues for which I request this Appeal relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice process associated with the original SEPA Threshold Determination. Point of Appeal#1. Transportation The proposed access to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge project site is via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156`''Avenue SE,just north of the 156th Ave SE and 142nd Place intersection (Preliminary Plat Plan, Exhibit C). In response to concerns raised in my earlier Request for Reconsideration (dated April 16th) the applicant commissioned an additional Traffic Study on April 22nd, and submitted an Addendum (Attachment D) to the original Traffic Impact Analysis. The Addendum, dated April 29, 2014, concluded that the two proposed site access streets will operate at an acceptable level of service (C) for future conditions. Subsequent to the April 22nd Traffic Study and the April 29`'Addendum, the City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156t''Ave SE and 142nd Place intersection. Reference the May 5th letter from Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22nd letter from Mr. C.E. Vincent, CED Administrator (Attachment F). On May 19th, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) met to consider my April 16th Request for Reconsideration, and retained its threshold Determination of Non-Significance— Mitigated,with one additional mitigation measure: Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156`h Ave. SE / SE 142"'PL Si..c intersection)and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156`h Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection. The ERC Meeting Summary (attachment G) includes on page 2, the following statement: Kith the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, itis anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The first reason for this appeal is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern,including the intersection at 156th Ave. SE / SE 5th Pl., and the intersection of 154th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL.. The City was aware of the plan to install the new traffic signal,but failed to consider its impact on the proposed development when it issued its threshold Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated on May 19th. It is very likely, based upon the longer queue times associated with a signalized intersection, that the level of service associated with ingress and egress at the two new access streets, as well as at adjacent 2 existing streets such as SE 5d'Place,will actually prove worse than has been modeled to-date for an un-signalized intersection. While the Level of Service of the 156'Ave. SE / SE 142nd Pl. intersection may end up "improved" as a result of the new signal, the record lacks aU data or analysis for understanding the potential adverse impacts associated with the new signal as it relates to the new points of ingress and egress. Until such an analysis is completed and made available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process,it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets level of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Point of Appeal#2 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A) and my original Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit B) I remain concerned that the City's "Notice of Application ...." (Exhibit H) with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22nd. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22nd, the opportunity to provide input that would inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the original Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on June 24th'and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting once again to raise here. Requested Outcomes of Appeal Based upon each of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Appeal, I ask that the Hearing Examiner take the following action: • Withdraw the May 19`f',2014 Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant work with City staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE 5d'Place. • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application 3 and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request Appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Respectfully Submitted, C������ Rog n 6617 SE 5``'Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—R. Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit B —Request for Reconsideration (April 16th) Exhibit C —Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D —Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E—Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F—C.E.Vincent Letter Exhibit G—ERC Meeting Summary Exhibit H—Notice of Application and Proposed Mitigation.... 4 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdin�a,rentonwa.Fov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project#LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156'and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threatenup blic health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south)from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination RELor to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen(2cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 EXHIBIT B April 16,2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project,this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented,and mitigated by the City and/or applicant-- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen,I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated,and file this request in a timely manner,leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end,I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request,and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community,I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected,I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner,and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A),and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`h Place/ 156`'AVE SE intersection,my public health,safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 1 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project,absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests,as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons,I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project,and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern#1.Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B,dated December 27,2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically,this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant,and relied upon by the ERC,the author states as follows: `The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary,plat site plan and the City of Kenton Policy Guidelines for Trafc Impact Analysis for New Development': By relying upon this report,the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project,as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development,attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this,where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20,a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed,and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions,among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved,trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information,and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious,in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page#7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: `The Trak ImpactAnalysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Service(LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity... " This report goes on to conclude that: "...the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service(LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 136`''Avenue SE/ SE 142id Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156`x/ 142"d Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156`''Ave SE/ 142"d intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project(SE 5'h Place),the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally,by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour(just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17"'), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156`''at SE 5d'Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact,as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections,despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TLA. Concern#3 Transportation Ironically,in light of Concerns #1 and#2 above,when one digs deeper into the March 31,2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156d', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "...impose left turn restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D,Page 10 of 11,Transportation Item#3). This already contemplated"remedy"identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156`''/ 142"d intersection,but also suggests that the City's "remedy"will 3 force this traffic to the right,or north,onto 156`i', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`''/ SE 5`h PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156h Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156d', the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC,and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination,the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting,by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer,we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report(Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `7t is not anticipated that the proposed pr ject significantly adversely impact(sic)the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements" Unfortunately,nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156d'/ 142d intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason,the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law(RCW 58.17 &the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true,there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156`h/ 142nd or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency,a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below,dated April 15,2014 from Steve Lee,Dev. Engineering Manager,it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)..." This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15`h) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC,as well as the City's development review process,and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From: Steve tee Sent: Tuesday,April 15,2014 1114 AM To: CityClerk Records cc !an Illian;Jill Ding;Neil Rr Watts;:Jennifer T.Henning:Roh ni Nair SuN RE:New Public Records Request-PRR-14-085(Paulsen) AlUchmenu.- TranspoConcPolicy140415.pdf See attached fibs that are related documentation on the City process for Ei dhcurrency,standards and process relating to Menton Code Section 4-5-070. t believe this is the information Coir.Paulsen is seeking. The information,as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan,provides Mr.Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance,or within a reasonable amount t of time after building issuance. per 4-6-070 A.1,or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if arty)(ord.5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement,..Within the City of Renton,the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau(and or to Cemetery Road)makes it in feasible to provide additional access.widening 1-405(which the State is pursuing)to:provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road_" Thanks. -Steve Lee,PE,MS,CESCL City of Renton Dev.Fngineering Manager 425.430.7299 slee(T rentonwa.Roy Concern#6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A),I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22nd. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 until April 22nd,the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application...") As a result,the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22nd,and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again,to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns,and as part of this Request for Reconsideration,I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour,including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5"'Place and 156`''Ave. SE,and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156"' • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process,I request that,once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed,the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5"'Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B—Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C—Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D —Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E—Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 EXHIBIT C THE ENCLAVE AT BRUE RIDGE XXX-XXXX tit.�_ v 1 4w;3 R$ S ------ 41 -- - y ' r : + !!1It 7 Iowa - 1 ti 75 _.� r2 t ice., ' J ,!` g a'�� __ _�"L��—.—_.__—4 i i3i4Q gR4Q444Y94 1� �1 E��� g{ !F i •', DID 1"I �Gg nit too life ''rv2/rP `zazzszz:z 1 i�� ,�I;IL i+I t4 + !f! 4 P•j{i i t �� a � 1 11:^t •tl !� Z + sag a s g�k R gt Z � jA fill a _ 3 y; L Z EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by IrraRA NCRTHWEE rRA F-F-IC EX F.—R rS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 rraftm, 1VORTH'W-FOT ?"RA-rlC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th 8t. #590 Kir0ade W 98034 Phone,425.522.4118 Fax:425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156'" Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5" PI/1561" Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142nd PI. SE/SE 156'" intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5'" PI/156'" Ave SE and 142nd PI. SE/SE 1561" intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge queues were observed to back up from the 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 51hPI/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) W13 (C 16.1) North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142 nc, PI / 156th Ave SE Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5" Pl./156th Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/156th Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rr ft PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5" PH 56th Ave SE and 142nd Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142nd Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th PI. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th PI. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 Pl/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 15.2) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 13.3) h 42" PI / 156 Ave S E Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) 15 (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142nd PI. SE/156th Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge " ' SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vinceCa@nwtraffex.com or larrvO)nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, r� Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 PFP1 EXHIBIT E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D ' U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142"d Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne ofcmbayne@gmaii.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, f=igures 4C-1 through 4C.4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. Mdivision.Atra nspor.tat\operatio\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc EXHIBIT F Denis Law /-� Mayor City of � } air& I• s , Community&Economic Development Department May 22;2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent;Administrator Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton;WA 98059 RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration,the City conducted an independent study of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection.The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal.The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection,the City's Environmental Review Committee(ERC) has decided to require the developer to.pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. 1t is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project,but would occur ata dater date as additional funding becomes available. if you have any further questions on this matter,please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager,at (425)430-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, C.E. "Chip„Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERG Members Bonnie Walton,City Clerk- Justin Lagers,Applicant Sally Lou Niper,Owner G.Richard Ouimet,Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way .Renton,Washington 98057 rentonwa.gov - - ------------ EXHIBIT G Denis Law Ma or c1 Of, y 000l Community.&Economic Development'Department May 19,2014 C.E"Chip"Vince nt,Administrator. Roger Paulsen .. 6617 SE 5th Place Renton,WA 98059 Subject: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Enclave at Bridle Ridge PreliminaryPlat/ LUA14-000241, PP;ECF . Dear Mr. Paulsen:' The Environmental Review Committee (ERC):held.a.meeting on.May 19., 2014 to consider j your R.pquest.for Reconsideration, submitted April 15,:2014. Please find attached to this letter a copy of the decision of your Request far Reconsderation'signed:by th'e members of the ERC including one.neW SEPA mitigation measure; If you have any questions, please contact the project manager;]ill Ding; at (425).430-65.98 or via.email atjding@rentoriwa,goV. . Sincerely; Gregg.Zimmerman Environmental Review.Committee, Chair. Attachments cc: . ` Bonnie Walton;.City.Clerk. i lustin•Lagers/Applicant - - `.Sally.Lou Nipert /Owner. G.Richard Oulmet./Owner Parties-of Record i Renton City Hall i.1055-South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98051.. rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EaD it of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ton M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19,2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding,Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study,prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). The DNSf SAA-wars•pu.lilished;orrApri4 4;::2014 with an appeal perkiod:that erided on 2014.A request for reconsideration of-the SEPA determination was received'oh-April'17; - 2014 from Roger Paulsen.The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27, 2013)relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item#1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment:The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis.After the receipt of the request for reconsideration,the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014).The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis.After conducting the additional analysis,the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system.The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed hAced\planning\current planning\projects114-000241.jill\ere reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx Environmental Review Ct. iittee Page 2 of 4 May 19,2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal atthis intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve-The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection,staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection.A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips 0.00687 x$500,000=$3,435)shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. _ 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS)Analysis for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142 Street intersection; it i Idn6 include a LOS analysis dor the' 156th Avenue SE/SE 5'h Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item#2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the"study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5%increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development".The proposed development would not result in a 5%increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision.The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds,the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum,it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the hAced\planning\current planning\projects\24-000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx ' Environmental ReviowComLdtee � Page of � May 19,2014 ' 156th Avenue SE/SE 51h Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that nofurther traffic mitigation iswarranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed-subdivision was misleading. People who didn't � � submit writtencomments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment � period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing, | Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RIVIC 4-8-090.The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision app lication and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. |naddition, any party who requested tobemade aparty ofrecord ! � would receive the applicable SEPA determination,which provides a 14 day , appeal period.The notice'is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would � have been notified of the public comment period,the date of the hearing, and � has the opportunity tobecome aparty ofrecord and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th | � Avenue "«Street intersection,staffrecnrnmnends that the ERC retain the ' existingDSN�K8 ' n)��atioU_mneasune/ a�fbl|cxws: .` 1. Project construction shall berequired to comply with the recommendations ! outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth / Solutions, NVV (dated February 5` 3D14). | 2. Due totheexisting Level ofService (LOS) designation ofFatthe 156"Avenue SE/SE143= Place and the proposal toadd additional trips tothe existing situation,the proposed project shaUberespondb|eforpayingtheirfairohareof ,h nu the cost ofanevvsigoa|tobeinstalled atthe 1SG AvenueSE/SE142 Street intersection. A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PIVI peak hour trips/1,310 Total PK0peak hour trips=O.006O7x$5DC\UU0=$3,43S) shall bepaid prior to � the recording mfthe final p(at. Appeals mfthe environmental determination must befiled imwriting mmorbefore 5:00p,nm. onJune 6, 2814' Appeals must befiled inwriting together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RIVIC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, /4Z5\438-G51O' '! .jill\ere reconsideration recmmmendationmenio.dmdoex Environmental Review Cc,_ _iittee Page 4 of 4 May 19,2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: i Gregg Ziinm r a Administrator Mark Peterson,Administrator Public Works epartment Date Fire & Emergen services Date i Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, AdministratorDate DateCommunit Services Department Department of Community& Economic Development t i i i i i h:\ced\pl=)ing\currentpimning\projects\14-000241 jiU\ercreconsiderationrecommendation.memo.dotdoex EXHIBIT H .3 Czty NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)Zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156"Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C,110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nan-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC/9675 SE 361h Street Suite 105, Mercer Island,WA 98040/EML:Justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 22,2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057, Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO., yp t City of, 00000000, CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City s Zoning Map., Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by 5:00 PM on March 24,2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton, if you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of retard and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Emi:iding@rentonwa.gou a . PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: ��Y o CITY OF RENTON Receipt N2 2125 U rs City Clerk Division + + 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 Date G- 1,; 1)4 425-430-6510 , ❑ Cash ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Notary Service (7, heck No, C)LtfI c WAppeal Fee ❑ Description: 1L1kP(- U,;�r Funds Received From: Amount $ ; Name } , Address City/Zip - City Staff Signature June 9, 2014 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY: Roger A. Paulsen RE: Environmental Review Determination; Enclave at Bridal Ridge; LUA14-000241, ECF, PP To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Determination as referenced has been filed with the City Clerk. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in a hearing scheduled for 8:00 a.m.,Tuesday,June 24, 2014. The hearing will take place in the 7th Floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Enclosed is copy of the appeal filing. Also enclosed is copy of Renton Municipal code section 4-8-110.E. regarding appeals of Environmental Review decisions or recommendations. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, 1�fl71�YLt,L t�, c�JG�?t� Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Applicant Justin Lagers Owners Sally Lou Nipert and G.Richard Oulmet Parties of Record Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Gregg Zimmerman, PW Administrator Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to 11 Use Avery®Template 5160® 'ned Paper �� expose Pop-Up EdgeTM AVE ® 51600 1 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC Richard Ouimet 9675 SE 36th St, 105 2923 Maltby Rd M.A. Huniu Mercer Island, WA 98040 Bothell, WA 98012 6608 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Maher Joudi Sally Nipert D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 14004 156th Ave SE DAVID MICHALSKI 10604 NE 38th PI, 232 Renton, WA 98059 6525 SE 5TH PI Kirkland, WA 98033 RENTON, WA 98059 Wade Willoughby Roger Paulson Gwendolyn High 6512 SE 5th PI 6617 SE 5th PI PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Eloise Stachowiak Mazama, WA 98333 6614 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 ttiquettes faciles a peter Se de Repliez A la hachure afin de www averycom Utilisez le gabar'tt AVERY®51600 j charaement rLivOler le rebord Pop-UpTM ; 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Denis Law City Of Mayor � ^Y � June 9, 2014 City Clerk —Bonnie I.Walton Mr. Roger A. Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Re: Enclave at Bridal Ridge; LUA-14-0241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Paulsen: Regarding the referenced land use application,the City Environmental Review Committee issued a response to your April 16th Request for Reconsideration on May 19, 2014. On Friday, June 5th,you personally filed the following in this office: 1) A letter dated June 5, 2014, withdrawing the pending appeal dated April 16th that was being held pending the outcome of the Response to Request for Reconsideration. Your check#9443 for the appeal fee was returned to you. 2) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014, serving as a new Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination. 3) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014, serving as a new Appeal document, accompanied by your check#9490 for the$250 appeal fee. After review it has been determined that there is no option or availability at this time for another request for reconsideration of this matter. The Response to the Request for Reconsideration dated May 19th_clearly sets forth the option for ap1.peal,"however there is no option at this point for request for reconsideration._ Therefore it is necessary that the Request for Reconsideration filing dated June 5, 2014, be considered invalid and will be marked void. The appeal process, however, will now go forward based on the appeal document you submitted June 5, 2014. The receipt for the appeal fee is enclosed. Our appeal notification will be coming to you by separate letter soon. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 4. Bonnie Walton City Clerk Cc: Gregg Zimmerman, ERC Committee Chair Jennifer Henning, Planning Director 1055 South Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057• (425)43o-6510/Fax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov CITY OF RENTON June 5, 2014 JUN 4 5 2014 C of Renton "9 1`� 55 RECEIVED At - City Clerk CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 . Grady Way �',0� i1,5 to lqw bel t✓e'ed 10%40 Renton,WA 98057 REQUES OR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PU SUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It Ma Concern, Pursuant to City of Re on Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reco ideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmenta Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241, ECF, PP, dated May 19, 2014. As a party of record for this pro) ct, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative emedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, cumented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant-- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adop d codes,policies and procedures. Thank you for taking the time to consider is request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and tigation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citizens of o community. As a long-standing member of this community, I b th accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in ' process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In e spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit thi Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who proper l submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a pr vious Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this proje t (Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transp rtation network via the SE 5th Place/ 156`h AVE SE intersection,my public health, safety and welfare e at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the nec ssary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA,has the potential to adversel ' pact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate t the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe I ha the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration. 1 Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issue for which I request your reconsideration relates to the transportation impacts of the proposed project. Concern: Transportation The proposed access to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge project site is via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156d'Avenue SE,just north of the 156`''Ave SE and 142nd Place intersection (Preliminary Plat Plan, Exhibit C). In response to concerns raised in my earlier Request for Reconsideration (dated April 16`h) the applicant commissioned an additional Traffic Study on April 22nd, and submitted an Addendum (Attachment D) to the original Traffic Impact Analysis. The Addendum, dated April 29,2014, concluded that the two proposed site access streets will operate at an acceptable level of service (C) for future conditions. Subsequent to the April 22nd Traffic Study and the April 29`h Addendum, the City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156`"Ave SE and 142nd Place intersection. Reference the May 5`h letter from Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22nd letter from Mr. C.E. Vincent, CED Administrator (Attachment F). On May 19`h, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) met to consider my April 16`h Request for Reconsideration, and retained its threshold Determination of Non-Significance— Mitigated,with one additional mitigation measure: Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS)designation of F at the 156'h Ave. SE/ SE 142id PL Sic. intersection]and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 15e Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection. The ERC Meeting Summary (attachment G) includes on page 2, the following statement: 1Vith the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The first reason for this Request for Reconsideration is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern,including the intersection at 156`h Ave. SE / SE 5d'Pl., and the intersection of 154 h Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL.. The City was aware of the plan to install the new traffic signal, but failed to consider its impact on the proposed development when it issued its threshold Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated on May 19th. It is very likely,based upon the longer queue times associated with a signalized intersection, that the level of service associated with ingress and egress at the two new access streets, as well as at adjacent existing streets such as SE 5`h Place,will actually prove worse than has been modeled to-date for an un-signalized intersection. While the Level of Service of the 156`h Ave. SE / SE 142nd Pl. intersection may end up "improved" as a result of the new signal, the record lacks any data or analysis for understanding the potential adverse impacts associated with the new signal as it relates to the new points of ingress and egress. 2 Until such an analysis is completed and made available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process,it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets level of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the May 19'',2014 Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE 5`''Place. • Once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed,reconsider the SEPA Threshold Determination for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination.. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Paulsen 6617 SE 5`''Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: List of Exhibits: Exhibit A —R. Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit B —Request for Reconsideration (April 16`h) Exhibit C—Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D —Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E—Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F—C.E. Vincent Letter Exhibit G—ERC Meeting Summary 3 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jding(&rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge",Project#LUA14-000241,ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current,the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142 d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156tH/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsenkcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 EXHIBIT B April 16,2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project,this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented,and mitigated by the City and/or applicant--all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen,I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated,and file this request in a timely manner,leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end,I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected,I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner,and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A),and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`' Place/ 156`" AVE SE intersection,my public health,safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 1 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project,absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA,has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests,as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons,I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project,and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31,2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B,dated December 27,2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant,and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: `The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Denton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for Nese Development': By relying upon this report,the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project,as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development,attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this,where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved,trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information,and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious,in addition to in error. Concern#2.Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page#7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D),the Committee states: `The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Service (LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity..." This report goes on to conclude that: "...the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156`h Avenue SE/ SE 142nd Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156th/ 142nd Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156th Ave SE/ 142nd intersection is the ONLY ext- intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5th Place),the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17th), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156`'h at SE 5th Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact,as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern#3 Transportation Ironically,in light of Concerns #1 and#2 above,when one digs deeper into the March 31,2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156`', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "...impose left turn restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D,Page 10 of 11,Transportation Item#3). This already contemplated"remedy"identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156th/ 142nd intersection,but also suggests that the City's "remedy"will 3 force this traffic to the right,or north, onto 156`h, further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`''/ SE 5th PL intersection,and other intersections to the north along 156`h Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156` ,the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC,and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination,the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting,by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer,we find that,other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `7t is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact(sic)the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements." Unfortunately,nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156 '/ 142nd intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law(RCW 58.17 &the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156`''/ 142"or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency,a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15,2014 from Steve Lee,Dev. Engineering Manager,it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)...". This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15`h) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process,and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From. Steve Lee Sent., Tuesday,April 1S,201411:14 AM To: CityClerk Records Cc: Ian Illian;Jill Ding;Neil R.Watts;Jennifer T.Benning,Rohini Nair Subject: RE:New Public Records Request-PRR-I4-085(Paulsen) Attachnwnts: TranspoConcPolicy14041S.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City process foe c o ncurrency,standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070, 1 believe this Is the information Mr.Paulsen is seeking. The information,as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan,provides Mr.Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of Improvements or strategies in plane at the time of building permit issuance.,or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 4-6-070 A.1,or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is,generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and Is currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)(ord.5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided Borne direction as to an initial response with the statement,'Within the City of Renton,the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau(and can to Cemetery Road)makes It in feasible to provide additional access.widening 1-405(which the State is pursuing)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road-" Thanks. -Steve Lee,PE,MS,CESCL City of Renton Dev,Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 slee0rentonwa:¢ov Concern#6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A),I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22,d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 until April 22"d, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application...") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22nd,andthey will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again,to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns,and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour,including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5`h Place and 156x''Ave. SE,and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156d' • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process,I request that,once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5d'Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B—Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C—Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D—Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E—Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 EXHIBIT C SHE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—>D= m ! t �- rAw r w pt i- i p _31 _#. ub AS P a It 1�'�Y L-1=: _ —run voT 24 �w.zi.e 1� 1��._"+ � a i . gam ',i LL It 1 941 a PON -4 �,J2{nl 8 R -.wnaaswaa i�itP :ll{ } ��� g �tti�! EE�tflt iil ljp [ Z 10 o I v g '•� I lit .� Iags'esxI ;�= za 1100 �s Z I EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by ,rr AWAW 1VCRTHWEi5Tmr 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 fZZY Nt�'R'THWE.9T 7`R"�aFp7G' �.rc'P�,'�7TH 11410 NE 124th St. #591 ItiNand.0, 98034 Phone;425,522.4118 Fat:425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 h PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 9 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge queues were observed to back up from the 142nd Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 51hPI/ _T 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142ndPI / 156th Ave SE Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5th Pl./156th Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/156th Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 ffay The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rra PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PH 56th Ave SE and 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th PI. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th PI. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 1hPI/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 15.2) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 13.3) SE 142 nd PI / 156th Ave SE Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ' FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142nd Pl. SE/156th Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridqe r ' SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vinceOnwtraffex.com or Iarrygnwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, A. t 1c,� Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 EXHIBIT E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D + t,,Df M E M O R A N D ' U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142"d Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmail.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C=4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h:\division.s\transpor.tat\oper.atio\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc EXHIBIT F Mayo'" City of000001, a _ .� Community&Economic Development Department I May 22;2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator' Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton,WA 98059 RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/LUA14-00.0241, PP, ECF i Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Requestfor Reconsideration,the City conducted an independent study of the 156th AvenueSE/SE 142nd Place intersection.The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal.The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place. intersection,the City's Environmental Review Committee(ERC) has decided to require the. developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding ibecomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact All Ding, Project Manager,at, (425)430-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, l � C.E."Chip"Vincent CED Administrator - i Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton,City Clerk Justin Lagers,Applicant Sally Lou Niper,Owner G.Richard Ouimet,Owner Parties of Record Renton City Nall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057 rentonwa.gov ------- EXHIBIT --.-EXHIBIT G �• Denis Law* }�, Mayor Cl`1 O �' O Q`' > Community&Economic Development-Department May 19,20.14: . C.E."Chip"Vincent,Adr-hinistrator: Roger Paulsen 5617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 - Subject " RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Enclave at Bridle Ridge Prelim nary.Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP,ECF . ' Dear Mr. Paulsen: The Environmental Review Committee (ERC).held a.meeting on.May 19,2014 to consider your Rgquest. or Reconsideration, submitted April 16, 2014.:Please find attached to this letter a copy of the decision of your Request for Reconsideration'signed-by the members of the ERC including one.new SEPA mitigation measure; If you have any questions, please contact the project manager,dill Ding; at (425)430-65.98 or via em-ail at.jding@rentonwa.goV. S.incerei ly, Ae1 ' Gregg.Zirrmmerman Environmental Review.Committee, Chair Attachments cc: Bghnie Walton,City.Clerk. Justin Lagers[Applicant Sally Lou Nipert /.Owner. G.Richard Oulrnet/Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall. 1055-South Grady Way . Renton,Washington 98057 .rentonwa:gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ® lt {�® j AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O. R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) i FROM: Jill Ding,Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DINS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study.prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). � - --_:--- -• - - m The DN.85=�M-was pu.tolish-ed ort�Apri•14;'2014 with an appeal periotlthat ended on Ap�ii=-18;•=y°�`-`""' :- = -= 2014.A request for reconsideration of the SEPA determination was received"on"April'17; - 2014 from Roger Paulsen.The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27, 2013)relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item#1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment:The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis.Afterthe receipt of the request for reconsideration,the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29,2014).The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis.After conducting the additional analysis,the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system.The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed hAced\planning\current planning\projects\14-000241.ji11\ere reconsideration reconunendation memo.dot.doex ---------------- Environmental Review Co; �ttee Page 2 of 4 May 19,2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve.The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this j intersection,staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection.A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips 0.00687 x$500,000=$3,435)shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS)Analysis for the 156th X Avenge SE/SE 142"d Street^inter'section; it did-not include a�LOS analysis for the`—' _.... th Avenue SE/SE 5th 156Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item#2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the"study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5%increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development".The proposed development would not result in a 5%increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/5E 5th Place intersection.According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision.The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds,the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project.Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the Uced\planning\current planning\projects\14-004241.jill\ere reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx ` Envbnomeotu 8eviewCn^-md000 ' Page 3uf4 � May 19,2014 ' 1ScmAvenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain atCwith orwithout the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that nofurther traffic mitigation iswarranted for the subject project. 3' Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't | submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment � period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. ! Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RIVIC 4-8-090.The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision app lication and also mentions that additional comments may beprovided atthe public hearing. |naddition, any party who requested tobemade aparty ofrecord � � would receive the apcdicab|eSEPA determination,which provides a 14 day appeal period.The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would � have been notified ofthe pubUccomment period,the date nfthe hearing, and � has the opportunity tobecome aparty ofrecord and receive additional information onthe project. ' Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic � vvs1udyconductedbytheCi� hichstates that asignal iswarranted atthe156" ! � Avenue3 nu reetintersection, staffrecornnnendsthattheER[retainthe � � ~ ` - , ��'� - ` ` � DSN�K4,vv��-`onee�/�h �ationrns �.�sfb|C� � �^� ` _ ea� uF l- Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations'ectconstructionshaUberequiredtncnrnp|vvvkhtherenon1mendations ! outlined inthe submitted Geotechnical Engineering StudypreponedbyEarth / Solutions, NVV (dated February 5, 3OI4i | Z- Duetn.the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of at the 156h Avenue SE/SE 14Z.'" Place and the proposal toadd additional trips tothe existing situation,the proposed project sha|| berespnnsib|eforpayingtheirfaicsharmof m nu the cost ofanexvsigna|tobeinstalled atthe l56 AvenueSE/SE142Street intersection. A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PK4peak hour trips=0.00687x$500,U8U=$3,43S) shall bepaid prior tm / the recording ofthe final p|at. Appeals ofthe environmental determination must bmfiled iowriting onarbefore S:00p.nm. omJune 6, 2014' Appeals must befiled inwriting together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RIVIC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-GS10' | planning\projectd14-000241-jiU\erc reconsideration recommendation memo^dot.docx Environmental Review Co_ .ittee Page 4 of May 19,2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: GreggZimm r a .;Administrator Mark Peterson,Administrator Public Works epartment Date Fire & Emergen Services Date Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip" dm Vincent, Ainistrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community& Date Economic Development i . i i h:\ced\Pianning\current Planning\projects\14-000241.jiu\erc reconsideration recommendation.memo.dot.docx CITY OF RENTON June 5, 2014 JUN 0f 2014 City of Renton RECEIVED Attn: City Clerk CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge - Project LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear City Clerk's Office, I wish to withdraw the Request for Appeal I submitted to your office on April 16`''. Based on a recommendation by your office, that Appeal was placed"on hold"pending the City's review of a Request for Reconsideration that I submitted at the same time. In response to that Request for Consideration, the City's Environmental Review Committee issued an updated threshold determination for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Pro)ect on May 19th. Enclosed with this cover letter,please find a new Request for Reconsideration of that updated determination,and a new Request for Appeal,pursuant to the guidance provided by Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E). The personal check (#9443) in the amount of$250 that accompanied iny original appeal can be applied to this new appeal. Ale6U C//r4< 1. SN60 17jv s 0 f yf o If for any reason the opportunity for Reconsideration is not available at this stage of the City's process,please cash my check and consider this appeal as being timely filed. If the accompanying Request for Reconsideration is accepted, I understand that will be given the opportunity to withdraw my Request for Appeal after reviewing the City's response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions related to this submission. My contact information is shown below. Thank you for your assistance!! Sincer , R en 6617 SE 5ffi Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 RogerAPaulsen@cs.com Enclosure(s): Request for Reconsideration,with attachments Request for Appeal,with attachments 64�rz fe yn-3 lerlVeAw A) G�— i0° CD P �z dao Amo CD CD � Cd a X �Up � � �� UpC)es 0, CD o 00 C4 q Q o o do c cn 'ZZ ° B as � � CD 0. uo ID � o �n yy co - m CD CD� a " V0 a ° M zOil 0 CD °p CA A+ N N O h U4 CD v�' °G1. � CSD O P� � �• � O .••- cn W) -+ cn Up �z tn �t 91 ys �q iff ���'�11vo�Ao1\E\i4tll�Sf�j�+s, f// 11 0 w P�®V e /10 I'M � 1 C, cvl10 o-o-�. �,•a c Dcc n�'a m .tea o y -a�,-^.cn.Ao.prr-3n_o o . 2 _-;u y m � •v Nn � v .5 as h� sN �•� o ,3 co m 'o\ N.� D� mz� . `� cSo - c ��- �N a.o rn`-' ? °•y �a'a DNS Ct7 _m o Z-tz f7 WQ•� �' �� dco NnZ .� �nm c�•v o oco oo .p� ova '*eco <Z�Z Z co m b �'_ ��m ccc �� g F.� o •3 o -:ZAo oa a Q o c Opt7<-3<Z� -°+ acc co '3.s— .�Noda °,' N �Z� •r 5coo `"•S o --o'�o E' n� � o+'^ 77� U ° �.r, ���'i7 o� a� ° m n oA,7 w? E3fD = =va p w o= F , o.Q. = c C'� 3 �7�o no"= �=g z fDn o� r rn s�.c o o�c" w w zFL a3���o� a m o c n oa c = C�77,4',y0a O a n ��aomS.c�oo= w � �ooa � N� v��' �� o z c5c n ° rn > > c(cac�vo� � n�cfDcv'a „Denis Law Cl Of Mayor / �y - �. ”. Community,&Economic Development;Department May 22, 2014 C.E:"Chip"Vincent,Admin.istrator CITY OF RENTON Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place MAY `sr2 2014 Renton, WA 98059 . RECEIVED CITY CLERICS OFFICE RE: Enclave at Bridle.Ridge Prelimi.nary Plat/ L,UA14-000241, PP; ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the,review of your Requestfor Reconsideration, the City conducted an independent study of the 15.611 Avenue SE/SE.142. Place intersection.The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142. Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City`has added and is.prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at.this location to its.Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated'through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at-the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection,the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC).has decided to require the. developer to.pay their fair share for the installation of.the,traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the'installation of the traffic signal would.occur as apart of this project,, but would occur at a later date as additional-funding; becomes available. If ybu have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430-6598 or via email at jding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, C.E. "Chip„ Vincent CED Administrator - Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton,City Clerk Justin Lagers,.Applicant Sally Lou Niper,Owner G.Richard Ouimet;Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 08057 . rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ® �Qtyof��� M E M- G R A N D ' U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes;Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbaynePgmail.com? Recommendation: I We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants accordirig to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 404 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.. h:\division.s\tra nspor.tat\operatio\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc , Page 438 2009 Edition ( Standard: 0 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: t>a. A. The vehicles per hour given in bath of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on g the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection;or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist On }` ` ec the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection. Si In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On t the minor street,the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: t St 05 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph,or if ;a the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10 000, the (E traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. a Guidance: F of 06 The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations tivhere Condition A is 1101 y satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives' that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed Standard: to salve the traffic probleriis. D3 07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the j following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on Sed the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection;ariAll y °1Su B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on' ;, r < -volume minor-street approaches,respectiveIy,to the intersection. the major-street and the higher `r These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition;however, � he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. 5t On the minor street,the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of °23 the 8 hours. n, e. Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume r 4 Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Volume ` , Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicles per hour on higher-volume t traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) minor-street approach(one direction only) s Major Street Minor Street 100 80%b 70%, 56%d 100%°J 801/6b 709/V 569/V 1 j._ 500 400 ;350 280 iSD '120 105' 84: or more 1 600 480 420 336 i50 120 105 84 ... 2 or more.', 2 ar rore 6D0 480 420 336 200 160 14D i 12 t 1 2 ar more 5D0` 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 . Condition B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic ; i Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major litet I Vehicles per hour on higher-volume -x traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) J minor-street approach(one direction only) Major Street Minor Street too%, 8o%, 70°0 56%11 100%" 80%b 70%= 56%d d I 1 " 1 Z50 600 ,525 42Q 7.5 � `� she 2 or more 1 900 720 630 5D4 75 60 53 42 11' 2 of more 2 or mole 900 720 30 6SOs4 160 1 2 or more 750 600525 420 100 BO 70 ' 56 a Basic minimum hourly volume a C °Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures °May be used when the major-streets speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 f p p Y P R � May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the �Q major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 J Sect 4C.02 Dec mbel; ,. Page 440 2009 Edition" P Y. } Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 500 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES 400 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE MINOR q STREET Soo 1 LANE& 1,LANE HIGHER- ! VOLUME ' APPROACH- 200 VPH , . 100 115' �. so, { 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) -.a 'Note:115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume fora minor-street ` approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. y„t S Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume(70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) ,, 400 ___2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES 300 A MINOR 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE STREET HIGHER- 200 1 LANE& 1 LANE VOLUME APPROACH- VPH PPROACH-VPH 100 i 60' 200 300 400 500 600 700 B00 900 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH) 'Note:BO vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Sect.4004 Dermbet30{<4„. . r: 2009 Edition Page 441 e Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour `f 000 500 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES MINOR STREET 400 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE HIGHER- 300 Sod " APPROACH - VPH PPROACH - 1 LANE&1 LANE 0VPH 200 A*' r 150' ru. 100 100' 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— h VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) "Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. ;f t b•^ :j r � Figure 4C-4, Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 12 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES ^' MINOR ( 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE STREET 300 HIGHER- 1 LANE& 1 LANE VOLUME APPROACH - 200 VPH - 100 100` t 75` 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) ' 'Note:100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. w"tenliltt 00L) Sect.4C.04 Signal Priority Ratings: A=Number of correctible accidents in a 12 month period AR=Accident Rating =100/5 x A Vrn=Average of the 8 highest hours of main main street volume in veh/hr(total both directions) Vs=Average of the 8 highest hours of side street volume in veh/hr(total both directions) Note:right turns on red and/or free right turns are subtracted from the side street volumes. K=reduction factor= (0.97 In(Vm/Vs))-0.32 Cv=Capacity constant Note:When the 85th percentile speed of main street is>40 MPH, MUTCD volume warrants are reduced therefore, reduce Cv so that Cv=0.49 x Cv Number of Lanes Main Side Street Street Cv 1 1 750 2+ 1 900 2+ 2+ 1200 1 2+ 1000 VR=Vehicular Volume Rating=(Vm x Vs)/(K x Cv) Pm=Average of the 8 highest hours of main street pedestrian in ped/hr(total both directions) Wm=width of main street in feet Cp=pedestrian constant=78000 PR=Pedestrian Volume Rating=Vm x Pm x Wm/Cp Total Rating=AR+VR+PR Intersection A :Ali: Vm Vs K;` : Cv tTf ^;;: Pm Wm :::::P> :> 3otal; l7oiae� SW 41st ST/Oakesda[e AV SW 5 JOG: 615 407 Q:48; : 900 3A�t�;1fl: 0 56 S 4th ST/Williams AV S 0 ;:;a�':;: 442 357 0;x:1' 1000 #29$:47: 12 43 NE 44th ST/1-405 NB Ramps 3 < p;: 539 476 .....p;2a':: 900 1429;42: 0.5 40 ..:0;#4.:: #-69' SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 :1:2p: 783 306 Q:,9:` 1200 335.4:> 0.5 . 51 p 25:: 45$% done S 7th ST/Talbot RD 5 990 315 ::::Q:;79':: 900 ;'438:x:&:: 9 NE 12th ST/Union AV NE 0 ::::0::: 449 220 ::::0::37::: 750 :354.0.6::: 6.25 45 :1:: TOM 9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142nd Place/1561h Avenue Southeast WARRANT 1 Meets warrant—volumes meet Condition B for eight hours. WARRANT 2 Meets warrant—four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-1 for seven hours. WARRANT 3 Does not meet—this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. WARRANT 4 Does not meet—the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. WARRANT 5 Does not meet—this is not a school crossing. WARRANT 6 Does not meet—there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. WARRANT 7 Does not meet—there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. WARRANT 8 Does not meet—We classify 156th Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142nd Place as a residential street. WARRANT 9 Does not meet—This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. M TOM8620W J d 'Ln ti CD M Ln LO O O N ' N M C4 r;N N M 00 Lo C 00 00 M r 00 d 'cD �:M O CA d N �t,fN r r o0;r - t. l`;00 d :�f Ln N r:00C0 d F- -- Cy00Orh6300e- �tCDt3) OCD � ; N.►� O f? - t : � O Lf) Mf n MNN d Ott? N?OLO ; A:0) CD Lo � Lo LQ:N c- N r W _ r _..:_... J m CD t- M M O 00 10 N Lo N O M,CA 00;(o ,,t r N"O.CDM r o 4. W" N 'c-:�- r co!p:M O CD �f r CA CO O0,r- to d CD CO CD'N tf) 'O N Q r'CD CD;CD,d' co NN N .t d ;M N N rlr CD co _ r W 'mMd CC) 00'tt7CC) MO 'tnMCDC'7r 'pLy N cu Cl) �: N t- co 00 �;�'N'Lf) a0 �c- O �h CD O LO:0 N N r t .' tcy) �- ' NN NLO: .0 LO NQ- CD m; (n O pt tc7 rim N LO N �- d C) M Co M'O M In CO'OO d O f� f N c- CD c- �} ;ONO:CO. N N N N d `M "t M Ln O - 1`.N d m '. �- CN.Co CN C4:N N N N MsM CY? :cr1 N N;r Z ' Qt N .. .� Cp 0l h (C) It N 00 0) Ltd O LL7 CDN d M CD CD'ti Lo r:o 0 Z �-:M N :CD M M o'cc).CO..Lr) cD M CA O M LO CY !rl M _. N Ln o l0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z O o o O:o 0:0 O`o 0 o O a o;o o 0 0 0 0 o p p o: CO. N M It Lf3:(01N 00 CA i p r`N'M V L17.CD'1` 00 W a ir,NiM d ; p 'oo0aoOO00000 ' 0000o0 0OoaoOoo0Oo0ooOo0000o 0 e-:N M <S Lf) CD 1� 00 C� O.r:N M �t Ln CD 1� 00 CA O r- N M E- CN N 04 'Cy Denis Law Mayor ' City Of. MONO £ f O till Comm unity:&Economic Development Department May 19,2014: . C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator. CITY:OF MENTON Roger Paulsen .. MAY2 0.2014 ' - • 6617 SE 5' Place RECEIVED: Renton,WA 98059 CIT1'CLERK'S.OFFICE . i Subject:.'_ RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. 6. .Enclave at Bridle Ridge PreliminaryPlat/ LUA14-000241, PP;ECF . Dear Mr. Paulsen-- The Environmental Review Committee (ERC).held.a meeting.on.May 19.,2014 to.consider your Request for Reconsideration, submitted April 16,2014.:Please:find attached to this . better a copy of the decision of your Request for Reconsideration'signed.by th'e members of the ERC including.one.ne.w SEPA mitigation measure. if you have any questions, please contact the project manager; Jill Ding; at (425)430-65.98 or via.email aft.jding@rent.ohwa.gov . Sincerely; n Ae Gregg.Zimmerman Environmental Review Committee, Chair. Attachments cc: BgnnieWelton;City Clerk. : Justin Lagers/Applicant — .. - - Sally Lou Nipert/Owner. G.Richard Ouimet./Owner Parties.of Record. Renton City Hall =.1055-South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057..rentonwagor i DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D City AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O. R A N D U M DATE: May 19,2014 T0: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) I FROM: Jill Ding,Senior Planner i SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA14-000241)SEPA Request for j Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31,2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). The Dig#-S=AQ-was published orrAprif 4;.,20-14 with an appeal perod that ended on 2014.A request for reconsideration of-the SEPA determination was received"on"April-17; 2014 from Roger Paulsen.The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27, 2013)relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item#1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment:The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service(LOS)analysis.After the receipt of the request for reconsideration,the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis(dated April 29,2014).The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 155e'Avenue SE/SE 5m Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis.After conducting the additional analysis,the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system.The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed - i hAced\pianning\current plaming\projwts\34-000241 jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot docx Environmental Review Committee Page 2 of 4 May 19,2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. i The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at-this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve.The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection,staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection.A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips =0.00687 x$500,000=$3,435)shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. _ 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service(LOS)Analysis for the 156th V _- Avenue SE/SE 142"d�Street intersection; it did not`ir:clude a LOS anaf'sis dor the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. I Staff Comment: Item#2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the"study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5%increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed '•, development".The proposed development would not result in a 5%increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection j was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE Stn Place intersection.According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision.The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds,the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project.Therefore, according to the submitted addendum,it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the hAced\plannin&urrent planning\pmjects114-000241.jilI\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx. - ' ` � Environmental Review Committee � Page]of4 May 19,2014 | 1S6t4 AvenueSE/SE 5th Place intersectionwill'remain atCwith or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore,staff concludes that nofurther traffic mitigation iswarranted for the subject project. S' Public notice for the proposed-subdivision was misleading. People who didn't � submit written-comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment � period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. i / Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090.The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may beprovided atthe public hearing. |naddition, any party who requested tobemade aparty ofrecord | � would receive the applicable SEPAdetermination,which provides 14 day appeal period.The notice'is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would � have been notified of the public comment period,the date of the hearing, and ' has the opportunity tobecome aparty ofrecord and receive additional ` information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent trafhcstudy conducted by the City,which states that a signal is warranted at the 156m uAxenue c'tion,--staff �^recommends �^that the^ERC =�retain the axi st7iffg DSk-K ,Wtho6e'ne wni bsation neasurea 'follows:.. ' 1 Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations'ectconstructionshaUbenequiredtoonmpk/vvkbthcrecmmnnendaUons � outlined inthe submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared 6xEarth | Solutions, NVV(dated February 5, 3OI4\. | I Due to,the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue "u SE}SE14I Place and the proposal toadd additional trips tothe existing situation,the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a newsignal to be installed at the 1561h AvenueSE/SE142nd Street intersection.A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PK4peak hour trips=O.DO6O7x$5D(l0UO~$3^4]S) shall bepaid prior tm ! the recording nythe final plat. Appeals ofthe environmental determination must bmfiled imwriting onmrbefore 5:O0p'nm. omJune 6,2014' Appeals must befiled inwriting together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RIVIC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (42S)43O-6S10' � | - h: jill\er:necousiucrationrecommendation mnno.dotumcx Environmental Review Committee Page 4 of 4 May 19,2014 Date of decision: M a y 19,2014 signatures: Gregg Zi' m r a ;Administrator Mar Peterson ,Administrator PublicZi' epa'tmet Date Fire&6 Emergen Services Date Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community& Date Economic Development UcecAplaimmgNcurrent planaing\prqjmts\14-000241 jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx f r ... 1V0,g7-"WEST 7kAFFf� 11410NE4241hSt. #59(i �iftd WA-98i #� fthat 425.5 ,4118 Fait 425. 2.2.4311: April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers -PNW.Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36t" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton j Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton: The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions conceming the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. .The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"d PI. SEISE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PV156t'Ave SE and 142nd PI. SEISE 156"' intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT © ,� M E M- O R A N. D U B DATE: - May 5,2014 TO: • Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager FROM. Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations i • f SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 1.42"d Place at 156ti'Avenue Southeast t Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1Se Avenue ' Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbaynePgmail.com?. Recommendation: - i We should place this intersection ninth in our r priority list of locations to consider for a l - •newsignal. Background: i We have analyzed the intersection of Sautheast 142"d Place 6 'and 15Avenue 56utheast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Magualof Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1,Interruption of Continuous Traffic for ' Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes-for Four Hours. Please find-attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of -Uniform Traffic Control Devices,Figures 4C-1 through 4C4 from the Manual of Uniform } Traffic Control Devices and-a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since,2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 150 Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these,only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156 'Avenue Southeast The other four accidents occurred at least-two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.. h\d'1rvisi?—ktra-par tat\opem'bQ ran\tvm�wn19645a.d oc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTOf ;Q M E M- 0 R A N D U M DATE: May 5,2014 TO: Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager E FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142nd Place at 156th Airenue Southeast l Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142"d.Place and 156thAvenuej Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbaynePgmail.com? . i Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal.-- _------ .. - Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156 'Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Co_ntrol ' i Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table.4C-1 from the Manual of Vniform Traffic Control Devices,Figures 4C-1 through 4C-A from the Manual of Un/form I Traffic copy Si of the I . gnat Warrant Analysis. ; This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156 'Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these,only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"a Place and 156 Avenue Southeast The other faar accidents occurred at least-two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.- h.\divisions\tr<nspor.tat\oparatio\ion\tom\tom954Sa.doc COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT d08 M E M O R A N D U M DATE. April 18,2014 j T0: Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager I Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts,Development Services Director SUBJECT; Traffic CQncurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots,with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at t 1309 of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code(RMC)4-6-070. The specific.concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D,which is listed for reference: Transportation Concurrency Test-The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18,2014 D. CONCURRENCYREWEWPROCESS: 1. Test Required:A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. Z Written Finding Required:Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required fora development activity.A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3.Failure of Test:if no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the i - =.. concurrency..test,-the.projectapplication shall be denied by the decision maker withthe-authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page Xi-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan,consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan,payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation,development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 CITY OF RENTON * APR 16 2014 � April 16,2014 RECEIVED CG'• CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental(SEPA)Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project#LUA14-000241,ECF,PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant--all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen,I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens,the time provided for me to become educated,and file this request in a timely manner,leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end,I beg your patience and understanding if the format ofthis Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. i j Thank you for taking the time to consider this request,and for your thoughtful attention to the i issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public jsafely,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community,I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process j we hold so dear in this country is respected,I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner,and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration(Exhibit A),and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5t' Place/ 156 `AVE SE intersection,my public health,safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 1 i requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project,absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA,has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests,as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons,I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project,and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern#1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31,2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B,dated December 27,2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically,this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant,and relied upon by the ERC,the author states as follows: `The scope of this analysis is based upon the prrliminary plat site plan and the City ofBenton Policy Guidelines for Traffic ImpactAnalysis fog•New Development". By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the fullrange of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development,attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this,where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are>20,a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed,and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M.Peak Hour conditions,among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved,trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 j It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious,in addition to in error. Concern#2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation,and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report(Exbibit D), the Committee states: `The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Semice(LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity..." This report goes on to conclude that "...the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service(LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/ SE 142 d Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually j looked at existing intersections other than the 156th/ 142 d Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156 'Ave SE/ 142nd intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project(SE 5"'Place),the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally,by only analyzing the P.M.Peak Hour(just 2 hrs.45 min on December 17d), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M.Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156th at SE 5h Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact,as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections,despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TLA- Concern#3 Transportation Ironically,in light of Concerns#1 and#2 above,when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156 , but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may `:..impose left turn restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D,Page 10 of 11,Transportation Item#3). This already contemplated"remedy"identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 1566/ 142nd intersection,but also suggests that the City's "remedy"will 3 i force this traffic to the right, or north,onto 156th,further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`h/SE 56 PL intersection,and other intersections to the north along 156"'Ave. SE. Again,since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156th,the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC,and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern#4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination,the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting,by reference,the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer,we find that,other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report(Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `7t is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact(sic)the City ofBenton s street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements." Unfortunately,nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156`''/ 142"d intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason,the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant,as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law(RCW 58.17&the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true,there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156th/ 142nd or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern#5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:,the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency,a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15,2014 from Steve Lee,Dev. Engineering Manager,it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "wrrentyassesfing any improvements are warranted rf any)...". This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15`h) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 L This a-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely,or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC,as well as the City's development review process,and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi 4'Ifaer i i From Steve Lee I sent Tuesday,April 15,201411.14 AM TM CityCterk Records CC Jan ilkan;lilt Ding;Neil R Watts;Jermifer T.Henning;Rohini Nair Subject RE:New Public Records Request PRR-I4-085(Paulsen) q> TranspoConcPo5cyI404154>df See attached fites that are related documentation on the City processfarcq�ency,standards and process relating to Renton Cade Section 4-6-070. i believe this is the information Mr.Paulsen is seeki p-The information,as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan,prove des Mr.Paulsen low the City administers a multi modal test;. Renton Cone Section 4-"70 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in playas at the time of building permit Issuance,or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 44-070 A-1,or a financial commltavritis placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for j the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements thmughout the City. our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvemots are warranted(if ally)(ord.5675, The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement,oWithin the City of Renton,the steep topography between Maple Valley Wghway and the upper plateau(and on to Cemetery Road)makes it in feasible to provide additional access_Widening"05(which the State is.Pursuing)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road.." i. Thanks. -Steve Lee,PE,NIS,CESCL City of Renton Dev.Engineer`atrg Manager 425.430,7299 leeimrentonwa,00m Concern#6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A),I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual Mportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA)review of this project. In short,the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 i until April 22"d,the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. (see Exhibit E"Notice of Application...") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22 d,and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again,to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns,and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M.Peak Hour,including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5d'Place and 156`b Ave.SE,and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156ffi • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that,once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed,the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Cormnittee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, , Ro aul 6617 SE 5ffi Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B—Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C—Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D—Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E—Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 EXHIBIT A March 22,2014 i Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division i City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdingi rentonwa.Qov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge",Project#LUA 14-00024 1,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 501 Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current,the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.)in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd,and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, sdfe and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat,and the existing 156t1i/ 142d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south)from the plat access streets,due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality,in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection,including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this,it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 EXHIBIT A i Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code),I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City,it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls,hawks,eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate,misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice(both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided,but g&those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd nti , but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point,and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsenAcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 i EXHIBIT B t THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS i CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings,LLC, 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer island,WA 98040 Prepared by ANOW rAl. M /VaRTHwEsr &X 7`RAFF'/C E`XP,6R7-5 11410 NE 124th St.,#590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPE/7T9 11410 NE 124th St. #590 WA.98031 Ph=425.522.4118 Fax 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 Mr.Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038156'Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156'h Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156th Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore,for purposes of this study,2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 ------------- The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traffa TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Trip Rate Time Period Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 6 17 23 25% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 620 311 31 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering)inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation.for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210).These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes,including resident,visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns,the characteristics of the road network,the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156 'Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142nd Pl. Residential Access Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Trate 156'h Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 15&Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" PI. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156th Ave. SENSE 142d PI. is an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156th Ave SE or SE 142nd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156th Ave. SE and the 150h Ave SEISE 142nd St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156th Ave SENSE 142ndPl. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service(LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay,travel time,freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations,from A to F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay)and LOS F the worst(congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service(LOS)for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway CaDacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Rid-ge rraffA TYPE Of A B C D E F INTERSECTION >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. Signalized 10. <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 0 — Stop Sign Control ":1001 >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period(for a total of 6%)from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156u'Ave. SENSE 142"d PI. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5%City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft.from an intersection on a minor arterial.The south site access street is located Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge fry approximately 250 ft north of the 156t`Ave.SEISE 142"d Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton "requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of$75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single-family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in.a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X$75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately$21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(aD-nwtraffex.com or Iarry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, A s� ss�o"-� Vincent J. Geglia Lang D. Hobbs,P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 i I r � i i TABLE 1 i i PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2095 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2073 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. =NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB(B 11.2) 156 'Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd pl. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 i e , ntoarHwFsr IF Tf7AF"FIC £XP£RT9 r h ` sir x �t xna t� m SE 2nd P� El St SF IF $E73GtNLn` ' C A r� 3y .xk,�4 3`f 214 Y- i' 3 137-fxj Trace SE � s tot : SEl33th fat a Pr z 1 Tt t fqx y � t7S 1� F 43 SEW St tJ r sE ath o P t tk ! rAZ 1 iy t 33+ ' x 0-91!:''t WAY, P, Fr Y 3ANEWx 0, SKI giWA Mal VON nova SAWTUM W" A 'Its T"100 SMI QW, jk too, t � Y a r t S1�Q' SE 142nd it too PS rs SE74 wine Am loop RT A&A P cams I 5 � i 7 "Cj Ctr 1^ y A 1 n ,SE l-03rd 5f I y 5 no 1 L MKI J f d 'M b MEW A x as M iTt `t L1+ E The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map i NC3RTNLVfBT 7R.AFF/,C EXPERTS VE SE f 3 _ r I _s s E _ I F1 via i 5 i jw T _�-� S� i x� :it i k� i; �cfi 1- t i .1 I1 , I I it 1 h I lA I f � 1777777t77"1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Figure Site Plan 2 NOk�TNWEu r 4 ` 7R.4FFfC �XPERT3 d 0 v @ r. traject 5 F m sz w.ai � a�lt� i r 5, f A �eilI SEaf, 9 N 7 � `' '� � b SEli9rd�at ro r rn 4 k { i 4 t rr2 v M N Accessf 156th ave N I- 1 i 4 V 2 M 'M IL S Access/156th Ave N 4,,a PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume �O It Legend Enter 20 N Exit 11 15% Percentage of Project Traffic Total 31 156th Ave[SE 142 Pf E—3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Trip.Generation and Distribution 3 i ( MoRmWEBT � TRA lG EXP--R7-H rri ixt x i """ a a 474 f a pfroJeCt Ski; "SE 14x 5E"i42nciSt ����� � SE142txiSt � � s 1L4 �¢, SI 7q Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project M � r 1 l 0 `0 4 4 `.1 O O 1 r,0 1 rr0 r r� 2 1 rr 2 M o ;:2. C7 �r C`3 1` M N Accessf 156th ave N Access/1561h ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access! 156th ave i M h O r— CD N ti 1 l � . 0 �t0 1 �t4 ch o I r o I r l I r Ct3 M M �. M S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access!156th Ave LO LO f�D m IN... N e— M 309, t 32$� 1 41' 1 to 332 t J 1 a o o � 1Q0', t 106 , r 0', t 10VM CO CO M , O7 CO 156th Ave[SE 142 PI 156th Ave/SE 142 PI 156th Ave/SE142 PI 156th Ave/SE 142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic.Volumes 4 I TECHNICAL APPENDIX i Prepamd for Tr affex Traffic Count Consultants,Inc. Pham(759)920-6009 FAX:(253)922-7211 E-Mail:Taan@TC21/Iocom WHEWE Intersection: 156th Ave SE&SE 142nd PI Date of Count Tam 1211712013 Location: Renton.Waahington Chedud By: leas 7-inc From North or,(SB) From South an(NB) From Ewtan(WB) From Wast an(EB) interval [nasal 156th Ave SE 156th Aar SE 0 SE 142nd PI Total .Ending at T I L S I R T I L S R I T L S R T L S R 'tiSP 2" b 16siifl:' : 32' 11 is 0 '`'0 430P 6 .0 l3 1112 1 1 14 12 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 74 0 27 30€ 4;i5P 2' 0 Is 1156 F.V" 12€ 455. 6 0 p .0 `_,'0 0`. 99 0 29 . -.345 5:00 P 0 0 IS 1 179 1 2 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 20 328 0 A9 }4B 1 :.iB 17:.'... 0 '`0 0'.. 0 0 0:. 70 "0 1A' .:306' .S:30_P 1 0 20 11491 0 19 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 r- 1 0 2€ 1 297 s-.45P ".O. °:0 29: -ISI D IS •• 19<. 0 .:'0 0 :0 0 -9 93 4''-:: `29 339 ... 6.•00P 0 0 24 144 1 2 IS W 0 D 0 0 0 1 -74 0I7 291 ID .-0' .0. 6 0 D 0>'..` 0 D C-30 P 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :;.. :. .. 0 0 0 D. "p 0 0 ...6 90 0 0 8 ': A _.a 7-00 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 P;p 0- 157 1224 b 179 -117 0 0 0 0 0 1 61€ 0 202 2497 Peak Hour 4:15 14 '.16 5:15PAI _ .. _. ... . Total 9 0 6S 653 4 92 1 63 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3091 0 1 100 1287 A proneh 723 ISS 0 409 1257 561}v 1:2% ie% Na Ns 1.0% Pt1F 0.43 1561h Ave SE 1095 1 0Bile SE 142nd PI -— 655 1. Pcd 741 Peds 0 I Bffic 0 1156 309 409 4:15 Pht ao 5:15 PM PEJU It10 .. N S E N' pedl, 0 1.0 PItF Pal.Flour volume WTOi INT 02 I_ ! i 0 EB 1Lfa WT03 0 !66 ISf Chca- wo na INT 04 ' 0 In: 1287 NS nrT 05 Out: 1287 S0 I:!: INT 06 PEDS —�-_- 0 156th Ave SE T tut. 0.93 1.07e IIT 07 ) • —€�...... 0 Btgctee FinaxS W SB w_um- __. arcan 0 MT O1 81T1A ; t I 0 WT Ox INT RT F04 1 Wi0.5 ...1 � D WT - a 54 erF tz i I _. .0. ..__— 0 9-100 0- MOB NO ili1CLS _ —'0 S.10 eft 11 Special Notm WTO7 ? 0 8-10 Rollin _..._..._._.. .-.....__. g queuehendtd SB•at most dlerc MT 0e _ !- _ 0. 5-6 was 54 vehicica actually aWPpuA. 94T09 t __ I5+sigd0es wiling quwc as far as l could scc. WT tO 7{ �--- —Q Witt !_.._..-_.� U7T i2 --01 u o 00 0 0 0 0 TRA13184M Glpj I Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd PI& 156111 Ave SE 12126!2013 _J* 4N t 1 � Lane Confagurattons 4._.. Tj�. Sign Corrtwl Stop.: Stop.;. iap Valume h 309 100 92 63 68 655 Peak N©tir Factar 093 Hourly How rate(vph) 332 108 99 68 73 704 Volume Total(vph) 440 167 777 Volume Right(vph) 108 0 704 Nadt($I r 0 03i> 1i i2 ` 0 51 4 Departure Headways 6.2 6.6 5.2 ( ) Oegree.Jti6zapon,;x OJ5 Capacity(vehlh) 572 526 679 - _ Approach Delay.(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Mproach.. .. .l). B F OMAN Delay - 62.9 HCM Level of Service F )nlersect(on CSpapit Utilization _ '_ , ..__=&5 7°la .__ ICU Level.of 5eniice " E Malysis Perwd(min) 15 ` Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page I Future Without Project 3:SE 142nd P(& 156th Ave SE 1212612013 - 4% t Lane Configurations S<gtl Cmitrol .- _. dot?: Stop Stop -_ _ I Volume(vph} 328 i06 98 67 72 695 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0 93, 0.93.. 0 93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 353 114 105 72 77 747 Volume Total(vph) 467 177 825 _.. - Volume,Lef#(vph): U5 0 Volume_Right(vph) 114 0 747 Departure Neadway(s} 6.2 6.7 5.3 Degree U66zation:k, 0.80 0.33- 1.22 Capacity(vehlh) 571 518 665 Control Qel Approach Delay(s) 29.8 12.9 1332 Approach LOS Q B F' Delay ._ 85.8 HCM Level of Service F on,apaeity utilization 90 3 Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project 3:SE 142nd PI& 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 Lane Configurations ,.,g stop Volume(vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 Peak Hor.Factor`= 0.93093_;': 0 93 0 93 0 93 0 93 _... Hourly flow rate(vph) 357 114 t 05 74 78 749 Volume Total(vph) 471 180 828 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 749 Hadl(s} 003 'a 012 -00- - Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.4 Degree t16l�zatton;x 0.81 '0: 1.43 Gapacity{vehlh 571 516 662 Control Delay js) 30.7 i3.0 137.1 Approach Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137:1 ApproachL4S D B f Delay 8B 1 HCM level of Service F IntersecGan Capacity UHHzation 90.8 lCU Levet ofSennce k:: E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 i Future With Project 5: North Site Access&156th Ave SE 12126/2013 4�_ Lane Configurations '✓oiume, ah1h� `< 2. 4: 177 3 .i, 7 7�4 - Sign Control Stop Free Free - grade 0%. 09r° Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourty flow rate.(rph} 2. 190 3 . 8 832 Pedestrians Waik�ngSpeed(ft/s) i?ercent$loekage'; Right turn flare(veh) _..__ MFedian#ype None, tJone" Median storage veh) (1ps(ream signal,(ft} __ . X latoon unblocked t<C,conflicfing volume 1039 192... 194 _ vC1,stage 1 conf vol uC2,stage ,con TO " vCu,unblocked vol 1039 192 194 tC,s<ng(e(s) ...^ 6 4.i tC 2 stage s _ p0 queue free%° 99 99 99 cM.capac�ty(vehm� 256. , .855 1392 'Volume total 6 194 . $40 = Volume Lett 2 0 8 1{olgmefiight 43. D cSH 481 1700 1392 1�olum:610,Capacityy 01, Queue Length 95th(ft) __._._ t 0 0 Confr4l'D-lay:(s) 12.6 Lane LOS 8 q Approach.Delay(sj _ 2 6 0.0 0.1. Approach LOS B :. . Average Delay 0.2 SOMEONE jptersection ac' UhflzaGon 56 3%� {Ctl Level of Sen+�ce g ..8Y. Analysis.Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 Future With. Project 7:South Site Access& 156t1i Ave SE i 12126/2013 i i Lane Configurations ' 176 3. 7 7fi9 Sign Control Stop Free Free Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Noutf)r claw rafe•uphj .`.. . 4 189 3 8; 827 Pedestrians lane Walling Speed(flls) - Right turn flare(veh) Mledta!i fYhe. _ NoneNone _. ; Median storage veh} pX,platoon unblocked vC,eonfiiiefiq-volume- 1:033 i91 _. _ 192 vCf,stage 1 conf vol - vCu,unblocked vol 1033 191 192 tC,s►ngle(s} 6.4" 62 41 IC 2 stage(s) p0 queue free% 100 99 99 t M capacctj' 1393_ volume Tv1ai5. _�92„ 894°- _ _. Volume Left 1 0 8 1�olutrre,Right 4 3 0 cSH 585 1700 1393 Volume to Gapaaty 09" 011 A (queue Length 95th(ft) 1_ 0 0 Conttol Datay Lane LOS B 1 A Approach;pelay(s�. i i 2 0 0 Q.1 Approach LOS B MINN Average Delay 0.2 Interseclton�apacity Utilization 551°!° ICU-Levet of"Service ' B _. Analysis Penod(minj 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 3 EXHIBIT C POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 - 9:00) or PM (3:00 —6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request,the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved,trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site-generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format. .The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assignment: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site-generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM-PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area. 1 EXHIBIT C Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi-phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site-generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary,the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage,these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/12/1008 H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\TIA GUIDELINES\GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 EXHIBIT D C� of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY r 1 ,p 4�� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE. March 31,2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge I Project Number: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Project Manager: Jill Ding,Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156th Avenue SE, Renton,WA 98059 G.Richard Ouimet,2923 Maltby Road, Bothell,WA 98012 Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC,9675 SE 36th Street,Suite 105,Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: 14038156th Avenue SE,Renton,WA 98059 Project Summary: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would, result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the.new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 14230591.22 which will result in 30,175 square feet.of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage.An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057.All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. Exist.Bldg.Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg.Area(footprint). N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area(gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 SF Total Building Area GSF. N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Co . mittee issue a RECOMMENDATION. Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M). 6 aT. I �n Project Location Map ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THEENCLAVEATBRIDLE RIDGE LUA24-WR41,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 2 of 11 [PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 1423059023,and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences.The project site is located within the R-4(residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density(RLD)Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.The surrounding properties to the north,south,and east of the project site are also zoned R-4.The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment(LUA14-000250)was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat..An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel.The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future,separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.86 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre(after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication).The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.In addition to the proposed lots,the subdivision would also create two tracts(Tracts A and B).Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention.Tract B would be located at the northwest corner of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new"looped"public street(Roads A and B)with two access points off of 156u'Avenue SE.addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156th Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving,curb and gutter,5-foot sidewalks,and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials,which identified 303 existing significant trees.Of the 303 existing significant trees,the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees.There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained;however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention.Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In.compliance with RCW 43.21C.240,the following environmental(SEPA)review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal,staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. FRC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVEATBRIDLE RIDGE LUAm-=241,ECF,PP Report of 6rorl Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 i B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5,2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx,dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention(as determined by the City of Renton Arborist)in perpetuity.The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection;however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained.The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit S Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated(dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW,LLC(dated February 5,2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting,Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19,2014) Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27,2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski(dated March 21,2014)- Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22,2014) Exhibit 13 Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts. 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences.Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented during construction ERC Report 14-OW241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales,siltation fences,temporary siltation ponds,controlled surface grading,and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5,2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application.According to the submitted study,the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet.Vegetation consists primarily of field grass,trees,and blackberries.The Soil Conservation Survey(SCS)map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site.Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff.They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits(TP-1 through TP-6)were excavated across the project site.Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations.Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade.The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits(TP-1,TP-3,and TP-6)at depths ranging from 2-3 feet.According to the submitted geotechnical study(Exhibit 7)groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material;therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site,particularly during the winter,spring,and early summer months.The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore.groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report(Exhibit 7)provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork,wet season grading,foundations,seismic design,slab-on-grade floors,retaining walls, drainage,excavation and slopes,utility support and trench backfill,and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content,the geotechnical report(Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months.Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5,2014)(Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures:Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions,NW(dated February 5, 2014)(Exhibit 7). Nexus:SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland,Streams,Lakes Impacts:A wetland report,prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8)was submitted with the application materials.According to the report,the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red-osier dogwood);however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present.The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation,hydric soils,and hydrology)were not present. Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation required ERC Report 14-000241.docx i city of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLgVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 7 of 11 i improvements including paving,curb and gutter,5-foot sidewalks,and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However,the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line(see previous discussion above under Vegetation). ATraffic Impact Analysis prepared byTraffEx(dated December 27,2013)(Exhibit 10)was submitted with the application materials.The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips.Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site.Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips,with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Service(LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection.This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds.The report(Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds.The report(Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156 'Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds,which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes(Exhibit 10)that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development.The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees.Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters(Exhibits 11 and 12).citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate.Based on the submitted traffic report,the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection.The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation required j Nexus:N/A .7. Fire&Police ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Cammlttee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 8 of 11 Impacts:Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation required. Nexus:N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable,their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or"Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3);WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057,on or before 5-00 p.m.on April 18,2014.RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall—71h Floor,(425)430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock(7:00)a.m.and eight o'clock(8:00)p.m.,Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m.and eight o'clock(8:00)p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work,the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90)days. Altemative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year.The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report 14-000241.docx . i I City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-00024.4 ECF,PP Page 9 of 11 Report of March 31,2014 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed*to support a-30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long.Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from.Water District#90 will be required. 3. New hydrantsshall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer. 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144' Street and ext6ending the sewer main into,the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line.The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property.line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main-in the internal access road,to the east property line(with a 10-foot sewer easement).A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on%-inch or 1-inch water is$2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is$63,023.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is$438.16 per new lot.Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. Surface water: 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Deparunent of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENIGCAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA24-000243,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 10 of 11 for the forested condition extending from 50%of the 2.year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and.wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site.Appropriate individual lot flaw control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, CLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is$1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is$36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is$1,430.72 per new lot.The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application. will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips.:Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site.Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site.An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to. determine what; if any impactsthe, anticipated:new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to. the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access.The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements.To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public. street onto 156th. Ave SE, the City traffic:operations may impose left turn restrictions. at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards,frontage improvements along the project side in 156 'Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline,gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb,an 8- foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060 To build this street section,five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. it is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. FRC Report 14-iW241.docx --- ----- City -City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-=241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 11 of 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for,water meters,side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report 14-000241.docx EXHIBIT 1 TW ENa F k s ms.wca< 4 W AWWjr q rl k � k k I 4 J I �4 All m� w ! O�MCN AIO.t sr m� b �X k :pA ! lz t� � <m ��o F z p0� t - — — — _- j ... ..-:.�...-.---- EXHIBIT 2 THE ENCLAVE SIC ! g ee 1fi Y;gp9[1A1 A��_-_-r Z I.� 'b�'j ^l•1'•g 4 �i � �� 1:�E " 1 , ��e! {q�i , ,o +'F • t �e •4x:, c� �; i k � r :f i = 8 i ' IF•i-R�-J', `��' y" �� �•'�•� � ••1-tet 3 a • 1 --•-__� p•__-�- Y 1 :' o w tl ® ��•: •y `+tom' •!�F� J��t'� i f i i 6R-Ewi j `���•' *1�i-w .� `�• t _ C 7_ }t 1 t 1 I 1 ` Q 1 !�FC�6 u. 4E� •'-- -•••.y' ,��f-�..:i _ :� %`__% .f" , •`�f � fir$ �` � .�• •4,`444 I' -----1 ,• �__.'__--i i^�Y-. �' 7 '•t ws i � d d• _ 1-_F�••yy_ I ,1•''• I'----�—{ : ��=iyfi -�•�y'jy` i:.t-���fi RT7� y 1 a�Y .. _{ �'-- �J�y :;;}F4�� I.i 1_ .J i� r: .--� V'%Y 2r'Ri• _'1�"'ZA/:�./� � �. C 1 f jy ' i r ^• ' :1• A {.^. ..- 1 i+ {� •1 -Id' 1•'k� `J - • , � C n11'.••�' •.r• f - y��y.�'i - ,6j��)I1:, '- 7 ` � ' .1, -C-__-' :'�' f SA �/' ` ��1 R•'' 1 i�C'�f. _ T-, . � _ •�_ i. X7 '-%-�.r-��—+7s+- •lam - '_ 'd add @ --+ r f-^; -�'-=�- -L r '-=- --• i_i� i 1 Kk a i 5.1 r'' 1 �Y}� t 1 1 a s� I `� �•K•f�t� 'L,�i f tps•i ��. + 1 r`F�ei i ',+E'v4, � �,at�,�l• :'R �2 .s �LN ' �� �Zjr% � "'t vs Nc•i 1 '� i� �4�a 1 tl��Lt�¢.:�l'l.:' � a,-r _ 5K�^� l= ■3L =�'-- '-^Y '7-- Cv..F s__ `_•' ------� �y�'�y�+e.�..41 H-'----'u=;�' -.i —d-' y to �II tl //;;_- •�� �v YT' e�:` i `' 3 • =pV �Itl{ _'• � �s�nl • f GLC-.jacu Y 'R RM M-4 1 ? st¢; € A to C lit, RS . : zq � I I € Bre }E � x � - - .'�� � & is !• Z _ it a of is'a i@ ° g I© a EXHIBIT 3 f THE ENCUVE f Y Vl� �`�t� o'�`��3�7q�l;�g�� /ted• c �( rix ;s Aep ZK t tee^ �r n -t ^YY t..F - �J � J sl -� •� S4 F rp -a. � � � f :, ��;'- +_1.,^• i fir.�r�L :" ��I �`3 it` ,a Q7� - f � { li - y :T- F ,. nl.'_'^ F i..e Y {..'•7� �: r -t t yW �� . ��� � Ir r• ti"'^I: t tri:- t `. .:, � ' : E_� f7' rtl F �'' 3,. ±} ;Alk „` r J c 3 p.• i - 4 °6 Qi@ Z xc 24 F p d m z r EXHIBIT 4 'ME ENCU i f t g KLZ s:.;..t:_s'.rra•�=ai:L...r�t's.-•��4,% •.-.t `�"=- _ -_''�_."__' _-EY_�=�'G_. �' _ �_�-*_=+:�---_ . ® ®e7���•y.1')\]'111'11 e _ - - __l'. -_-- -« .. _ +�'nsb \•. CL ice~' .Y �• -L _ . ' ' ..fir 1� �y Pr.[ 5 i i, � : � ••� i . l � y�E i � / r ~ 1 f •l 1,n£[F(� s ^�•r �� L�i J+li i� �• � i :ts^ o � 1 / , � tom, �:'_ ,�r ( � '•i. 1 � `ti � a fit KIM IL _ ,-jam ,I:�•.�`��$Y�: �, .�i�.�. �• �,.�-�y .y� _� F � �' m^ I�^ {4b t :. �a ta�l zoo JIM a M Y <m �R D a i z z . X© e + 0 I-r 11 ; •� gItlll IL �t i i - p n �,! :► p .f •' �� (�' a �� a, �-`c� . i I� _ EXHIBIT 6 Greenforest Incorporateu 6 Consulting Arborist 2/18/2014 RECEIVED Justin Lagers,Director of Land Acquisition&Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC CI')Y OF RENTON 9675 SE 36th St.,Suite 105 PLANNING DIVISION Mercer Island,WA 98040 RE:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection,14038156th Ave SE,Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr.Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist.My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023,9057,&9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week-and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet,which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels.Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated.•A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed,and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree,confirmed trunk diameter(DBH),estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary(Near tree 6185)is an infection center for a root rot disease.This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area(actually,semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary)with standing dead trees,recently or previously failed trees,and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillana root rot fungus,as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs-,oozing resin flow,and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street,Seattle,WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 �. St"e)nH.S �R. C��rf,�o� • or • flr�fi�15iER� S�NAL Z`<,(Lk Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED ES-3220 FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PLANN'NG D1UrSION 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 .Fax:425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 'EXHIBIT 8 Sewal 27641 Ccvi Con+inglpn,bvr1�12 I February 3,2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings,LLC 9675 SE 36th Street,Suite 1.05RECI r Mercer Island,WA 98040 IVED FEB 2 7 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton SWC Yob#13-187 Cffy 0E RENTON PLANNU9G D1wZtc)% 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands,streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge"plat,which consists of two Parcels(#1423059023&9122),located on the east side of 15e Avenue SE,in the City of Renton,Washington(the"site"). ftSM3545T 1.6N9A6D ff2?IlMZ �y``rr �¢ ,i7• i�1- h T 4xlV S ..r 00 fawsrm srx ax t amvgfil". e .c3.cene - f+s7.Omxo ' Vicinity Map EXHIBIT 7 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156th Avenue SE Renton,Washington A J WASk �.tS 5232 DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No; OwnerlApplicant ,r-` PCIVE-D 9 NW Holdings LLC E 9675 SE 360 Street, Suite 1,06 FEB 2 7 12,014 Mercer Island, WA 98040 CITY P Deport Prepared by CT—ENTON PLANNIN^,DIVISION D. R. STRONG'Consulting Engineers, Inca 620 7th Avenue _ Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827=3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 02014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS i CITY OF RENTON i Prepared for Mr.Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Prepared by NORTHWEST -- - - TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124h St.,#590 Kirkland,Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27,2013 RECEIVED FEB 272014 C1Ty OF 1ZEWON PLANIVI,%, DIVISION EXHIBIT 11 : David Michalski 6525 se 5"'pl Renton,Wa 98059 r March 21,2014 • I Jill Ding,Senior Planner M Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way r Renton,Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA144)W241/ECF/PD. I live off of S115th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is reg?rding the traffic going North and South on 156 'Ave Se.Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River tit e, traffic on 156x'ave se is unbearable. Coming.out of any of the side streets off 156'ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate"up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down,there is a huge backlog of vehicles _ and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156a'.I feel that an-immediate traffic study be implemented.I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see.Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? V�D r Sincerely, QR David Michalski �rJNrN°ro���rG�ry«CrO Email:dcmichal(o)msn.com Ph#425-271-7837 i i l EXHIBIT 12 March 22,2014 i i Ms.Till Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdinga rentonwazov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms.Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge",Project#LUA14-000241,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled forApriI 22"d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light ofthe accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service . associated with A.M.Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop"situation present at the 142"d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current,the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142"d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.)in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m.is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142"d,and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop",and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 156th even more difficult. The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156'h between SE 5'h Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project,and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health,safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156h from SE 5`h Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also ver concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat,and the existing 156 /I42nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south) from the plat access streets,due to the Iengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156h during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The tragic study also appears to have ignored this reality,in favor of studying the 156'h/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval_ Based upon nothing more than common knowledge,it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156"'/ 142nd intersection,including.appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is suported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies,and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines,septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes,and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5'h Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents ithas annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accomodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines heinc�installed as part�f rhic project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this,it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes,common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project i Rear Yard Designations I i With respect to proposed lot#4,it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code),I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City,it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property,and occasionally have observed owls,hawks,eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally,I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate,misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice(both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached)states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 20 deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22"d public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided,but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus,anyone who comments before April 22"d,but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point,and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter,I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerA.Pau1senna cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application i I —00 City of"-, NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF i NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) i A Master Application has been filed and accepted'with the Department of Community&Economic Development ICED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton.The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA1400024.1,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result In the creation-of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566' square feet Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA34-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result In 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156"Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.23[.130,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin"Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC/9675 SE 36t Street Suite 105, Mercer filand,WA98040/EL-justin@americanclaukhomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction Building,Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Eeonomlc Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth FloorAenton City Hall,1DS5 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLICHEARING: PubBchearingis tentatively fiiiAonY 22 2014 before the Renton before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Clhambers at 10110 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall looted at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would Re to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No_The Enclave at Bridle Rldge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME; MAIUNG ADDRESS: City/StatejLp:. TELEPHONE NO.: City of, COPSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP•RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City`s Zoning tdap.- Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed project:, Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations tlse,dFor Project Mltigaflon: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 [residential Development.,and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate, Proposed Mitigation Measures:, Thel following mitigation Measures wilt likely be imposed on the proposed project These recommended Mltigafion Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above, Pralect constructfan shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report: Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 980S7,by S:00 PM on March 24,2024.This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22,2014,at 10;00 AM,Council Chambers;Seventh floor,Renton City stall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending thehearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-6578. if comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you nray.stlll appear.atthe hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If.you have questions about this proposal,or-i,'M to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will aotumaticalfy become a parrybf record and will be notified ofany decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml:.jding@rentonwa- Oy PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FiLE IDENTIFICATION if you would like to be made a party of record to receive furtherinformation on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Fenton,CED—Planning Ditisicn,foss So.Grady Way,Renton,%VA984S7: Name/File No.:The Enclave at Bridle.RidgOLLIA24.00024I„ECF;PP NAm c': MAILING ADDRESS: -city/state/zip: TELEPHONE No- EXHIBIT E City of,., .-...•ra -�'n.,�i!f.-.ems '+.Ai *eer ,..an. 1: � I NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton.The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. I DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project Site located within the R-4 (Residential4 dwelling units peracre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 - tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from.8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the i project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156"Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M);"As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project_Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110;the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that:a DNS- M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE- February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC/9675 SE 36'"Street Suite 105, Mercer island,WA 98040/EMU justin@amerlcanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studley Drainage Report,Geotechnical'Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Departinentof Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Divisions Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,.1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PU13UC HEARING: Public hearine is tentatively scheduled for April 22,2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chamber at.10:OD AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Half located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be.made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057, Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: Clty/State/zip: TELEPHONE No., I i of CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: . ZoningjLand Use, The subject site is designated Residential low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map,. Environmental Documents that Evacuate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA _ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development, and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures. The:following Mitigation:Measures:will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geatechnlcol report ■ Project construction shaD be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CEO—,Plan nIng Division, 1055 South Grady'Way,Renton,WA 48057,by 5:00 PM on March 24,2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on.Aprll 22,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Roor,Renton City Ha11,1055 South Grady Way,Renton, .if you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-657$, if comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questionsabout this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits,written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml:idinggrentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form,and return.to:City cf Renton,CED-Planning Div€Sion,1955 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.:The Enclave at Bridle-Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: city/State/71p: TELEPHONE NO:: CITY CF RENTON? C�Iltl� April 16, 2014 APR 16 %014 Lo-,S;1fn RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 Re: Requests for Reconsideration and Appeal Dear City Clerk's Office, Enclosed with this cover letter,please find my official Requests for Reconsideration and Appeal, pursuant to the guidance provided by your office, and the information contained within Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E). t- � Also enclosed is the required fee for the Appeal,in the amount of$250. It is my understanding that the Appeal fee will only be processed if my Request for Reconsideration is denied, or results in no change in the City's Threshold Determination. I plan to be traveling between this date and what I understand to be the earliest possible formal appeal hearing date of April 22, 2014. If a new hearing date is set, or if any associated procedural actions are required,please contact me via electronic mail at RogerAPaulsen(kcscom. A phone message may be left for me at (425) 228-1589. Thank you for your assistance in navigating what has proven to be a complicated process for an ordinary citizen like myself Sincerel o er n 6617 SE 5`''Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 Enclosure(s): Request for Reconsideration,with attachments Request for Appeal,with attachments Personal Check#9443 1J a� CITY OF RENTON 1 � April 16, 2014 r APR 16 1014 `S�1 � 4 �}• � ` nri� n4 r to RECEIVED IyV1V'*1 City of Renton �Q' V� /1V 1 ( CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Attn: Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall P r e 1055 S. Grady Way y� Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Appeal of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project#LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Appeal is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant-- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration and Appeals processes work in concert with one another. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated and file this request in a timely manner leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Appeal Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Please note that at the direction of the City Clerk I have also filed a concurrent Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2) with the understanding that if the Reconsideration Request is not granted, this appeal will be processed, and my appeal payment check cashed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Appeal. 1 Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Appeal (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5th Place/ 156th AVE SE intersection,my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Appeal and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Appeal. Identification of Concerns for Which This Appeal is Requested The issues for which I request this Appeal relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Point of Appeal#1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: "The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Kenton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development" By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this,where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: 2 Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious,in addition to in error. Point of Appeal#2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,the Committee states: `The Trac ImpactAnalysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Service (LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity..." This report goes on to conclude that: ":..the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SEI SE 142 d Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156th/ 142nd Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156`''Ave SE/ 142nd intersection is the ONLY exi_stin intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5th Place),the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17th),the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156th at SE 5th Place, or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. 3 Point of Appeal#3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and#2 above,when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156`'', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may `...impose left turn restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D,Page 10 of 11,Transportation Item#3). This already contemplated"remedy"identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156th/ 142 nd intersection,but also suggests that the City's "remedy"will force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156th, further degrading the Level of Service at the 156`''/ SE 5th intersection,and other intersections to the north along 156th. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156th, the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Appeal. Concern#4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer,we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements, the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `7t is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact(sic) the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements." Unfortunately,nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156th/ 142nd intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 &the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156`'/ 142nd, or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. 4 Concern#5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie; the transportation impacts of the proposed project)I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below dated April 15,2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any imprnvements are avarranted(if any)...". This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15`h) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC,as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Appeal. Sandi Weir From: Steve lee sent Tuesday,April 15,201411.14 AM To: CityClerk Records Cr. Jan€ilian,fill ging;Neil R.Watts;Jennifer T.Henning:Rohini Mair Subiett: RE:New Public Records Request-PRR-14-085(Paulsen) Attachn*nts: TranspoConcPoljcy140415,pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City process for 6oncurrency,standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4~6-070. I believe this is the information Mr.Paulsen is el:Mri Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22nd. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22nd, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. (Exhibit E"Notice of Application...") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22nd°and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting once again to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Appeal, I ask that the Hearing Examiner take the following action: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour,including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5d'Place and 156d'Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156`" • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, that the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Please note that at the time of submittal of this request for appeal, I have pending Public Records Requests pending with the City of Renton. Assuming those requests are satisfied in a timely manner, I respectfully request the ability to further inform the record in support of this appeal prior to or during any open record hearing which may be held for this purpose. 6 Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request Appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Respectfully Submitted-, Rog n 6617 SE 5`''Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A-SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B-Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C-Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D -Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E-Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jding(&rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project#LUA 14-00024 1, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142 n that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 1391h Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142 d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this proj ect. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd,but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at Ro gerAPaul senAc s.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 EXHIBIT B THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 8675 SE 3e St.,Suite 105 Mercer!stand, WA 98040 Prepared by IV rz7'R?*w.-f.6f7'AEX 7-RAFFI c Ex)=E-RTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax:425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 rraffayNORTHWEST 7)mP v EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th 2.X590 52 4 11 Phone:425.522. 1 5 fax 42 .522.4311 December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156th Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156th Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Trips per unit Entering Exiting Total Average Weekday 9.57 148 149 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 6 17 23 25% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 630 371 31 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering)inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation. for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156''Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142nd PI. Residential Access Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Mae 156t'Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156th Ave SE is straigdht and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" PI. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. is an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156th Ave SE or SE 142nd PI. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 1569'Ave. SE and the 156"Ave SE/SE 142nd St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156th Ave SE/SE 142ndPl. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay)and LOS F the worst(congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS)for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge �aff TYPE OF A B C D INTERSECTION E F >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. Signalized 10• <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 0 _ _ Stop Sign Control `<0 >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%)from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Allevs in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft.from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge �fi�ralff approximately 250 ft north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of$75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X$75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. = Contribute the approximately$21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(cD,nwtraffex.com or larry(a)_nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, �ypNA t p tr Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 156 'Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd Pl. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Caaacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 TRAFFIC EXPERTS x 5t Inn M n, ";E2nd PI SE 135th St' El -a 17tl� etihce 3E s , < us SEI 371h St . CL "ro� Ri m p SE4th St V < r H" .. SE 139th P[ . - SE 141stPf' _.. 'SE 14 SEt4 Slte :� nd St Ut C-- PI SE_143t'dSt to 3 SE. E 14� 1 nth,fit_ �. tis x � "th til =," '—SE 14st si The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map AlfENORTHWEST rRAFFtc EXPERr9 . r , ISMAVESE Al its �.•: t C! r E I � I a �� E r i t { _J ! w rK1.. I I CO 4 , I r t I sy I E y. th �g t �„► t { it E L' ;.I t:_ t t p 1 ,a. , ! F The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Figure Site Plan 2 : O 7 RAFFIc Ex, --ars SE 139th PI n• r*s adt Site SE 141 st:PI K b Mi ` M j co 5E 1420d St SE 142nd St,- } 1 t... SE 163rd Si.:MIN t r'2 v M N Accessi 156th ave N r— �4 z t r` 1 M M S Access/156th Ave N 4-# i PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume 0, t Legend Enter 20 Exit 11 15% Percentage of PrajectTrafftc Total 31 156th Ave!SE 142 PI — 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume The Enclave at Bridle Ridge•City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution 3 60 NORT1iWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS u+ SE 139th PI s;n .Project ':' Site SE 141 st °t o th m p SE 142titt St 'Q SE�3 ,SE 142nd St ` SE f AX G7 � A� = SE143W Sr +gar ro - rri r UCN rn- Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project m 0 t �`0 +` 4 ` `� 4 rQ � r (D ` U t r 0 t r 2 t rr 2 M CDr N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave m ti C14 O a N ti n O 0 (D k.4 4 t rr0 t rr Q r r CI) a t r 1 t r 1 (0 � � m m CD m S Accessi 156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave LO to CD c� t 309�.O 328x' t 4-, 3 332.,' t 100'., t 106��� 0', + 106' t rn 4 CO oCIA rn 0 156th Ave/SE 142 PI 156th Ave/SE 142 PI 156th Ave SE 142 PI 156th Ave/SE 142 A The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Prepared for Tr affex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phorm(263)926.6009 FAX:(263)W-7211 E-Mail:Teern@TC2imco m WBEDBE Intersection: 156th Ave SE&SE 142nd Pl Dab of Count Tues I V17t2013 Location: Renton.Washingutn Chocked By: 3ess Tame From North on(88) From Soulh on(NB) From Easton(WB) From Wast on(EB) Interval Inmcal 156th Ave SE 156th Ave SE p SE 142ad Pl Tobi Eudine at T 1. 1 S R I T I L S R I T L S R T I L I S R 4:15 P 20 16 t26 0 32 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 70 0 28 283 4:30 P 6 0 13 172 1 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 27 308 4:45P 2 0 IS 156 0 28 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 29 345 5:00 P 0 0 18 179 2 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 20 328 5:15[ 1 0 19 1 148 1 28 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 24 306 5:30 P 1 0 20 148 0 19 l0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 72 0 28 297 5:45 P 0 0 29 1 151 0 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 29 339 6:00 P 0 0 24 144 2 IS. 14 0 0 0 0 0 I 74 0 17 291 615P 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 1 0 0 0 0 0 6.45P 0 0 0 0 '0 00 0 0 0 7.00 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Survey 12 0 1 157 1224 6 1 179 117 1 0 1 p 0 0 0 1 618 p 1 202 2497 11eakilau: 4:15PM tc 5:15 PAI Total 9 0 68 655 4 92 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 0 100 1287 Approach 723 155 0 409 1287 *AI4V 1.294 21% Na Na 1,011 PHP 0.93 156th Ave SE 1095 1-�0 Bike SE 142nd Pl o5s 6a =JPcd 747 Pedl-0 Bike 0 11561 309 4il9 4:15 P1.4 1u 5:15 PM ton rEn. Au N S E W Ped 92 63 Fl-3801 1.0 PIIF Peak Hour Volumre INT 010 Bike 0 PIIF.41V INT o2 p EB m?a KT 03 0 168 t55 Check Wil Ufa WT 04 0 in: 1287 NB INT 05 __J 0 323 Out: 1287 SB 1 NT 06 PEDS 0 156th Ave SE Tlmt. 0.93 1.056 INT 07 0 BicyclesFrorn: NS6 I WSB it sea PIT 08 E _... 0 OrT of 04T 09 [ 0 WT 0i- ._. 015+ WT 10 0 INT 09 0 15+ INT II.� i 0 *rr 04 _0 I5+ NT t2- iI i 0 INT 05'_ ___..08-10 0 NT 06NOB11C1-50 840 Special Notes INT 07 0 9-10 Rolling queue headed SB-at most there WT 08. I . . ._0 5-8 were 5-8 vehicks actually sWPpcd. INT 09 _ 0 15+signifies rolling queue as fat as I could see. WT 10 i _ I 0 INT it i __.. _.._0 INT 72 0 01 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 TRA13184M.-Olpi Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd P)& 156th Ave SE 1212612013 ww Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 309 100 92 63 68 655 Peak Hour Factor 0.93, 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93` Hourly flow rate(vph) 332 108 99 68 73 704 Volume Total(vph) 440 167 777 Volume Left(vph) 332 99 0 Volume Right(vph) 108 0 704 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree Utilization,x 0.75 0.30 1.12 Capacity(veh/h) 572 526 679 Control Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 ' 94;8 Approach Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach LOS D 8 F' Delay 62.9 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7°/6 ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 "% t ► Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 328 106 98 67 72 695 Peak Hour.Factor 0.93 0.93: 0.93 0.93: 0,93 0.93- Hourly flow rate(vph) 353 114 105 72 77 747 Volume Total(vph) 467 177 825 Volume Left(vph) 353 105 0 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 747 Hadj(s) 0,03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.3 Degree UHrrzation,x 0.80 0.33' 1.22 Capacity(vehlh) 571 518 665 Control Delay(s) 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach Delay(s) 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach LOS D B F Delay 85.8 HCM Level of Service F intersection Capacity Utilization 90.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12/2612013 4N t l Lane Configurations Sign Control` - Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0:93 0.93 ' 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 loll Volume Total(vph) 471 180 828 Volume Left(vph) 357 105 0 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 749 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.4 Degree Utilization,x 0.81 0.33 1.23 Capacity(veh/h) 571 516 662 Control Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach LOS D B F Delay 88.1 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 t Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 2 4 177 3 7 774 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 00% 0% 0%,' Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flowrate(vph) 2 4 190, 3 8" 832` Pedestrians Lane Width(h) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None —None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft)`- pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1039 192 194 vC1,staged conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1039 192 194 tC,single,(s) 6.4 ' 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) IF(s) . 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 99 gg cM capacity(veh/h) 256 855 1392 Volume Total 6 194 840 Volume Left p p g Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 p p Control Delay(s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS g Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3°!° ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 t Lane Configurations �► Volume(veh/h) 1 4 176; 3 7 769 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0°/Q 0% 00% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 4 189 3 8 827 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median typeNone None Median storage veh} Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1033 191` 192 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1033 191 192 fC,single(s) 6.4 62 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) IF(a) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue tree% 100 99 99 cM capacity(ueh/h) 258 856 1393 Volume Total 5 192 834 Volume Left 1 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 585 1700 1393 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 3 EXHIBIT C Y � ::m POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 - 9:00) or PM (3:00 —6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site-generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format. The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assignment: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site-generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM-PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area. 1 EXHIBIT C Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi-phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site-generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary, the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage, these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/12/2008 H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\TIA GUIDELINES\GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 EXHIBIT D �, of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY r , k AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE. March 31,2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager. Jill Ding,Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156`h Avenue SE, Renton,WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell,WA 98012 Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: 14038 15e Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 Project Summary, Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B) and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being rernoved from the proposed subdivision.The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage.An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057.All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. Exist.Bldg.Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg.Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area(gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 SF Total Building Area GSF. N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION. Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). � r ■ Project Location Map ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community&tconomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 1423059023,and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences.The project site is located within the R-4(residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density(RLD)Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.The surrounding properties to the north,south,and east of the project site are also zoned R-4.The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250)was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat..An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel.The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future,separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.80 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre(after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication).The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots,the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and B).Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention.Tract B would be located at the northwest corner of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new"looped" public street(Roads A and B)with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156th Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials,which identified 303 existing significant trees.Of the 303 existing significant trees,the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees.There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained;however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention.Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. [PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In,compliance with RCW 43.21C.240,the following environmental(SEPA)review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal,staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14-OW241_docx Gty of Renton Department of Community A Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE WA14-=2_41,ECF,PP Report of Error!Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5,2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity.The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection;however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained.The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC(dated February 5,2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19,2014) Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27, 2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014)' Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) Exhibit 13 Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences.Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented during construction ERC Report 14-OW241.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community&monomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA24-000241,ECF,pp Report of March 31,2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences,temporary siltation ponds,controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5,2014) (Exhibit 7)was submitted with the project application.According to the submitted study,the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet.Vegetation consists primarily of field grass,trees,and blackberries.The Soil Conservation Survey(SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site.Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff.They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits(TP-1 through TP-6)were excavated across the project site.Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade.The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits(TP-1,TP-3,and TP-6)at depths ranging from 2-3 feet.According to the submitted geotechnical study(Exhibit 7)groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material;therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter,spring, and early summer months.The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore.groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report(Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork,wet season grading,foundations,seismic design, slab-on-grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backfill,and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content,the geotechnical report(Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months.Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5, 2014)(Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus:SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland,Streams,lakes Impacts:A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8)was submitted with the application materials.According to the report,the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red-osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present.The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation,hydric soils,and hydrology)were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERC Report 14-000241.docK City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE 1UA14.000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 5 of 11 Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Impacts:The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report(TIR), prepared by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. (dated February 19, 2014) (Exhibit 9).According to the TIR(Exhibit 9)the upstream areas to the north and east of the project site are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible.The existing runoff from the project site sheet flows across the property towards the southwest corner of the site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the site on the east side of 156tH Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. Runoff continues west across 154th Place SE and discharges to Stewart Creek,a Class 3 stream. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report(Exhibit 9).The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map,this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition.The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre- developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50%of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow.The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site within Tract A.The pond will discharge to the existing conveyance system in 156th Avenue SE.Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) identifies the soils as sand glacial till.These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Overall,it is anticipated there would be no impacts to stormwater as a result of the proposed project, provided the project complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the Renton Amendments. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus:N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts:A Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan(Exhibit 5)and a Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18,2014) (Exhibit 6)were submitted with the application materials.The Tree Inspection Report states that of the 305 significant trees identified on the project site,81 are considered dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200.The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5)identifies 35 significant trees for retention. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However,the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are sold as individual lots,each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in perpetuity within an easement.Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees.The 23 trees proposed for removal (identified as trees ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&tconomk Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14 4241,ECF,pp Report of March 31,2014 Page 6 of 11 5406, 5408-5415, 6181-6185,6234,and 6229-6231)have been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report(Exhibit 6).The City's arborist will review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6) and verify which trees located along the east property boundary are available for retention.Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that an easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist)in perpetuity.The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Mitigation Measures:An,easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity.The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection;however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained.The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. Nexus:SEPA Environmental Review Regulations 4. Noise Impacts:Temporary construction noise is anticipated as a result of the subject project. Based on the provided construction mitigation description (Exhibit 13)the applicant has indicated that construction of the plat improvements is anticipated to begin in September of 2014 and finish in February of 2015.The construction of homes is anticipated to begin in April 2015 and finish in April 2016. The applicant has indicated that construction would comply with the City of Renton's adopted noise ordinance. As such,the temporary noise impacts are anticipate to be minimal and limited in duration. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts:The project site is located within the vicinity of three parks. Maplewood Heights Park is located to the east of the project site and Maplewood Neighborhood Park and the Cedar River Trail are located to the west of the project site. It is anticipated residents of the proposed development would utilize the existing parks within the project vicinity. It is not anticipated that the proposed development would adversely impact the City of Renton parks subject to the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 6. Transportation Impacts:Access to the project site is proposed via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. In addition,a dead end access is proposed connecting to the property to the south of the project site for future development.A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround is proposed for emergency access pending future development to the south. Frontage ERC Report 14-OW241.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14.OW241„ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 7 of 11 improvements including paving,curb and gutter,5-foot sidewalks,and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However,the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27,2013) (Exhibit 10)was submitted with the application materials.The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips,with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service(LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection.This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds.The report(Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds.The report(Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds,which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10)that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development.The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12)-citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report,the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection.The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 7. Fire&Police ERC Report 14-000241.doac City of Renton Department of Community&t,onomk Development tnvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE ATBRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 8 of 11 Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus:N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable,their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or"Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3);WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055.South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m.on April 18,2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the. Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall—7th Floor, (425)430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock(7:00)a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m.,Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year.The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report 14-000241.docx . Gty of Renton Department of Community&! )mic Development ronmental Review Committee Report THE ENaAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 9 of 11 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed"to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from.Water District#90 will be required. 3. New hydrantsshall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and ext6ending the sewer main into, the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line.The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property.line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main-in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement).A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on%-inch or 1-inch water is$2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is$63,023.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance'of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is$438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. Surface water: 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&' nomic Development ironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLA VE A T BRIDLE RIDGE LUA24-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 10 of 11 for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report iidentifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is$1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is$36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is$1,430.72 per new lot.The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffx Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to. determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access.The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements.To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8- foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060.To build this street section,five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&f )mic Development 'ronmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 11 of 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report 14-000241.docx . . EXHIBIT 1 THE ENCI Q isf Ff a mo.wtII a 0 ldAD/Ap;A( jil y� fill a a ' a �A 4 e� w j AWRL A[ D a mg ya mn 1 2p It(M Alpt(ft � 6 m � V �rS Z � 1 s EXHIBIT 2 THE ENCLAVE t •a• ' _ _ aw• iw are 7[ Y•i:1, 1•?• y 'Y /1.r{.�J.� ..f'- _S1•, P � j � I dl • , . �T 1 C ��,JJJI"'� TTT�a 1 $ 8�/gk 1: e l ,• .1I`r �'� r¢1 Illfff }j�i � �t I S j P�11 I I �•iV�' I;9� ��I; rl�l�SRl• k^1 i,• "`f'i p � Y Isrpi e:• LPA \•'d 1 t � •e J,..� T . _ E � •' ,� R / •r' i � I I i t 1- , �! f�I`�� �' e�21•�,� l r' .•��?' isK-c p � i ��.s i �;•'�N,�l ,,�' .r� v .� A R ` � - r ��I ..��• .,�A' I -• 1,• 1•. _ �� :f' S •� . [`:�•1 ,�'a I RI � ' Emil I• ,1• :ib, 1 - ���•;' _' ^yv ^ .. [1t ��� •t �°j_� {:r I i ';C } '� iJ' t .=1 'i• ,i j 'M-' �.: 'R ��• v/ F^i i l -��`'� l l.ys bIZF I" - P � ,. -CWN IA t I fia 1 1 1 i-~• •.� 'I, I•�..cc••....J 'Y- _ rr y .I+_ : 1'd+ 2 . E• 1 I {v. �� I /'i h � .•1•- 1 %I - 6t1:/• ?•�•/' I ' : lk g@ 1 i; -Y- I�--_ 1 C y� 1 = ,� 1: E ! 1 •y�=.;J••':'•JI1r'• 11{ � / �,y e •s� 1�• : Tva' -�'1ae�://� /:xis —� r '.may . •.d, �•. G'1 gPi A` � - ',__r_� _ __ _ _� . '•, .d ��. /Q .d'ew '•• y fi `Z ' ., j��,ZJi! a , 'r. �-k � Y..•����i � � •i lr'_-� r'' y` vat I�� �� rrry,,aN r f �/���l ' �, i �• � t:w_�Ir t ��4 � I-�,,t��,�� • �.�. E€"��2 TT 'a til L =�`-�'�� Yj''�`-- `-ygc��, y --t__� -----��'��-^ II �--".-----� �r"fi=A-.i �v• -X11 ��I !f! '� _ � ��T' avrr.• 5`:� �'1 �i, 'tL?��I _dc. + g S' ��Oth � � ••� f:czz.paaoaaallaa �A V J� 1.ED•� � ��.��� __�,•L..i—l__.,.—._ . s....._.._ � tom• jr c P1 p In Jill 0 ON, If I PR cm f��� �' p� '' •••su:ssasss � Z - . pp YE fig: �Bi � ee; 4 ` iFa � .,...."�. ...�.,.,.�,....�.`..�� � EXHIBIT 3 THE ENCLAVE Y Ll L� SSSf y� \as �AVE'le= ' - ppt� �� a i k��o��1� >><F�u i i "�`I';°t"i➢ k_� rx t - 1 ' :➢` Ftt alai .yiy�,ti �rr ,,tjy i t:• j f y�,t� "'1,+�k •--�! �¢� �I F ftS�j r d ! LS-` 1 ,� ttiL W �j�` l' p• cx 1 , ` ,gyp �+ 1 t��L+�k,�I a slY a 1`��s�. �FZ�.�r�`i• r �— ���� f'�*'`t�� . _ 1 . t f !; 'i j! t'ia 1• ..I ��-: 4- 1 tl 1.:�i��� � -�, 1 F 'il '�. •i r -_ , .�f ;v 4------Y i �, y � -�" Erle?Ssn,��'�:. �i"V� 17, I .!' ...,u•"", X11 t.+ "I Nrr I. Li'.`r• Gt{S S IIhn R'1 `Ajm ;8 S!a 1 ili f I 'k tb '.lirt ' 1 iEl t YS i r ,c to !xo 4 [ 1 e i 39 YHLB.9t_x IX QO ( a a _,, �. E $ SEA _, @ z> It 22 M S * z m z r EXHIBIT 4 THE ENCU Q p� ,IE & 8 $Qr`.kyS.;rt/pr,��� IW .�4---x•—•t 1�,,-r.s�-/ _�:s�•4 :moa.i '::4:•—•_. -r _�., ._'E. _��"'L_. ._':__.. �'�'t _ `-- +' S �� � j!t•� y5• ••� =P •gyp S� • �� �� 1 ��' l�n� I! r• 1 I •(L•a E> � :;A °"'o4 1 a ,•• - 1 '�w i Atr i Jill Iq �� _� • -c rg�y /�• 'w �n1 g � �, �'� �r� Yeo• •���� x ��:k�`•�� ', ��, •x��y�`^••...t�-a f�'� •: Q m. 1 d y Z- R c y �C I ado . Q � , z �r � .:. as O O ►e Y EXHIBIT 6 Greenforest Incorporateu onsu ting Arbo - ist 2/18/2014 RECEIVED Tustin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition&Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC CITY 01" RENTON 9675 SE 36th St.,Suite 105 Fu WIFdiNG DIVISION Mercer Island,WA 98040 RE:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023,9057,&9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week-and inspected the trees indicated on-the sheet,which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels.Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated.A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed,and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. identified the species of each tree,confirmed trunk diameter(DBH),estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary(Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease.This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area(actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary)with standing dead trees,recently or previously failed trees,and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus,as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs.,oozing resin flow,and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street,Seattle,WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 �. Ste en H. Avr S Geologist '7A fl,-,t 0, 67tip . NAL Kyle 2 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON DECEIVED ES-3220 C FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF DIVISION RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PLANNING 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 i Toll Free: 866-336-8710 e EXHIBIT 8 Sewal 27641 Cove C,a�ngbn,bvr� L February 3,2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings,LLC 9675 SE 36th Street,Suite 105 KEEN PD Mercer Island,WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton FEB 2 7 214 SWC.lob#13-187 CITY 0e= IZ-ENF N PLANNING nivJsrflv 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge"plat,which consists of two Parcels(#1423059023 &9122),located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE,in the City of Renton, Washington(the"site"). 25±PNVl9 A?SM7C37 W25.20006J � Yr±]]POUlO i• n u±M]4C J Ir69rQ90FI llpl13W7 •l�6�tX.YOEr r rr Ir63rO106! tr6N09liEv ; NN7 � ]]6JpOp7P ._Jfif fr 1 ?�59�M t� r7fC39Ot].f" rrWrGyWB7 rbYrCVOJ r834000tl0 Vicinity Adap EXHIBIT.9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038156'Avenue SE Renton,Washington A. J w WASH dao • s A 5232 NAL DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant /'"`` PNW Holdings LLC (} 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 FEB 2 7 2014 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by CITY PiAtVNIls!;DIV�lSlo roN D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6207 th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 02014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by AOFAW rrdaff &M* - NORTHWEST TRAP FIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124 'St.,#590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF REIVM F-UNNto ING DIVISION 4_. EXHIBIT 11 David Michalski 6525 se 5'pl Renton,Wa 98059 r March 21,2014 I Jill Ding,Senior Planner a Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SESth pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concem is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156 'Ave Se.Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the„,„;,__,_ traffic on i5 x'ave se is unbearable. Coming.out of any of the side streets off 156"'ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down,there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156'".I feel that an-immediate traffic study be implemented.I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than i see.Has anyone thoughfabout additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, QR 2 4 2� �. 14 David Michalski P1L6r1YV p�R��rO Af Email:dcmichal@msn.com G�lv/SrCN Ph#425-271-7837 EXHIBIT 12 March 22,2014 Ms.Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Mingarentonwagov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms.Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge",Project#LUA14-000241,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 51i Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE P Place in light of.the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service . associated with A.M.Peak period trips northbound on 156h Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156h and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156h north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5h Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139x'Pl.)in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd,and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 15611 north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop",and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 1561'even more difficult. The addition ofANY new trips to SE 156''between SE 5a'Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project,and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health,safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 15e from SE 5`h Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat,and the existing 156'1142"d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south)from the plat access streets,due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156h during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156`h/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge,it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 1560,/ 142nd intersection,including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies,and is clearly wan-anted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes,and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5's Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it,has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommo future waste water access to the new sewer lines hPin2 installed as part of th;c project. —�—�— While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes,common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4,it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lotof this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code),I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City,it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property,and occasionally have observed owls,hawks,eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally,I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate,misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice(both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached)states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 240'deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided,but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus,anyone who comments before April 22nd,but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point,and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter,I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsenna.cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice ofApplication City Of,; ni i rl i ~• � � �/' .�. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted-with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton.The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME- The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and'a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566" square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA34-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423OS9OS7 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 1403815e Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore, as Permitted under the RCW 43.21C.116,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appea I period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROIECTCONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers/PNWHoldings,LLC/9675SE36' Street Suite 105, Mercer island,WA 98040/EML-justln@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth Igoor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Publichearinit is tentatively vheduied'foi April 22 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton 9-ouna9[hambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton Clty Hail located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,10SS So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No--The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA144000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/StateRp:. TELEPHONE NO.: City Of CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map.. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project Environmental($EPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project MItigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project,These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geatechnical report, a PrDlect construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Division, 105 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by S:00 PM on March 24,2014. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall,2055'South Grady way,Renton. If you are Interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430.6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Nearing Examiner. if you have questions about this proposal,or%vish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager, Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jiff Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Erol:jdinggrentonwa.gov !. F 3 SIM i � ...� ♦IY <tH PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FiLE IDENTIFICATION if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Inforiaation on this proposed project,complete this form and return to,City of Renton,CED—Planning Dh4sion,2055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 48057. Name/File No.;The Enclave at Bridle R)dge(LUA14-000241,ECF;PF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/23p: TELEPHONE NO.: EXHIBIT E City of t r j F Ity I NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and 8)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038150'Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCA71ON: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers/PN W Holdings,LLC/9675 SE 36th Street Suite 105, Mercer Island,WA 98040/EML:justin@americanclassiahomes.cam Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 22 2014 before the Renton Nearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hail located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-OW241,ECF,PP NAME. MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO: City of ,. I� 4 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shaff be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments an the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by 5:00 PM on March 24,2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April ZZ,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hail, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Tei: (425) 430-6598; Eml: idin,g@rentonwa.gov d ®a a PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: 1�Y o CITY OF RENTON Receipt NP 2109 U City Clerk Division _ 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 A 425-430-6510 Date ❑ Cash ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Notary Service Check No. L�L43 f� ppeal Fee ❑ Description: -A-&\/\ Funds Received From: Amount $ Name J Address City/Zip y Cz SSignator - �V � k The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Engineer Owner PNW Holdings LLC Maher Joudi Richard Ouimet 9675 SE 36th St,105 D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers 2923 Maltby Rd Mercer Island,WA 98040 10604 NE 38th PI,232 Bothell,WA 98012 (206)588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com Kirkland,WA 98033 Owner Party of Record Party of Record Sally Nipert M.A.Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI 14004156th Ave SE 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE STH PI Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 (425)226-6594 (425)271-7837 ...........__..... Party of Record Party of Record _ Party of Record _. Wade Willoughby Roger Paulson Gwendolyn High 6512 SE 5th PI 6617 SE 5th PI PO Box 2936 Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98056 (206)909-8505 (425)228-1589 highIands_neighbors@hotmaiI.com Party of Record - Party of Record Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 SE 5th PI Mazama,WA 98333 Renton,WA 98059 (425)226-3408 Page 1 of 1 f CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: April 16, 2014 To: City Clerk's Office From: Lisa Marie Mcelrea Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA (file) Number: LUA000241, ECF, PP Cross-References: PRE13-001566 AKA's: 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Manager: Jill Ding Acceptance Date: March 10, 2014 Applicant: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC Owner: G. Richard Ouimet, Sally Lou Nipert Contact: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PID Number: 1423059023, 1423059122, 1423059057 ERC Deter in tion: DNS-M Date: March 31, 2014 Appeal Period Ends: Aril 18, 2014 Administrative Decision: Date: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: April 22, 2014 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Appeal Period Ends: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. Location: 14038 156th Ave SE Comments: ERC Determination Types: DNS - Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M - Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; DS - Determination of Significance. Denis Law. City O r Mayor May 222014 Comm unity&.Economic Development Department . ,- C.E."Chip"Vincen,t,Administrator ''Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Stachowiak:. Thank you for your comment letter: Your letter has been included in the official file for consideration by the decision maker. You have.been added as a party of record for this th project. A hearing"has been scheduled for June 24, 'at 8:00 am, you may wish'to attend and tesitfy.The hearing will be held on the.7th floor of City Hall''in the Council Chambers: Please contact me at (425) 430-6598 orjding@rent,onwagov if.you have any questions. Sincerely, Jill Ding Senior- Planner Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057 •"rentonwa.gov Denis Law - Mayor C11Y'�r Ofd �Y - � " 7, „NTS Community&Economic Development Department -May 22, 2014- C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator M. A.Huniu 6608 SE 5th.Place Renton, WA,98059 SUBJECT: Enclave at 6'ridle Ridge, LUA14-000241,-PP, ECF- Dear Mr. Huniu: This letter is to inform-you, as a party of record for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, that the hearing for,the EracJave,at Bridle Ridge'Prelimin' ary,_Plat has.been rescheduled for June 24th at 8:00 am. The hearing will be held on the 7th floor of City Hall in the. Council - Chambers. Please contact meat (425) 43076598:or jdi ng@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. . Sincerely; Jill Ding Senior Planner Z. Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady"Way • Renton;Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law . _ Mayor City of, CY p ` May 22;,2014 Community&Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent;Administrator, Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98U59 SUBJECT: Enclave at.Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Willoughby: - This letter is to inform you; as a party of record for the Enclave at Bridle-Ridge; that the hearing for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat has-been rescheduled for June th at 8:00 am. The hearing will be held on the 7th .24floor of City;Hall in the Council. Chambers. Please contact me,at(425)430-6598'or,jding@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jill Ding Senior Planner - Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov' D City Dr1� -10-1TUI`I NOTIC OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECt NAMD The En .tBHdle Rldea PROIER NUMBER: WA14-000141,ER,PP LOCATION: 14038154"'Ave 5E,Rentm,WA98059 BESDURION: PnPesad."Moe.of an BJ—-Im eke boated..N,the AA (Pasldemkla dweRbeunib peravej3111.8dulenatl—The Pngaal wouldrwlt IntM mss ,131IWand 3 tram IT—A and Bj wM•naw publk senat.TM Pnp,nd bb woultl rage N tke ham BASO Munn feat to 12,566aqua.leer.Arcus to tlw naw lebwwMhe pnelded vbanew Publkrtraet aR 4154th—SLAT Brae ad)urtmam(WA14000250j b pmpued Wtwun ba Wrtab 1423059053 eM]423059132 whkh will.auk ' b 30,1)5 aqua.laet,l panel 3423059053 belni nmOvetl hom dw pepatetl eubdbW,n.TM dte b rymnHy tlevNoped wIN two slryle hm1ly,Wtlenoa and a debrhed BanK M ub0iq mldanu b peposed to nm>In m prral 142 3 05 9 05 3.A0 other mvRuru are p p, d m be.mend tbw9h Uw wbdMsb,pass.No - Wtlol anu en peaent m Ne p,)act ske. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPAR ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appals Of the envlrmmental d-1-1..must be Filed In w,Ring m or before 5:00 p.m.m Jyne 6,2014, te8ether wkh the required fee wkh:Hearin{Examiner,City,f Renbn,1055 SwH,Grady Way,Re—n,WA 98053.Appeals t,the Examfner are Beverned by City,f RMC 48-110 and W—Atlm MIudln8 the ppea( process may tK ebfeinad from the Benton City Oarks Ohre,(425)4304510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL,1OSS SOUTH GRADY WAY,RENTON,WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 24,2014 AT 8:00 AM TO CONSIDER'THE PREUMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CRY OF RENTON,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT 475)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAVING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. / CERTIFICATION hereby certify that 3 copies of the above docu Were posted in 37 conspicuous places or nearby the desc 'bed property on ment Date:_ Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/thee fre�and��olunt�Zct for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DateI \\%%jjj-H 0 Nota ublic in and for the State of Washington 40� _ Notary (Print): 2 Avs��1 �� 1 My appointment expires: OF W AS`r � Denis Law CiOfty Ma or � f _ Y k Community&Economic Development Department May 22, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent;A dm inistrator Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton,WA 98059 .1 RE: Enclave at Bridle.Ridge Pre.limi.nary Plat/ LUA14-000241; PIP ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: . As part of the review of your Request'-for Reconsideration, the-City conducted an independent study of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection.The study concluded that the 156th nd Avenue SE/SE 14Z Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal.The City`has .added and is.prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at.this location to its.Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated"through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not- significantly otsignificantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th-Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection;the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share for the installation of.the trafficsignal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would.-occur as apart of this project,, but would occur-at a later date as additional funding; becomes available: If,you have any further questions on this matter, please contact JiII Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430-6598 or via email atiding@rentonwa.goy. Sincerely, t.E. „Chip„ Vincent CED Administrator. Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton,City Clerk Justin Lagers„Applicant Sally Lou Niper,Owner G.Richard Ouimet;Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way ; Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ® �City0f��� . M E M- O R A N D ' U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes;Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne(Tgmail.com? Recommendation: I We should place this inter-section ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants-a-ccordin'g to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C=4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer: Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.. h:\division.s\tra nspor.tat\operatio\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc Page 438 2009 Edition l' Standard: " " y The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the a fallowing conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: *" D8' th A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on ;; tri the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection;or, B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-1 exist on set. the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection. z. Si In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On 0i the minor street,the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: 05 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph,or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000,tlie- traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. <tF Guidance: "of p di Ds The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations 1t;here Condition A is not satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives': Jd that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. ¢�oa Standard: �•. 07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: !Sj A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on �am Su the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection;arid'` d1 :i B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist oti f a> a;1r the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection. . ' ` l These major-street and minor-street volumes shalt be for the same$hours for each condition;however, `he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B5t On the minor street,the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of 02 the 8 hours. �¢ Vie, Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Volume Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicles per hour on higher-volume traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) minor-street approach(one direction only) Major StreetMinor Street 100-'6° 80%1, 70%° 56%a 100%, BQ%° 7p% 56%a 1' 1 500 400 ,350 280 1'50 120 105 84- `• r 2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 -tor more 2 or,r�iore 600 -480 420 336 200 16D --.140 112 1 2 or more 5Q0 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition 13—Interruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major sheet Vehicles per hour on higher-volume traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) minor-street approach(one direction only) Major Street Minor Street loo 8Q%° 70%° 56%! J_100%' 80%° 70%- 56%d77F777 1'_ 750 600 525 420 .. 2 or more 1 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 2 ar more 2 or more 900 720630 504 �(SO 8p 7p .: �. u J 1 2 or more 750 600 525 420 t00 Bp 7 58 Basic minimum hourly volume >e °Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures �u °Maybe used when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 °May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the a' major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 Sect.4C.02 - ' Deambcra,,. , z. Page 440 2009 Edition,,1 �=" t e" 1 `1 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume r 500 1 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES i 400 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE MINOR STREET 3o0 1 LANE& 1 LANE HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 10o 115* z so, t: L: 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH) i 'Note:115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume fora minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the tower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. i Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 E� T T-T7 MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES 300 .I MINOR . 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE ; STREET HIGHER- VOLUME 200 1 LANE& 1 LANE APPROACH - VPH 100 4 ' 80 _T_ 60' 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 's MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH) . 'Note:80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Sect.4C.04 IIettmber20Q4; s 9Q09 ELI iIion Pa;e 441 L Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 600 r 500 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES W MINOR STREET 400 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE HIGHER— ANE 300 1 LANE&1 LANE — ` APPROACH — . s. VPH 200 I 150* 100 100' `Sf 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. i' Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) t 400 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES MINOR 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE STREET 300 HIGHER- VOLUME I 1 LANE& 1 LANE .` APPROACH — 200 VPH 100 100` 75' I 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH) ` *Note:100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower rs'" threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. r O�cembet 2ttU9 Sect,40.04 Signal Priority Ratings: A=Number of correctible accidents in a 12 month period AR=Accident Rating =100/5 x A Vm=Average of the 8 highest hours of main main street volume in veh/hr(total both directions) Vs=Average of the 8 highest hours of side street volume in veh/hr(total both directions) Note:right turns on red and/or free right turns are subtracted from the side street volumes. K=reduction factor= {0.97 In(Vm/Vs))-0.32 Cv=Capacity constant Note: When the 85th percentile speed of main street is>40 MPH, MUTCD volume warrants are reduced therefore, reduce Cv so that Cv=0.49 x Cv Number of Lanes Main Side Street Street Cv 1 1 750 2+ 1 900 2+ 2+ 1200 1 2+ 1000 VR=Vehicular Volume Rating=(Vm x Vs)/(K x Cv) Pm=Average of the 8 highest hours of main street pedestrian in ped/hr(total both directions) Wm=width of main street in feet Cp=pedestrian constant=78000 PR= Pedestrian Volume Rating=Vm x Pm x Wm!Cp Total Rating=AR+VR+PR Intersection —T ?AES: Vm Vs Cv �Tt ::`::: Pm Wm ":::PR::: Tojal; Dor e SW 41 st ST/Qakesdale AV SW 5 ;I:0"0: 615 407 ,,Q a8- : 900 345&AO: S 4th ST/Williams AVS 0 ::::0:::: 442 357X. 0;x;1,';: 1000 #338:47: 12 43 NE 44th ST/1-405 NB Ramps 3 ::Gp:: 539 476p2o:: 900 ;=X429,42: 0.5 40 SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 :12Q: 7833Q6 Q:�9 1200 33 ; 4::: 0.5 51 pfi:: 4:5$ done S 7th ST/Talbot RDS 0.3 '::6::: 990 315 :::4_. 9::> 900 -A.38:1:8:: 9 74 NE 12th ST/Union AV NE 0 :l)::: 449 220 O'3T:" 750 354:06: 6.25 45 SE 31st St/Benson RD S2 :::4D:' 1221 270 ;'::1-A4::.: 1100 ::•26.2:-0:4':: 0.33 51 ::0.26::::::3G2:,: done NE 4th ST/Hoquiam AV NE 2 :<4C3' 1899 153 -:::2:1.2::: 588 ?:232_74: 0 62 ::000*:.:::2T3:: done S 55th ST/Talbot RD S 3 ::Bp0' 898 174 27 750 163$0 : 0.37 36 Q f5 224::: N 44th ST/1-405 SB Ramps 3 ::60; 460 179 OzQ', 1000 1.38;26 : 0.17 56 NE 12th ST/Kirkland AV NE 6 :120: 542 120 1 3Q".:; 900 ::::f;3;25;: 5 38 T 32:: SE 142nd PU156th AV SE 0 0 9761 167 4 `; .750 '1.5p;Q7:; 0 39 S Eagle Ridge DR/Benson RDS 3 ::6 . 1148 93 2; 2;: 539 93:83-;:: 0 39 N Landing LN/Garden AV N 0 :?:Q 504 158 ::':0.8 E:: 750 ':13:1::8T: 16 41 ::4:24>::`•7:3.fi`" NE Sunset BUHoquaim AV.NE 2 ::40': 838 69.5 :::2:10 368 :::7.5:65 1 37 ;:0:40::`:116:;: done S Carr RD/Mill AV S 1 :::2D:: 1887 44.5 :::3 3 k;::: 441 ::::57:44=::: 1 49 ::.1:: NE 4th ST/Bremerton AV NE 2 ::4&::2035 20 >;:4::16:::: 441 ::::22x6;::: 4 56 ::'S' 4:: SW 34th ST/Lind AV Sw 2 :: 1161 49 2j, ? 1200 #7 24 0 58 p 00: 57 NE 21 st ST/Duvall_AV NE 1' :::2Q 1310 37 3 #4.;: 441 0.5 53 0,46: 85.,_ done NE 12th ST/Duvall AV NE 1 ::2p: 994 37 2,:$ :: 441 .29,04 7 51 S 26th ST/Benson RDS 0 >::0:; 1008 27 ::3:a9 368 ::::23,:1 7:':. 15 47P21 ::`32:::: done NE 6th ST/Duvall AV NE 0 4: 949 38 .2:80<, 441 29::1;9: 2 58NE 10th ST/Duvall AV NE 0 :;:0 458 48 1::87: ' 441 26`613:-' 6.38 58 NE 4th ST/Queen AV NE 0 : 0::: 1641 16 4' 0.161 66 0:22-: f4:-: TOM 9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142nd Place/156th Avenue Southeast WARRANT 1 Meets warrant—volumes meet Condition B for eight hours. WARRANT 2 Meets warrant—four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-1 for seven hours. WARRANT 3 Does not meet—this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. WARRANT 4 Does not meet—the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. WARRANT 5 Does not meet—this is not a school crossing. WARRANT 6 Does not meet—there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. WARRANT 7 Does not meet—there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. WARRANT 8 Does not meet—We classify 156th Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142nd Place as a residential street. WARRANT 4 Does not meet—This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. FN:TOM8620W J d :Ip (`,(D M t() O;� p N �'f`!Q N .M CO �- N Q' � d N M 00 N 00 M co d 'CD to M.0 0 0 d CD r` N O:N O' F— ch O ,r.r oo f� ;t` h ;00;r"� OiN N M d'.1�.CD, OJ (0tfN ri f-- : In . .... d- �- r- r N OJ O r h. O 00:r C� `(D O COD COti O:'� .�- CD;O LO U):co:N.IN U) U-) d ;OM'C� CD CD Otn N p`N ti LY]: N ti O C D;CD;ltd;O Lf):M h. O r r 10:0'd C7iN'r ; N J m CD tom- M (+) 0 00:O N O N.O :M o 00 :CD d r [i7'(� CDM t- (A W N r r r M CO M O O d r O CD 00:c- to!�t Co CD N LL �- (D CD CO:d M IN M :d "t co N;N,<O � � co r r Z ....._.... . tV N Lum : O Nip 00'O N ti 00 00 :u3 00'M O t1� M00 M N (� C14:Lo CDOLC') ONN`h �E MI`,O0 d r ;NN:NNNNM ,t (o;ti NLr) Nr- r0 O CD co - }� ti r``O d O M M M Colo M In o0 M d ti m CO�t 0 yr N N N d M d .M t!� Im tt N.M N,N.N N N N;M M M CO C\I N Z 00 N M CO :00 04:� t..:Lc) N CD C O I- Co O N'to 0)'o0 r r O "r- CD o0 0) O M'cf (A CD r:p f` Cn CD O N .� LO CD m t` CD rt N o0 O'0 M Ln CD N "t M 00 (D f` O r p 0 Z' c- N 0 M 00M'M;N c- 0'00 O Lo (D M O 0 N v- co Cn r N r r N r: :.M N .._........... ............ t} � 0000000000 'OO 'oo:aOoOOO 'QOOO ZOOOOOOOOoOo .0 ,0000:0000;0O ,Oo ; co: L►J r' N M;dO' COjNi00 C3) O `- N 'Mc7 4T' - .. --- __........ _._ O . CDO O O O:o O O O 0:O 0 0 Of 0 i 0 0 'O O Q o 0 0 0 :0 0 0 0.0 10 lo!o O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O.O O O o 1—< _ SNC`) O (DIS ;00 (A 'O `' NM:d' Lf)I(DtiN ,WO ,Or- NM Denis Law - Cit y Of , Mayor. - t I. fit, May 22, 2014 Community&Economic Development Department C.E Chip,Vincent,Administrator . Washington State . Department of.Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL(SEPAI THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of-the Environmental Determination Memo of . Reconsideration for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on.May 19, 2014: SEPA DETERMINATION: 'Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated-(DNSM) PROJECT,NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14=000241,'ECF, PP Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or.before 5:00 p:m. on June 6, 2014,together with the required fee with .Hearing Examiner; City of Renton; 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057.Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City'Clerk's Office, (425) 43076510: Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental-Determination for complete 'details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6598: For the.Environmental Review Committee, Cl Ti' s ° r , Jill Ding Assistant Planner . Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatrrient Division Ramin Pazooki,WSDOT,NW Region Boyd Powers;Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher,WDFW Karen Walter,Fisheries,Muckleshoot Indian Tribe D.uwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert,Muckleshoot CulturalResourcesProgram Us Army Corp.of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler,,Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation Renton City Hall< 1655 South Grady Way < Renton,Washington 98057 < rentonwa.gov Denis Law Cl Of�. Mayor- SY r 11, (l( 11 I I ��E(��tt�'� � j♦ Ma 22 2014 Community&Economic Development Department y C.E..'Chip"Vincent,Administrator Justin Lagers PNW Holdings;.-LLC .967536th St ,Ste. 105, MercerIsland,.WA 980.40 " SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL(SEPA)THRESHOLD DETERMINATION" The Enclave at:Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241; PP; ECF Dear Mr Lagers: " This.letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to-advise you that they have.completed their review of the request for reconsideration and have retained the existing threshold Determination ofNon-Significance-Mitigated with , Mitigation Measure. Please,refer to the enclosed ERC memojor detail of the Mitigation ` Measure. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed`in writing on or before 5:00. p.m..on June 6, 2014,_together.with'the required fee with: Hearing Examiner,:City of. Renton, 1,055 South Grady Way,_Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed.by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process maybe ,obtained from the City Clerk's;Office,..(425),430-6510. If the.Environmental Determination is appealed,a'public hearing-date will be set and all parties notified. Also, a public hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers;-on the seventh fioor of City Hall on June 24,2014-at 8:00am to consider the... Preliminary Piat.:The applicant or representatives) of the-applicant is required to be present at the"public hearing. A copy.of the staff recommendation-,will be mailed to you prior to the hearing.` If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will-be- heard as part of this public hearing. If you.have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430=6598 For the Environmental Review Committee, Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Wash ington 98057 • fentonwa.gov Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 36th St,Ste. 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Page 2 of 2 May 22,2014 ,cif ? . Jill Ding Senior Planner. Enclosure cc: Richard Oimet,Sally Nipert/Owner(s). M.A. Huniu, D. Michalski, W. Willoughby; Roger Paulsen,Jason Paulson, Eloise Stachowiak/-Party(ies) of Record ERC Determination DNSM Reconsideration.14-000241 - _City Of, � , 1� o� ..' .: r OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP LOCATION: 14038 156"Ave SE,Renton,WA 98059 DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage.An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.on June 6,2014, together with the required fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Appeals'to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON,WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 24, 2014 AT 8:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. 1]916 ® Ib1 4 3: Ido 1� IJOIO 11007 � I 11003 0 taOl 1 @,d `III 8708 61 802 11 trT y. 4 I Ot 11 I] t 402 1013 tat 9 at1, tAlt I,B3 � � 134.0 �,116 8l Ofi taY 1 la7as ®t�T tato � s 1u tso2n 4 J t ® 12.U � ■ ]0! 'I1t0 1] ta3 t 14214 tam t9ul feezl w Isata I'rTII s [±�j� FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. CITY OF RENTON. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT'-PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING, On the 22 day of May, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA reconsideration/determination documents.This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Applicant Sally Lou Nipert Owner G. Richard Ouimet Owner See attached Parties of Record See attached Agencies (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTONSS -P i, COUNTY OF KING ) = PUP- 4 _ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante 0 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for�b►N449p29n�i oses mentioned in the instrument. (?� Co Dated: pl N t ry Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print): 61[Q POh>'�--tC5 My appointment expires: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge o LUA14-000241, PP, ECF LUA 14 j00241 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE i..JGE OWNER/APPLICANT/PARTIES OF RECORD M.A. Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI Wade Willoughby 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE 5TH PI 6512 SE 5th PI Renton,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulson Richard Ouimet PNW Holdings LLC 6617 SE 5th PI 2923 Maltby Rd 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Renton,WA 98059 Bothell,WA 98012 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 14004 156th Ave SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 SE 5th PI Renton,WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98333 Renton,WA 98059 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept.of Ecology** WDFW-Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave.NW Suite 201 Attn:Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah,WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Auburn,W498092 WSDOT Northwest Region* Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn:Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev.Serv.,MS-240 Seattle,WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn,WA 98092-9763 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp.of Engineers* KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn:Gretchen Kaehler Attn:SEPA Reviewer Ms.Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S.Jackson ST,MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia,WA 98504-8343 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers*** Depart.of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia,WA 98504-7015 KC Dev.&Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn:SEPA Section Attn:Tim McHarg Attn:Jack Pace 35030 SE Douglas St.#210 Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev.Director Snoqualmie,WA 98065 12835 Newcastle Way,Ste 200 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle,WA 98056 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Kathy Johnson, Steve Lancaster,Responsible Official Gary Kriedt 355 110`h Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Mailstop EST 11W Tukwila,WA 98188 Seattle,WA 98104-3856 Bellevue,WA 98004 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura Attn:SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle,WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an`Optional DNS",the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,&Notice to the following email address:sepaunit(cDecy.wa.sov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT, &Notice the following email address:sepacenter(@dnr.wa.eov template-affidavit of service by mailing CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 20 day of May, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containingSEPA reconsideration/determinatioridocuments.This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Applicant Sally Lou Nipert Owner G. Richard Ouimet Owner Parties of Record See attached (Signature of Sender): � , �t STATE OF WASHINGTON SS __ �h �A', COUNTY OF KING ) yy�O;k rn I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntarj us nd purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: y Notar ublic in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print): My appointment expires: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge m LUA14-000241, PP, ECF M.A. Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI Wade Willoughbv 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE 5TH PI 6512 SE 5th PI Renton,\A'1 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 Justin Lagers �,,Ao ger Pauisbn Y Richard Ouimet PNW Holdings LLC 74617 SE 5th PI 2923 Maltby Rd 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Renton,WA 98059 Bothell,WA 98012 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Saliv Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 14004 156th Ave SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 SE 5th PI Renton,WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98333 Renton,WA 98059 f, Denis,Law Mayor City C)f/ SY r! Community&Economic Development Department May 19,2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator Roger Paulsen 6617 SE Stn Place Renton, WA 98059 ; Subject: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP;ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) held a meeting on May 19;2014 to consider your Request for Reconsideration, submitted April 16, 2014.: Please-find attached to this letter a copy of.the decision of your Request for"Reconsideration signed.by the members of the ERC including one.new SEPA mitiga:tion.measure. It you have any questions, please contact the project manager,All Ding, at (425)430-65.98 or via_email at jding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely; � , 1 Gregg Zimmerman . Environmental Review Committee,Chair Attachments cc:. Bonnie Walton,"City.Clerk Justin Lagers/Applicant Sally Lou Nipent /Owner- G.Richard Ouimet/Owner• Parties of Record Renton City Hall 1055-South Grady Way,. Renton,Washington 98057 . rentonwa,gov" DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Q Citv of��� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). The DNS-M was published on April 2Q14 with an appeal period that ended on Aprit-18 2014. A request for reconsideration of the SEPA determination was received on April 17, 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment:The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration,the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. After conducting the additional analysis,the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot.docx Environmental Review Com- e Page 2 of 4 May 19,2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x$500,000=$3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 156th _. - " - Avenue SE/SE T42"d Street intersection; it did not include a LOS analysis for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item # 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development". The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic_is 15.1 seconds,the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot.docx Environmental Review Com, e Page 3 of 4 May 19,2014 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period,the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the existing DSN=M with one new mitigation measure as follows: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation,the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x$500,000=$3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot.docx Environmental Review Com e Page 4 of 4 May 19,2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: Gregg Zimmlraq4A�;�ini strator Mark Peterson, Administrator Public Workpartment Date Fire & Emerge n y Services Date Terry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community& Date Economic Development hAced\planning\current planning\projects\14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot.docx � NL7RTNW�3T 7"I2.4FFlG L�XPE17T� 11410 NE 124th& #590 Kirkland. V 98t1 Phony 425,522. 118 FaX425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142nd PI SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M i DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142°4 Place at 156t'Avenue Southeast Issue: i Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142"d.Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmail.com2. -Recommendation: f We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a _ -new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156 h Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 404 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and.a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. i This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports o€ the five accidents.. h.-\dMsions\tra nspor.tat\operatio\ron\tom�tom9645a.d oc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D c;crOf{� M E M- O R A N D U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142"d Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 15e Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne(@mail.com? . Recommendation: i We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for ' Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of j Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C=4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these,only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports o€ the five accidents. h.\dMsion.s\tra nspor.tat\operatio\ron\tomVom9645a.doc ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots,with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.1)as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130%of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Proiect subiect to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.1),which is listed for reference: Transportation Concurrency Test-TI -lave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18,2014 D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required:A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required:Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test:If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan,payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 PpPp'- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U P DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142"0 Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: i Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142' Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmail.com? . Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156 'Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these,only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. Mdivisions\tra nspor.tat\operatio\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc COMMUNITY& © ,, 0f� i"` ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JJ�IInJJ}ll M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18,2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots,with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.1) as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130%of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Proiect subiect to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.1),which is listed for reference: Transportation Concurrency Test nclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18,2014 D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required:A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required.Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test:If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan,payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 G THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by rraffiC7 /VDRTHWEST AWWX TRA FF/G' EXA7ER TS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 rraffay /1141 O NE 124th St. #590 Kirkkan�d,0 98034 Phone,425,522.4118 Fax:425,522,4311 April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analvis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 h PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"d PI. SE/SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142"d PI SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rraff queues were observed to back up from the 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 PI/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142" PI/ 156th Ave SE Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5th PI./156th Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/156th Ave. SE)the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th PI. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th PI. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 PI/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 15.2) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 13.3) SE 142ndPI/ 156th Ave SE Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ?ralff FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142nd PI. SE/156th Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rra fm, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(a-)-nwtraffex.com or larry(o)nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, a AL025 tp e„ Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 �. �1 SE 5th PI NLTRTtfWEST �a 7RAFrlc Exp--RTs u tv Project Site s. ` SE f 42nd x�d St ICU% Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic Project% with Project of Total CN M co co O CN N O N04 O O O M N 0 + `�4 0 + 4 0 + �� 0 16 0 �� 4 L 1091 O O O 0 0 0 0 / 0 0 O 0 0 t rr 0 t rr 1 0 t rr 0 1.47% Q t rr i O 'tet <— O 00 O N O O O C14 O c SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave M N N O M O N N M N O� 0 O -0 + �� 6 19 + ��6 O 11088 O t rrQ t rrQ f r r Ln o M O 2 1.75% 2 N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access,/ 156th ave Ch O N N Oce) O N N M N Q a �` 1 15 O r Oro OOt61084 O r6 t r0 t rt rr3 1.38% t rr3 Ln o M o O 04 cn S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave to N O CN CO cli co N 620,' 658-0) + 1�'� N 7 659J'� 40� ® � ® , ® 1223 , ® t 42 , t 0 , t o.57°i° 42 , t rn o o o 156th Ave/ SE142 PI 156th Ave/ SEI 42 PI 156th Ave/ SE142 PI 156th Ave/ SE142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 ' 1 r SE 5th PI r Nnartrw�-sr ' Ti YAFF7c ExpcR rS . "Projects_ INK Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic Project% with Project of Total CO M M ti0 22 `2 a �tCO 3 a �t3 t �` 0 1214 O r O r 0 , t r 2 t r'2 t r 0 t rr2 00 o 00 o m M 00 CO a COC13 SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave CO C=) 0 0 n 00 r- 0 a ALO 1 1`0 t ``4 27 t ` 4 O 2 11209 2 t rr0 t rr0 O r2 ° O r 2.23/o t r 2 O C:) . M In M M CO N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access✓ 156th ave LO O CO O 000 O `0 + �`0 + � 20 a 3 r O r O �4 1202 O 4 t r 0 t r 0 t rr 1 1.66% t rr 1 M O O M M M M M a0 S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave CN 00 CO N N O CD GO N .— C*4 CO � CO 279,O 296,' + 4�� + 9 300, ' 4 ® ® ,390 111' 118', 0 0', t o.s5°r° 118', t I-- 00CO LO O O N N 00 M 156th Ave/ SE142 PI 156th Ave/ SE142 PI 156th Ave/ SE142 PI 156th Ave/ SE,42 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge- City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Ira ., AFF/C OATH GATHER/NG TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 7:00 AM -9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:15 AM TO 8:15 AM Peds=0 284 728 U) m U-Tums :3 C 0 Q 282 2 LO SE 5th Place 4 5 1 0 O n U) a U-Turns a) a 3 Lu HV PHF 724 1 C/) m SB 5.6% 0.77 0 c INTERSECTION a� NB 4.8% 0.95 U-Turns s PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0.0% 0.63 283 725 LO IN 1,014 INTRS. 5.0% 0.96 Peds =0 OUT 1,014 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor 156th Avenue SE @ SE 5th Place Renton, WA COUNTED BY: CN DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/22/14 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM-9:00 AM REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22/14 WEATHER: Rainy 71 re TRAFF/C DATA GAWAFERIWO INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: _156th Avenue SE tog SE 5th Place DATE OF COUNT: Tue.4/22/14 COUNTED BY: CN Renton,WA TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM-9:00 AM WEATHER: Rainy TIME FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON INTERVAL 156th Avenue SE 156th Avenue SE SE 5th Place INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT Peds HV UTurn Left Thru Right Peds HV:.UTurn Left Thru_M2LPeds: HV UTum Left Thru Right Peds HV UTum Left Thru Right 05:15AM 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 AM 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0` 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 05:45 AM 0 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0. . 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0'. 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1i 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.0'' 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 06:15 AM 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0:. 0 ' 0 0 0 0 00- 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 06:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0 06:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:: 0. 0 0 0 0 0 ":0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.` 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 ". 0 0 0 0 6 "0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 07:15 AM 0 .5 0 0 37 0 0 2 0 0 123 0 0 ''0; 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 161 07:30 AM 0 5'. 0 0 92 0 0`-' 6 0 0 162 0 0 %0 " 0 1 0 1 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 256 07:45 AM 0 3. " 0 2 61 0 0' 4 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 08:00 AM 0 5`-" 0 0 73 0 0: 13 0 0 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 06:15 AM 0 3 0 0 56 1 0 0 12 0 0 183 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0'-' -0 0 0 0 241 08:30 AM 0 2 0 0 51 0 0 0' 0 0 167 0 0 ,'0 • 0 2 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0 220 08:45 AM 0 3- 0 0 57 0 0- 11 0 0 184 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 09:00 AM 0 4" 0 0 50 0 0 13 0 0 176 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 227 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 16 0 2 282 0 0 35 0 0 724 1 0 0 -- 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 284 725 5 0 1014 hHV 5.6% 4.8% 0.0% #N/A 5.0% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.77 0.95 0.63 #NIA 0.96 PHF-Peak Hour Factor 7:00 AM-9:00 AM PEAT(HOUR: 7:15 AM TO 8:15 AM REDUCED BY: CN DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/22/2014 ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON 156th Avenue SE 156th Avenue SE SE 5th Place INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Pads HV I UTurnj Left I ThruRi ht Peds -HV UTum Left I Thru I Ri ht Peds I HV I UTum Lek Thru Ri ht Peds HV UTurn Lek Thru Ri ht 5:00 AM-6:00 AM 0 10- 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 '' 0 01 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 j 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 LJ■LJ TRAFFIC DATA GATHER/NG TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 7:00 AM -9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:15 AM TO 8:15 AM Peds=0 w 280 729 U a� c U-Turns m Q 0 m 213 67 SE 142nd Place 310 0 11 F-'T ums a- 0 620 660 40 uWi 97 109 HV PHF m INTERSECTION c 0 SB 6.1% 0.96 a� PEAK HOUR VOLUME Q U-Turns NB 1.9% 0.59 s IN 1,146 107 206 EB 5.3% 0.92 OUT 1,146 Peds=0 INTRS. 4.9% 0.92 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak Hour Factor 156th Avenue SE @ SE 142nd Place Renton, WA COUNTED BY: SN DATE OF COUNT: Tue.4/22/14 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM-9:00 AM REDUCTION DATE: Tue.4/22/14 WEATHER: Rainy 71r9 TRAFF/C BATA GATHER/NG INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 156th Avenue SE(a)SE 142nd Place DATE OF COUNT: Tue.4122/14 COUNTED BY: SN Renton,WA TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM-9:00 AM WEATHER: Rainy TIME FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON INTERVAL 156th Avenue SE 156th Avenue SE SE 142nd Place INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT Peds HV UTum Left Thru Right Peds HV-UTum Left I Thru Right Peds HV UTum Left Thru Right Peds HV UTurn Left Thru Right 05:15 AM 0 D_ 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 AM 0 0`. 0 0 0 0 0- -0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ''0 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 05:45 AM 0 0 '- 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'= 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 AM 0 0': 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 :-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:15 AM 0 1 0.:.. 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0. 0 0 0 0 0 '0' 0 0 0 0 0 06:30 AM 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0'' 0, 0 0 0 0 0 '.0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 06:45 AM 0 0 '. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -'- 0 0 0 1 0 [0-0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM 0 D 0 0 0 0 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 %0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 07:15 AM 0 5' 0 0 25 28 0 2 ' 0 15 23 0 0 D - 0 0 0 0 2t 0 108 0 15 214 07:30 AM 0 6: 0 0 25 46 0 0 0 35 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7'' 0 136 0 13 277 07:45 AM 0 2!: 0 0 18 51 0 1 0 26 62 0 D "0 0 0 0 0 5'--" 0 144 0 10 311 08:00 AM 0 5 0 0 14 59 0 1 0 13 11 0 0 '-0 ', 0 0 0 0 9 0 171 0 8 276 08:15 AM 0 4 ,. 0 0 10 57 0 2. 0 23 14 0 0 0'' 0 0 0 014` 0 169 0 9 282 08:30 AM 0 1--` 0 0 10 44 0 1 0 20 10 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0 7';' 0 165 0 10 259 08:45 AM 0 3''' 0 0 9 52 0 0 0 28 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12'. 0 171 0 9 276 09:00 AM 0 4 0 0 9 39 0` 3'- 0 26 18 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 ' 0 143 0 1 6 241 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 17 0 0 67 213 0 4 0 97 109 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 1 620 1 0 40 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 280 206 0 660 1146 HV 6.1% 1.9% #WA 5.3% 4.9% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.96 0.59 #NIA 0.92 0.92 PHF-Peak Hour Factor 7:00 AM-9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:15 AM TO 8:15 AM REDUCED BY: CN DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/22/2014 ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON 156th Avenue SE 156th Avenue SE SE 142nd Place INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Peds :HV I UTurnj Left I Thru RI ht Peds HV UTurn Left Thru Ri ht Peds 'HV UTurn Left Thru Right Peds HV UTum Left Thru Ri ht 5:00 AM-6:00 AM 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L�J�LJ THA FF/C OATH GATHER//VG TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM Peds=0 760 361 � (D U-Turns 3 C N 0 Q 753 7 LO SE 5th Place 3 5 2 0 O u a S U Tum LU d 8 HV PHF 358 1 Cn m SB 2.1% 0.96 0 c INTERSECTION NB 1.7% 0.91 U-Turns = PEAK HOUR VOLUME WB 0.0% 0.63 755 359 L IN 1,124 INTRS. 2.0% 0.94 Peds=0 OUT 1,124 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak Hour Factor 156th Avenue SE @ SE 5th Place Renton, WA COUNTED BY: CN DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/22/14 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM -6:00 PM REDUCTION DATE: Tue.4/22/14 WEATHER: Rainy 71ra TRAFFIC DATA GATHER//VG INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 156th Avenue SE CrD SE 5th Place DATE OF COUNT: Tue.4122/14 COUNTED BY: CN Renton,WA TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM-6:00 PM WEATHER: Rainy TIME FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON INTERVAL 156th Avenue SE 156th Avenue SE BE 5th Place INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT Peds HV UTum Left Thru Ri ht Peds HV. UTurn Left Thru Right Peds -HV UTum Left Thru Right Peds 'HVA UTurn Left Thru _Eight 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0.' 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-: 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 '. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0.:' 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 i.. 0 0 0 0 :0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 03:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0' 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0 --:0 0 0 0 0 0. 0.: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0' 0 0 1 0 0 0 0' 0 1 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0 0': 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 :0 '. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 0 3'- 0 0 181 0 0 2 0 0 90 0 0 '.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 271 04:30 PM 0 3 ' 0 0 198 0 0-: 2" 0 0 98 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0-` 0 0 0 0 298 04:45 PM 0 4' 0 2 191 0 0 S 2 0 0 89 0 0 :'0 0 0 0 0 0 0'1 0 0 0 0 282 05:00 PM 0 1': 0 5 182 0 0`' 1 0 0 1 83 0 0 '0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 272 05:15 PM 0 1 8 0 0 182 0 D 1 0 0 1 88 0 0 -0 0 0 0 2 0 0': 0 1 0 0 0 272 05:30 PM 0 2 1 0 1 1 173 0 0 1 2 '' 0 0 1 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 D' 0 0 0 0 271 05:45 PM 0 4's- 0 1 192 0 0: 1 0 0 87 0 D 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 281 06:00 PM 0 1.: 0 1 154 0 0' ,2, 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 18. 0 7 753 0 0: 6 0 0 358 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 760 359 5 0 1124 %HV 2.1% 1.7% 0.0% #NIA 2.0% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.96 0.91 0.63 #NIA 0.94 PHF=Peak Hour Factor 4:00 PM-6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM REDUCED BY: CN DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/22/2014 ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON 156th Avenue SE 156th Avenue SE SE 5th Place INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Peds. HV.'JUTurnj Left I Thru IRI ht Peds -HV UTum Left I Thru Ri ht Peds I HV I UTurn Left Thru Ri ht Peds HV UTurn Lek Thru RI ht 2:00 PM-3:00 PM 0 0..:. 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 D" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TTRA,F, DATA GATHER/NG TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM Peds=0 Lu 750 364 a� c U-Turns (D a 0 Lo 682 68 SE 142nd Place 758 0 -Tums a 0 279 390 111 -Y vi 76 85 HV PHF (D INTERSECTION c 0 SB 2.8% 0.95 a� PEAK HOUR VOLUME > � U-Turns NB 5.0% 0.91 IN 1,301 � 179 161 EB 1.0% 0.88 OUT 1,301 Peds=0 INTRS. 2.5% 0.93 HV =Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak Hour Factor 156th Avenue SE @ SE 142nd Place Renton, WA COUNTED BY: VT DATE OF COUNT: Tue.4/22/14 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM-6:00 PM REDUCTION DATE: Tue.4/22/14 WEATHER: Rainy T.AFF/C OATA GAT/AF*V/A/G INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 156th Avenue BE Cd BE 142nd Place DATE OF COUNT: Tue.4/22/14 COUNTED BY: VT Renton,WA TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM-6:00 PM WEATHER: Rainy TIME FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON INTERVAL 156th Avenue BE 156th Avenue BE BE 142nd Place INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT Peds HV UTum Left Thru Right Peds HV UTurn Left Thru Right Peds HV'.` UTum Left Thr. Right Peds HV- UTurn Left Thru Ri ht 02:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -'.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.' 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 `0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'. 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 D 0': 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 --0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.' 0 0 0 0 0 0 `0 0 0 0 0 0 0` 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0_' 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 0'' 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 =0 0 0 0 0 0 0' ' 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 0 3 0 0 16 155 0' 3- 0 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0- 0 76 0 29 314 04:30 PM 0 5 0 0 27 166 0 4 0 19 25 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 78 0 33 348 04:45 PM 0 4 0 0 14 183 0 0' 0 18 20 0 0 '.0 0 0 0 0 0 1..;.. 0 72 0 20 327 05:00 PM 0 2' 0 0 10 167 0' 4 0 24 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:> 0 56 0 24 301 05:15 PM 0 10 0 0 17 166 0 0` 0 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2'. 0 73 0 34 325 05:30 PM 0 3 '.1 0 1 0 7 171 0'' 3` 0 20 26 0 0 `0 0 0 0 0 0 4'- 0 73 0 19 316 05:45 PM 0 3 0 0 14 176 p` 1.` 0 19 30 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 80 0 36 355 06:00 PM 0 0.` 0 0 15 139 0`. 2`. 0 15 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2'--: 0 84 0 19 303 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 21 0 0 68 682 0 8 0 76 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 279 0 111 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 750 161 0 390 1301 %HV 2.8% 5.0% #N/A 1.0% 2.5% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.95 0.91 #N/A 0.88 L 0.93 PHF-Peak Hour Factor 4:00 PM-6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM REDUCED BY: CN DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/2212014 ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON 156th Avenue BE 156th Avenue SE BE 142nd Place INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Peds HV UTum Left Thru RM ht Peds HV.UTum Left Thru Ri ht Peds HV UTum Left Thru Ri ht Peds HV UTum Lek Thru Ri ht 2:OOPM-3:OOPM 0 0 ' 0 AM EXISTING PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 t �► l Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 1 4 724 1 2 282 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 4 762 1 2 297 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1064 763 763 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1064 763 763 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 99 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 248 408 859 0�11 MR Volume Total 5 763 299 Volume Left 1 0 2 Volume Right 4 1 0 cSH 361 1700 859 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.45 0.00 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 15.1 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 15.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C 51=11 Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 AM EXISTING PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 4% t 1 Lane Configurations 4 T, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 620 40 97 109 67 213 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 646 42 101 114 70 222 Volume Total(vph) 688 215 292 Volume Left(vph) 646 101 0 Volume Right(vph) 42 0 222 Hadj(s) 0.23 0.11 -0.38 Departure Headway(s) 5.7 6.5 5.9 Degree Utilization,x 1.08 0.39 0.48 Capacity(veh/h) 625 546 602 Control Delay(s) 83.1 13.5 14.1 Approach Delay(s) 83.1 13.5 14.1 Approach LOS F B B ' x .. MIN� Delay 53.7 HCM Level of Service F intersection Capacity Utilization 74.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 AM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 t �► l Lane Configurations ► T+ Volume(veh/h) 1 4 768 1 2 299 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 4 808 1 2 315 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1128 809 809 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1128 809 809 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 99 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 227 384 825 .« Volume Total 5 809 317 Volume Left 1 0 2 Volume Right 4 1 0 cSH 337 1700 825 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.48 0.00 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 15.8 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 15.8 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C g! 11110 222 yi Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 AM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 ` t lip I NONE= Lane Configurations 14 T Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 658 42 103 116 71 226 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 685 44 107 121 74 235 Volume Total(vph) 729 228 309 Volume Left(vph) 685 107 0 Volume Right(vph) 44 0 235 Hadj(s) 0.23 0.11 -0.38 Departure Headway(s) 5.8 6.5 5.9 Degree Utilization,x 1.17 0.41 0.51 Capacity(veh/h) 618 543 599 Control Delay(s) 113.4 14.0 14.8 Approach Delay(s) 113.4 14.0 14.8 Approach LOS F B B Delay 71.4 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4 4/26/2014 I 1� 1w # Lane Configurations Y T+ 4 Volume(veh/h) 1 4 780 1 2 303 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 4 821 1 2 319 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1145 822 822 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1145 822 822 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 99 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 222 377 816 Volume Total 5 822 321 Volume Left 1 0 2 Volume Right 4 1 0 cSH 331 1700 816 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.48 0.00 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 16.1 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 16.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 4 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 t r� �► 1 Lane Configurations ► Volume(veh/h) 2 6 775 1 2 302 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate(vph) 2 6 816 1 2 318 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1138 816 817 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1138 816 817 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 98 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 224 380 820 Volume Total 8 817 320 Volume Left 2 0 2 Volume Right 6 1 0 cSH 324 1700 820 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.48 0.00 Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay(s) 16.4 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 16.4 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 � � t � �► l Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 3 6 770 1 2 302 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate(vph) 3 6 811 1 2 318 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1133 811 812 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1133 811 812 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 98 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 226 383 824 r Volume Total 9 812 320 Volume Left 3 0 2 Volume Right 6 1 0 cSH 311 1700 824 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.48 0.00 Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay(s) 17.0 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 17.0 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C 0 pis RI,'��Y� � t.:�'�°i �g�vs rim itx �� is Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 3 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 t 4 Lane Configurations 4 T Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 659 42 103 117 73 229 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 686 44 107 122 76 239 Volume Total(vph) 730 229 315 Volume Left(vph) 686 107 0 Volume Right(vph) 44 0 239 Hadj(s) 0.23 0.11 -0.38 Departure Headway(s) 5.8 6.5 5.9 Degree Utilization,x 1.17 0.41 0.52 Capacity(veh/h) 617 542 599 Control Delay(s) 115.6 14.0 15.0 Approach Delay(s) 115.6 14.0 15.0 Approach LOS F B C up N NIR or MR Delay 72.5 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 EXISTING PM PEAK 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 t ,< Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 2 3 358 1 7 753 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 2 3 373 1 7 818 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1206 373 374 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1206 373 374 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 203 677 1185 w .x ,ar. ^' Volume Total 5 374 826 Volume Left 2 0 7 Volume Right 3 1 0 cSH 350 1700 1185 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.22 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 15.4 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 15.4 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 EXISTING PM PEAK 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 4% t111mi 11 MIN pilm�11�11 1 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 279 111 76 85 68 682 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 294 117 80 89 72 733 Volume Total(vph) 411 169 805 Volume Left(vph) 294 80 0 Volume Right(vph) 117 0 733 Hadj(s) -0.02 0.14 -0.50 Departure Headway(s) 6.1 6.5 5.1 Degree Utilization,x 0.70 0.30 1.14 Capacity(veh/h) 574 536 695 Control Delay(s) 22.1 12.2 100.4 Approach Delay(s) 22.1 12.2 100.4 Approach LOS C B F Delay 66.4 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 PM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 t i Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 2 3 380 1 7 799 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 2 3 396 1 7 868 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1279 396 397 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1279 396 397 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) IF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 184 657 1162 Volume Total 5 397 876 Volume Left 2 0 7 Volume Right 3 1 0 cSH 324 1700 1162 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.23 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 16.3 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 16.3 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 PM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 .4\ t 4 .� Lane Configurations 4 T, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 296 118 81 90 72 724 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 312 124 85 95 76 778 Volume Total(vph) 436 180 854 Volume Left(vph) 312 85 0 Volume Right(vph) 124 0 778 Hadj(s) -0.02 0.14 -0.50 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree Utilization,x 0.75 0.33 1.24 Capacity(veh/h) 573 528 680 Control Delay(s) 25.0 12.7 139.3 Approach Delay(s) 25.0 12.7 139.3 Approach LOS C B F IN Delay 89.9 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 tr'' �► �► Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 2 3 388 1 7 813 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 2 3 404 1 7 884 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1303 405 405 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1303 405 405 IC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 178 650 1154 Volume Total 5 405 891 Volume Left 2 0 7 Volume Right 3 1 0 cSH 315 1700 1154 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.24 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 16.6 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 16.6 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 4 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SEI 4/26/2014 f, 4- I+ i Lane Configurations Y T+ Volume(veh/h) 2 4 385 3 7 808 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 2 4 401 3 7 842 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1259 403 404 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1259 403 404 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 99 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 189 652 1165 Volume Total 6 404 849 Volume Left 2 0 7 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 359 1700 1165 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.24 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 15.2 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay(s) 15.2 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 1 4 384 3 7 803 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 4 400 3 7 836 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1253 402 403 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1253 402 403 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 99 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 191 653 1167 Volume Total 5 403 844 Volume Left 1 0 7 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 440 1700 1167 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.24 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 13.3 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 13.3 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 3 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 4/26/2014 t Lane Configurations Y *T Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 300 118 81 92 73 726 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 316 124 85 97 77 781 IMP MMMM Volume Total(vph) 440 182 857 Volume Left(vph) 316 85 0 Volume Right(vph) 124 0 781 Hadj(s) -0.01 0.14 -0.50 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.6 5.3 Degree Utilization,x 0.75 0.33 1.25 Capacity(veh/h) 572 526 677 Control Delay(s) 25.6 12.8 143.5 Approach Delay(s) 25.6 12.8 143.5 Approach LOS D B F Delay 92.3 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 RAF From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:26 AM To: Jill Ding;Vanessa Dolbee; Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning; Larry Warren Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Environmental Determination Attachments: Req for Recon-Enclave pp.pdf Attached is copy of a Request for Reconsideration filed in this office yesterday by Roger Paulsen. Once the response to this request has been issued, and I receive copy,then I will be checking with Mr. Paulsen to see if he wishes to proceed with his appeal,currently filed, but on hold pending the RFR. Bonnie Walton City Clerk X6502 1 CITY OF RENTON Gam'' APR 16 2014 April 16, 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project,this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood,documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant-- all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner,leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 50' Place/ 156`''AVE SE intersection,my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 1 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project,absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA,has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern#1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: "The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Kenton Policy Guidelines for Trac Impact Analysis for Nem)Development". By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this,where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions,among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved,trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious,in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: `The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Service (LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity..." This report goes on to conclude that: ":..the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156`h Avenue SE/ SE 142d Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156th/ 142nd Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156`''Ave SE/ 142nd intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5th Place),the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour (just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17'b), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156th at SE 5d'Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern#3 Transportation Ironically,in light of Concerns #1 and#2 above,when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156`", but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may `...impose left turn restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11,Transportation Item#3). This already contemplated"remedy"identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"'/ 142nd intersection,but also suggests that the City's "remedy"will 3 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156th, further degrading the Level of Service at the 156th/ SE 5th PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156th Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156th, the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern#4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer,we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `2t is not anticipated that the proposed project signicantly adversely impact(sic) the City of Renton's street#stem subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements." Unfortunately,nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156th/ 142 nd intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 &the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156th/ 142nd or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:,the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)...". This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15th) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC,as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From Steve Lee Sent Tuesday.April 15,2014 11:14 AM To: CityClerk Records CC )an Illian;fill Ding-,Neil R.Watts;Jennifer T.Henning-,Rohini Nair Subject- RE.New Public Records Request-PRR-14-085(Paufsen) Attachments. TranspoConcPolicy14041S.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City process for C'Ohcurr,ency,standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070, 1 believe this is the information Mr.Paulsen is seeking. The information,as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan,provides Mr.Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance,or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance. per4-6-070 A.1,or a financial commitment is placed. Afinancial commitmentcan be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally Used by the City for improvements throughout the City- Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)(Ord.5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement,'Within the City of Renton,the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau(and on to Cemetery Road)makes it in feasible to provide additional access.Widening 1-405(which the State is pursuing)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road.' Thanks. -Steve Lee,PE,MS,CESCL City of Renton Dev.Engineering Manager 425A30.7299 $I e0rentanwagov Concern#6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A),I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Heating on April 22,d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 until April 22"d,the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. (see Exhibit E"Notice of Application...") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"d, and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour,including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5th Place and 156`"Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156th • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Ro aul 6617 SE 5th Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B—Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C—Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D—Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E—Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 EXHIBIT A March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jding(&rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project#LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142"d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current,the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142"d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 1391h Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142"d, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156tH/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this proj ect. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determinationrp for to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsenAcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 EXHIBIT B THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Prepared by 1VO04ffAEX 77.AR-F-/C ExpE-R7s 11490 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 rralffay NCRTHWEBT TRAFF/C EXPERTS 11410 ISE 124th St. #590 WA.9t3034 Ph=425.522.4118 Fax 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdintgs, LLC. 9675 SE 36 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156th Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156th Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridoe rMANY TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Trips per unit Entering Exiting Total Average Weekday 9.57 148 149 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 25% 75% 23 PM Peak Hour 1.01 6 37 20 1 31 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation. for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156th Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142nd PI. Residential Access Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridae 156th Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156th Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142nd PI. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. is an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 1561h Ave SE or SE 142nd PI. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156th Ave. SE and the 1561"Ave SE/SE 142nd St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156th Ave SE/SE 142ndPl. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay)and LOS F the worst(congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS)for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TYPE OF A B C D E F INTERSECTION ` >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. Signalized 10. <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 0 — — Stop Sign Controland <15 —`1 >10 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%)from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively fiat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156th Ave. SENSE 142nd PI. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft.from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tralff approximately 250 ft north of the 156th Ave. SEISE 142"d Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of$75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately$21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince a(?,nwtraffex.com or IarryCc3nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, 9pNA t p jONAL Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx II�II�� Page 5 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION Y018 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 156 'Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd pl. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 TRAFFIC EXPERTS Y(, rt7 "SE 2nd PI. SE,P th St.` &E7#li S€� tin SE t 371h Si. 7Gj Ter ��e SE e w�z ro m.W. y. M SE 3rd Pr s 3rd r SE'41hSt. G SEbthSt.., " er .d SE 139th Pt" ca, to i f m , � ' Project El 42nd St Site:, SE 14znd St " w SE 143rd St, m, t r � . _ SE t 44th 5t SE 1 .` 'SE,144t[M, J Q5 3' ..:.SE 145t The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map Tra►f tvaRrHwrsr TRAFFJG EXPERTS IMMAVESE y - --- - --------------------- :z - - -- I i _ tb t 1 R'-------- �' -- -i K------ �• f f ; I t I. ��r � �♦ l ►:,�- �� EGj �� YAW law- mw - ---------- L7 — ---" { i I war piw: r� y N The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Figure Site Plan 2 r ` ti r S NORTHWL-ST TRAF5-IC EXPERTS rn SE.139th Pi Project Site �2 SE 141st Pl" m co � to SE 142nd SL SE 4 d St, SE 1A`'ha ' SE 143rd St r*+ rn r• t.4 1 t rr2 v M N Access/ 156th ave 23 �4 � r M M S Access/156th Ave N +- 4� ) 1; PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume �:./ �'-it Legend Enter 20 C=) N Exit 11 15% Percentage of Project Traffic Total 31 156th Ave/SE 142 PI — 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution 3 0 t— tJfEX O 1V0I4THWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS SE 1391h.P1 Ln CA m m Site c 0 SE 1 4 1"St AC _ M tii SE 142nd St SE 142nd St tk o ¢ 143rd St " 1 M Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project M O 1 t rf 0 .0 (D 4 4 t r�0 t r 2 t ro' 2 eT' M M r N Access/156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave M lr04Cb . O ti O N Oro at rr r�0 t rr i r CSMA r M M ti M r S Access)156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave UJ Ln 309.0 328_jo tt 4-, 3 332,J lop, t 106 , t 0', f 106" t rn <Ma rn N rn 156th Ave/SE 142 PI 156th Ave/SE 142 P! 156thAvel SE142 PI 156thAve/SE 142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Prepared far. Traffex Traffic Count Consultants,Inc. ' Phratg(253)926.5008 FAX:(253)922-7211 E-Mail:Tem1@TC21nc.crn WHEIDBE Intersection: 156th Ave SE&SE 142nd I4 Date at Count: Tues 12117,1013 Location: Renton,Washington Chocked By: ,fess Tune From North on(BB) From South on(NB) From East on(w8} From west on(EH} Interval Interval 156th Ave SE 156th Ave SE 0 SE 142ad PI Totet Ending at T L S R T I L S I R T L S R T I L. I S R 4:151 2 -0 16 126 D -1 32. 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 70 1 0 28 263 4:30 P 6 0 13 172 I 1 14 12 0 0 D 0 0 0 70 1 0 27 308 4;45 P 2 0 18 156 0 1 28 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 29 345 5:00 P 0 0 18 179 2 1 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 20 328 5:15 P 1 0 19 146 1 28 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 24 306 5:30 P 1 0 20 146 0 19 10 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 72 0 28 297 5:45.P. 0 0 29 151 0 is 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 29 339 6:00 P 0 0 24 144 2 18 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 74 0 17 291 615P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.45 P 0_ 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sturcv 12 0 157 1224 6 179 i17 0 0 0 0 0 1 alt& 0 2q2 3497 Pcal:.Ilour.. 4:15.I'M to 5:15 PD1 Total 9 0 68 1655 4 92 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 0 100 1287 Approach 723 155 0 409 1287 "i Existing PM Peak 3. SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12126/2013 `+r f 4 Lane Configurations 4 T Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 309 100 92 63 68 655 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93, 0.93 0.93 0,93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 332 108 99 68 73 704 Volume Total(vph) 440 167 777 Volume Left;(vph) 332 99 0 Volume Right(vph) 108 0 704 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree Utilization,x 0.75 0.30 1.12 Capacity(vehlh) 572 526 679 Control Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach LOS D B F Delay 62.9 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 ` ► 4N t 1 Lane Configurations ty� Sign Control StopStop; Stop Volume(vph) 328 106 98 67 72 695 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93` 0,93 0.93 0,93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 353 114 105 72 77 747 Volume Total(vph) 467 177 825 Volume Left(vph) 353 105` 0 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 747 Had!(s) OM ' 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.3 Degree Utilization,x 0.80 0.33 1.22 Capacity(vehlh) _ 571 518 665 Control Delay(s) 29.8' 12.9 133.2 Approach Delay(s) 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach LOS D B F Delay 85.8 NCM Level of Service F Intersection'Capacity Utilization 90.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd Pi & 156th Ave SE 12/2612013 t 1 Lane Configurations , Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 ' 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 Volume Total(vph) 471 180 828 Volume Leff(vph) 357 ` 105 ' 0 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 749 Hadi(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.4 Degree Utilization,x 0.81 0.33 1.23 Capacity(veh/h) 571 516 662 Control Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach LOS D B F Delay 88.1 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project 5: North Site Access &156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 Lane Configurations 4 Volume(veh1h) 2 4 177 3 7 774 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 00/0 0°/0 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 2 4 190 3 8` 832 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median We None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1039 192 194 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1039 192 194 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) IF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 99 gg cm.capacity(vehlh) 256 855 1392 VolumeTotal 6 194 840 '> Volume Left 2 p g Volume Right 4 3 p cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 p Control Delay(s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B q Approach Delay(s) 12.6` 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3°!0 ICU Level of Service B ; Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 gillig UMBER= NERM Lane Configurations , Volume(veh/h) 1 4 176 37 769 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 00/0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 4 189 3 8 827 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s} Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage vehj Upstream signal(ft)` pX,platoon unblocked vC conflicting volume 1033 191 192 vC1,stage 1 conf vol yC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1033 191 192 tC single(s) 6.4 62 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF Is) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 99 99 cM,capacity(veh/h) 258 856 1393 Volume Total 5 192 834 Volume Left 1 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 585 1700 1393 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01' Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS t3 4 Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity`Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service 13 Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 3 EXHIBIT C c:m POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS N � FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 - 9:00) or PM (3:00 —6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site-generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format. The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assi ent: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site-generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM-PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area. 1 EXHIBIT C Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi-phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site-generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary,the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage,these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/12/2008 H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\TIA GUIDELINES\GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EXHIBIT D Crtyof , , AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: March 31, 2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager. Jill Ding,Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156th Avenue SE, Renton,WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell,WA 98012 Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street,Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: 14038156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 Project Summary., Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B) and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being rcrnoved from the proposed subdivision.The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage.An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057.All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. Exist. Bldg.Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg.Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area(gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 SF Total Building Area GSF• N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). � e Y. 2 L Project Location Map ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community&Economic Development trrvironmentol Review Committee Report THE ENCL4VEAT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences.The project site is located within the R-4 (residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density(RLD)Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.The surrounding properties to the north,south,and east of the project site are also zoned R-4.The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250)was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat..An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel.The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future,separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.80 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre(after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication).The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots,the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and B).Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention.Tract B would be located at the northwest corner of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new"looped" public street(Roads A and B)with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156th Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter,5-foot sidewalks,and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials,which identified 303 existing significant trees. Of the 303 existing significant trees,the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees.There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained;however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention.Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In.compliance with RCW 43.21C.240,the following environmental(SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal,staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14-0W241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RiDGE WA14-=241,ECF,PP Report of Error!Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5,2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared byTraffEx,dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity.The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection;however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained.The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC(dated February 5, 2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical information Report prepared by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27, 2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014)' Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) Exhibit 13 Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences.Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented during construction ERCReport14-OOD241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development tnvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-=241,ECF,pp Report of March 31,2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences,temporary siltation ponds,controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5,2014) (Exhibit 7)was submitted with the project application.According to the submitted study,the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet.Vegetation consists primarily of field grass,trees, and blackberries.The Soil Conservation Survey(SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site.Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff.They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits(TP-1 through TP-6)were excavated across the project site.Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade.The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits(TP-1,TP-3,and TP-6) at depths ranging from 2-3 feet.According to the submitted geotechnical study(Exhibit 7)groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material;therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter,spring, and early summer months.The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore.groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report(Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork,wet season grading,foundations,seismic design, slab-on-grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backfill, and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content,the geotechnical report(Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months.Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5,2014)(Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus:SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland,Streams, Lakes Impacts:A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8)was submitted with the application materials.According to the report,the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red-osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present.The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation,hydric soils,and hydrology)were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required FRC Report 14-OW241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-WO241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 5 of it Nexus:N/A b. Storm Water Impacts:The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report(TIR), prepared by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. (dated February 19, 2014) (Exhibit 9).According to the TiR(Exhibit 9)the upstream areas to the north and east of the project site are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible.The existing runoff from the project site sheet flows across the property towards the southwest corner of the site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the site on the east side of 156tH Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. Runoff continues west across 154th Place SE and discharges to Stewart Creek,a Class 3 stream. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review ih accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM,Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report(Exhibit 9).The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map,this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition.The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre- developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50%of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow.The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site within Tract A.The pond will discharge to the existing conveyance system in 156th Avenue SE.Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) identifies the soils as sand glacial till.These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Overall,it is anticipated there would be no impacts to stormwater as a result of the proposed project, provided the project complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the Renton Amendments. Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts:A Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and a Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated(dated February 18, 2014) (Exhibit 6)were submitted with the application materials.The Tree Inspection Report states that of the 305 significant trees identified on the project site,81 are considered dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200.The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5)identifies 35 significant trees for retention. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However,the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are-sold as individual lots,each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in perpetuity within an easement. Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees. The 23 trees proposed for removal (identified as trees ERC Report 14-000241_dooc City of Renton Department of Community&tconomic Development tnvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA24-=241,ECF,pp Report of March 31,2014 Page 6 of 11 5406,5408-5415, 6181-6185, 6234,and 6229-6231)have been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report(Exhibit 6).The City's arborist will review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5)and Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6) and verify which trees located along the east property boundary are available for retention.Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that an easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist)in perpetuity.The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Mitigation Measures:An.easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist)in perpetuity.The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection;however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained.The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. Nexus:SEPA Environmental Review Regulations 4. Noise Impacts:Temporary construction noise is anticipated as a result of the subject project. Based on the provided construction mitigation description (Exhibit 13)the applicant has indicated that construction of the plat improvements is anticipated to begin in September of 2014 and finish in February of 2015.The construction of homes is anticipated to begin in April 2015 and finish in April 2016. The applicant has indicated that construction would.comply with the City of Renton's adopted noise ordinance. As such,the temporary noise impacts are anticipate to be minimal and limited in duration. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 5. Parks and Recreation impacts:The project site is located within the vicinity of three parks. Maplewood Heights Park is located to the east of the project site and Maplewood Neighborhood Park and the Cedar River Trail are located to the west of the project site. it is anticipated residents of the proposed development would utilize the existing parks within the project vicinity. It is not anticipated that the proposed development would adversely impact the City of Renton parks subject to the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 6. Transportation Impacts:Access to the project site is proposed via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. In addition,a dead end access is proposed connecting to the property to the south of the project site for future development.A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround is proposed for emergency access pending future development to the south. Frontage ERC Report 14-O0241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-OW241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 7 of 11 improvements including paving,curb and gutter,5-foot sidewalks,and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However,the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27,2013) (Exhibit 10)was submitted with the application materials.The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips,with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Service (LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10)concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds.The report(Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds.The report(Exhibit 10)anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds,which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10)that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development.The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters(Exhibits 11 and 12)citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report,the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection.The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 7. Fire&Police ERC Report 14-0W241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development t.,vironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA24-x00241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 8 of 11 Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable,their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or"Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3);WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055.South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m.on April 18,2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall—7th Floor, (425)430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock(7:00)a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year.The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report 14-OW241.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community&r 7mic Development 'ronmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 9 of 11 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed*to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate"from.Water District#90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and ext6ending the sewer main into,the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line.The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property.line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main-in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement).A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on%-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is$63,023.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. Surface water: 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates FRC Report 14-000241_docx City of Renton Department of Community&' comic Development ,ironmentol Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA24-000241,EcF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 10 of 11 for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is$1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is$36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is$1,430.72 per new lot.The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips wouldgenerate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to. determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this'intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access.The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements.To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156`h Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8- foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060.To build this street section,five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&' comic Development dronmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-M241„ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 11 of 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report 14-OW241.docx �� ..._. EXHIBIT 1 7HE ENCI Q UTH q q 'E— LSOO AIO�(Y s LL b QQ V u wvr.orsc Oro m qM78 � ax yb 50-Z I ImW AIOLt Y O2 m� �} ^^O{ V Jii; ffCp 41oKC s< mA �� g� V 1� H mom rn F1 .9 I m Z e z I i A .A© EXHIBIT 2 THE ENCLAVE � CD Ilia. rj .•, _- _^• ---^:� _-__':';�,y':��'::I -%C="user ,� wi et •'• L� 1_i i ,K I �11�� Ir ! A4pp E[ ''' '• C•'• fi=re 1 7 1 � 1.e I / J�'O / Ai� ��A '� tR2Z•�,i I%••�:�'� tK� IA � i !a � i FN �1 '� • I �g, ` i,.------�• 1' 1 ,moi i'--^v_1.._ } � •, wa 4. _ a' ` ter ' �I 'T� i .� / r 'tom• 1 �. r i--; -r-1 i 4 . ti"'a d __ _ '-�� 'I •__ �- +;` '8f i! i rte•%, }'• , • -- *J---I--- :F" I-----:�--i : •NI w'B' 0I - '' •moi:.I"' *i:1 �yy I• � -._— :i %tori 4•'•s •• 1 1 !•,1 "� d.'` --• -;; Cam Ir•' 1 1' ... �_l• '-_�-—� „� _ secj------:rte' r- -_ �.v L'. Y.-•tNr ,� �, ^ZYn I 1' 1 i•... ''I i' ,.� 1.�..ac.....-1 �•- :'-r r y, .1� I I:j;�. `J� I Ila Cv,•' I ,.r � i.e n� ..1" 1 y�%,�I 6 yl,•' 1 ' 7' 2 9 �-�1�--- � - -- 3 J_x��_ �w• _' M1f, t143 ��/:+"FIn_�, m0 if ' _i�._ •''y � -a�'1 'd'���•• •,�' r�d�'�O2 a ►, 'git�Z ' '' T !i• I 1 , y y: y p Cf,•t1 '.y.,4�r , `Q �y� ,a C" t"' f ' 1 it t i irr, �j 1 :'G / ;'y�.4. 1 �,t+ti a• ✓••'' /'�.•� _ 4 A �f� 3 __.. ';••+1•+ �y�'Il:f.' +1• '�• �. 'f� h . .�P 1{ �' 96 OL'' � �'� ! 1 \ � e s cue laooaoaeaa)• 4 •a� V J� t 1 Z Kill tall it lip OR poll, I �Q e110 sT pe81 ye� 816 5 � l �i Es + ! E �� AD �AY ' S9 � p99t � 5 D � �f� � ®� �d� e? C�i■t■a� ' k���ie �� • � t R! ! CC R R s a. EXHIBIT 3 7HE ENCLAVE Q LF y i� I �1 rs li 9 iZK4 ...0 ��.. � � 5F s?II �:. •t- �`'� - f Ids �. (� ..,I ..*.. Y,r t '�_ � y c!`fs_ -g I i� +�ry;It ,i ���y'- �, s i_ a•s � t f �of `� � IIs � 1 pcc. 5"}.I v. a. I t l I I .� I I i •1• 1 ( • ... iC �$ 991 � S"c7 F t• w.' +� .' � ---� �?---,�I t€s �+_.5'I.` '.. �%�- "�m()s 1 z t _�Y�.-.. •fig _.•�-__-'-J 1 r--.1 �� � .� -Zil� '� try '• `I: Y f •'� ^r�r i" Q ;. trot"�.,b sl - 1 it r �--�-_- I ^• ! i a '. ,I.Is+.�d,# rsaa ` ,t.l i €i S C� t ��•5A�I _ 1 � : � Ii. � Nr-•� ;�w'j��IJ i •�I 1 If__Ll 1•_�} IO+�i A t !1 ;t- i '9 ;5lT { .? !+F_�c n.!•.!,t`�i��y•: ' � c r,�r3, i:.sa �m� I T" It Y ^[ 1 7.s 11 Y{f-1 I t�2'f i t�• 'YY .-1 Y g t� 1 1 e g t f5 `•! I r H S yH185t i L _ •S �t w- a0 � r z �Iri �a'S SEE EXHIBIT 4 THE ENCU m[ IV's so In c L. w 1 s ty A w fa t♦ � �y� � y '' y I'Q,.���� r Al Ko lb.1 C A 1� •F'1.' ' r � i'" ' � 1 � d ' . '�` �y y.•'Nig '�• f'a� IrCZE ,�. 1 _ •" � i}�• ,..� �•r;}••. Off, 04, g b ;• ����a k-�s� ���'`�,. •b ��' ��:•'�, � � '�. Gni i y$ I si i7S IH�7 Z4 ZO � 4 2 Z> Z o e °g !KI 11 d - -- =syc�r®�/s�tv7� am do X11 n� ! 4 I. e. fA A - Y EXHIBIT 6 Greenforest Incorporateu --; Consulting Arborist 2/18/2014 RECEIVED Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition&Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC CITY 0-P-Eh'TON 9675 SE 36th St.,Suite 105 PLANNING DIVISION Mercer Island,WA 98040 RE:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted.me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate te condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023,9057,&9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week-and inspected the trees indicated on-the sheet,which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels.Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated.'A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed,and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree,confirmed trunk diameter(DBH),estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary(Near tree 6185)is an infection center for a root rot disease.This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area(actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary)with standing dead trees,recently or previously failed trees,and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus,as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs;oozing resin flow,and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street,Seattle,WA 98.118 Tel. 206-723-0656 EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 ¢. Ste en H. Ayr S�j Geologist y� 4r �t SIGNAL `Z�<1(Lk Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED ES-3220 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PLANNING DtVISION 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 Sewal 27641 Cove CkvhgbD1,VVA UdX2 February 3,2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings,LLC 9675 SE 36th Street,Suite 105 RECU Mercer Island,WA 98040 D RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton FEB 2 fi 2014 SWC Job#13-187 CITE' ()R:1ZENT;-)N PL�,t�€tVli� DfV;SlC3��t 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge"plat,which consists of two Parcels(#1423059023 &9122), located on the east side of 15e Avenue SE, in the City of Renton,Washington (the"site"). ppb Qras2:rola ' ► � ,.7h't5i1f1/ V+24. Ix 4!7£x'AiPGa Y+752POOaD « tt_]aSSC57 f+a GOON .�; !+xAllFpx x+ t 3C ..I+G310Ma+ ,.; 2005PR50� 1+7305. +63+O+ba»- I+a3+000Ei W Z. +x3os?wa f ° n 3gsxoaw� �+nostfn7a 7M. f+ f+T.i05V!M 53387 5 �pl +87+OOOaf s3+nore !!63+000110 Vicinity Map EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038156'h Avenue SE Renton,Washington A. J wwns o��j� ) ism �G�~ r RTAL DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant Ria PNW Holdings LLC 1- 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 FEB 2 7 2014 Mercer Island, WA 98040 CJ1•y�.� Report Prepared by t'tAtVN,, . MOM D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6207 th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827--3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 02014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr.Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by NORTHWEST TRAFF/C EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St.,#590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECE1 V FD FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF'?giVrQN IVLV �1ANG DIVISION EXHIBIT 11 David Michalski 6525 se 5th pi f Renton,Wa 98059 March 21,2014 Jill Ding,Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 This memo is regarding myconcems over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUAI4=241/ECF/PD. 1 live off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is reg?rding the i traffic going North and South on 156th Ave Se.Since the building of the bridge across Cedar Rivere_ thT— traffic on 156th ave se is unbearable. Coming.out of any of the side streets off 15e ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate'up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down,there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156th.I feel that an-immediate traffic study be implemented.I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see.Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Rdad? Sincerely, �I V t, # '�c ..�Q CQ3BAR 2 4 2914 David Michalski C rry QG let/001VEmail:dcmichaWmsn.com 411g01V Ph#425-271-7837 EXHIBIT 12 March 22,2014 Ms.Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ JdMoZrentonwa2ov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms.Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge",Project#LUA 14-00024 1,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5t'Place in light of.the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service . associated with A.M.Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current,the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th P1.)in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd,and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning tragic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop",and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 156th even more difficult. The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project,and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant otential to threaten public health,safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential accbss streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat,and the existing 156 / 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south) from the plat access streets,due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge,it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies,and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines,septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes,and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommoda a future waste water access to the new sewer linesl�eing installed,_ asyart �his project. �r While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this,it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes,common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4,it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lotof this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code),I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot 94. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City,it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property,and occasionally have observed owls,hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally,I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate,misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice(both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached)states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided,but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus,anyone who comments before April 22nd,but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point,and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter,I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsena,cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically ff'Ithout Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application City of,: r i NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been riled and accepted-with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton.The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-0W241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8:B acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and•a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566- square 2,566square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 Square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156`Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore, as Permitted under the RCW 43.21[.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,U.0/9675 SE 36th Street Suite 105, Mercer Oland,WA 98040/EML-)ustin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required Construction,Building,Fre Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public.hearinit is tentatively scheduled forApril 22 2014 before the Renton Hearin Examiner in Renton Counnl Chambers at 10.00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would fake to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No--The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14.000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip:. TELEPHONE NO.: 0150�ty C 0 7 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW- Zoning/Land Use. The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map.. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental($EPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, kMC 4-2-120 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures:_ The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. . Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report, ■ Prefect constructlon shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study, Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by 5:00 PM on March 24,2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hatt,IOSS South Grady way,Renton. if you are Interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the(tearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430.8578. if comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may stili appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. if you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager, Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml:idinggrentonwa,gov rte. q• PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,2055 So.Grady Way,Renton,LVA 93057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/riip: TF-LEPHONE NO,: EXHIBIT E City of NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14.000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 - tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot fine adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156!'Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.210.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Signiflcance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC/9675 SE 36h Street Suite 105, Mercer Island,WA 98040/EML:Justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(5EPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other permits which maybe required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies. Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 22 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057, Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: 7., City of CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City s Zoning Map, Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development, and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shag be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report. • Project construction shalt be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by 5:00 PM on March 24,2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton, If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. if you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml:],ding@rentonwa.aov e , Nn f+ ®® y 1iL�- , PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: D c= moot-to NN a3i o� p ` ai o° Z Z-> � '3, — ao�= c—o'_'_o N �o ^oo n— o E`a,e= U no c^ U t _ �ro 8. Q Op oo � ro3 " � rorobao �Qoro o, ro r nook > c ap � v i .] .a u p v— cu > 3 v o o Q. �nFrop2 o _ x o Fd„OFWZu Q ro° > s a���3 o ro °no �3:E gN NY " 0°x.5 0 " d Wa =v ��oo ro ° °^ro ani kZE-ZFaZ " � `o vano— wtiYc �.5v cn OWdWF" ^ aD �yov v° � 53—cgna, c 5p Zo- ,°, � co3onUoCR � ��y' aroi �p tea,, 5 = o c oz C c =� M roU ❑� wgz �wv an`oro °, N4 �'�� 3 ca 7 c°�iw o' ^� ena� a, E py`rou °v anx p.5 orn UZ Z2Z3 � _ w ��� °Mya3 pocac C-40 = >—Q3 ° °' roo4� e v i� cz > a��i °= n� �� �o Oa�'C°U pov fl ti� ° OQF.S o ro U-0 ro >'= U L °�y °� a'D c E`r °ro' ��v Q-_s'> CGS r W U z>s > o ai v Y y ro^ o > 3 ° oD p. aim o v c aq Z .a c z�b c roo ti�u ro nm v m E or=_ p D ° °' > P' ° v �=N 3._ c.5v ZWZW��W °'oQ_ 0'p� `vt 2H ti �w°.v^ 000, 3w n R 3 croiU3 o bO�xUci w aroi �`a W W�O.w E 9 o p¢ v o r'a aF vy o ya o opt ` o n d nroLx T� oONa nna � Nv a� o'roroo�E��Jo2 °Y''co= oa ° c �vU -'Fo <a.°3 < donnatot- v a�co °'¢ > onco °' ro on U c ansa o, ro oZ; M. S 3UC7Q ro oU LUQ °' o nn° Q `,,�\yy\4•.\ik<�S�of tae a ��liae,atty+f, �sy,�� �+1 ,•' � °i, i'7 O b�A O N c`i O cc cd O O ." s O t� U) v� 3 ° cn N O p blo x ° C) 0 � p3 bw°° o El ct z V 03 U (1) - bA fx w ►�r•� ° 00 ami 3 p c ��^" •V•+ ° a O S�, O O i•i O >, a, cl C7 �"" moo ° � cn :� a� 0 am a ct , un a � ° CIO o�° �� ani o `� a W •� O � U lna � •� oo ani >~ x bna� U � � H H a The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant Engineer k Jnr er , +.�'Iisi� >._,,...,,,z.c,.. 1:2,...a Y,�_��.,�. PNW Holdings LLC Maherloudi Richard Ouimet 9675 SE 36th St, 105 D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers 2923 Maltby Rd Mercer Island,WA 98040 10604 NE 38th PI,232 Bothell,WA 98012 (206)588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com Kirkland,WA 98033 Owner Party of`Recprd Party of Record M Sally Nipert M.A. Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI 14004 156th Ave SE 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE 5TH PI Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 (425)226-6594 (425)271-7837 PayotRecord Part�o#Record Roger Paulson Jason Paulson 6617 SE 5th PI 31 Mazama Pines Ln Renton,WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98333 (425) 228-1589 Page 1 of 1 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept.of Ecology** WDFW-Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave.NW Suite 201 Attn:Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah,WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Auburn,WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region* Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn:Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev.Serv.,MS-240 Seattle,WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn,WA 98092-9763 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp.of Engineers* KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn:Gretchen Kaehler Attn:SEPA Reviewer Ms.Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S.Jackson ST,MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia,WA 98504-8343 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers*** Depart.of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia,WA 98504-7015 KC Dev.&Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn:SEPA Section Attn:Steve Roberge Attn:Mr. Fred Satterstrom,AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave.SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev.Director Renton,WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle,WA 98059 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster,Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868,MS:XRD-01W Tukwila,WA 98188 Seattle,WA 98104-3856 Bellevue,WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn:SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle,WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an"Optional DNS",the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,&Notice to the following email address:sepaunit@ecv.wa.eov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT, &Notice the following email address:sepacenter@dnr.wa.¢ov template-affidavit of service by mailing City of l X11 ; 1 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP LOCATION: 14038156"'Ave SE DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project she located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range In size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA34-000250)Is proposed between tax parcels 14230590S7 and 1423059122 which will result In 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage.An existing residence Is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057.All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process.No critical areas are present on the project site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.on April 18, 2014,together with the required fee with:Hearing Examiner,Qty of Renton,1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton Qty Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL,1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY,RENTON,WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 22,2014 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE`CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,SHORT PLAT,ETC.'. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACTTHE CITY OF RENTON,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. I, f ? thereby certify that copies of the above document were p sted in conspicuous places or nearby the descri property on Date: Z-7 Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ``���\\\\\\\1�1j�� I Dated: 'ri1' Notary PIc in and for the State of Washington .0 - • z Notary (Print): ;8}y1 l5olntment expires: �; ( a0 l �- City of OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP LOCATION: 14038156 th Ave SE DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA34-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage.An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057.All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m, on April 18, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 22,2014 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE *CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,SHORT PLAT, ETC.*. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. t 1 09 1000] ,� IR i; f 1 11005 I A029 4 Y, - A t 0 1 6 , tr � S •F � 1J'120 t trl' J i ,,yy 'C a 5tf16® , 3 I ® t ® 5 P 1 TI'.•- '1 YT2 I A! s63. V2 ,60 1 .... �.'�� 2UU 1 1 302 15fi i 1.621 Him I15F A 1 801 362� � ®1 3 14211 14 { 1 t 4102 ■ �������������� 101 Y'f.2� � FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. April 2, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street CO Aoki Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL(SEPA)THRESHOLD DETERMINATION The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Lagers: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report, for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014,together with the required fee, with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Also, a public hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall on April 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM to consider the preliminary plat. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff recommendation will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-6598. For the Environmental Review Committee, Ding . Planner Enclosure cc: Sally Lou Nipert,G.Richard Ouimet/owner(s) Party(ies)of Record Denis Law _ C1t VY Of r Mayor III I j" ;r April 3, 2014 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL(SEPA)THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 31, 2014: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014,together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, 4illDing Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki,WSDOT,NW Region Boyd Powers,Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher,WDFW Karen Walter,Fisheries,Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert,Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp.of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler,Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D Q �O DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156 th Ave SE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required.A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5- inch Storz fittings.A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from Water District#90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and ext6ending the sewer main into the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street.The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is$63,023.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot.Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. Surface water: ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 4 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC.The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is$36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest.The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE,the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards,frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8-foot ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 4 planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be, included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D city of �t AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT e0 { ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156 th Ave SE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community& Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: April 4,2014 DATE OF DECISION: March 31, 2014 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator Mark Peterson,Administrator Public Works Department Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, dministrator J Community Services Department Date Department of Comm nity& Date Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUM IY City.of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE: March 31, 2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager. Jill Ding, Senior Planner Owners: Sally Lou Nipert, 14004 156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: 14038156 th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 Project Summary: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 SF Total Building Area GSF. N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). I 77 � ae A ].. riT t Project Location Map ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&L,.,,nomic Development :nvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE L UA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences.The project site is located within the R-4 (residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density(RLD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The surrounding properties to the north, south, and east of the project site are also zoned R-4. The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250)was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat. An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel. The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future, separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.80 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication). The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots,the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and B). Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention. Tract B would be located at the northwest corner of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new "looped" public street (Roads A and B) with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156th Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials,which identified 303 existing significant trees. Of the 303 existing significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees. There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained; however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention. Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Enviror,.aentol Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of Error!Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated December 27, 2013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 6 Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February 5, 2014) Exhibit 8 Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) Exhibit 13 Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. Temporary erosion control measures would be implemented during construction ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&c,,,nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences,temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study,the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of field grass, trees, and blackberries. The Soil Conservation Survey(SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site. Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff. They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) were excavated across the project site. Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits (TP-1, TP-3, and TP-6) at depths ranging from 2-3 feet. According to the submitted geotechnical study (Exhibit 7) groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material;therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring, and early summer months. The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, foundations, seismic design, slab-on-grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backfill, and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content,the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus:SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red-osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present. The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&c,,,nomic Development environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 5 of it Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Impacts:The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. (dated February 19, 2014) (Exhibit 9). According to the TIR (Exhibit 9)the upstream areas to the north and east of the project site are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible. The existing runoff from the project site sheet flows across the property towards the southwest corner of the site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the site on the east side of 156th Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. Runoff continues west across 154th Place SE and discharges to Stewart Creek, a Class 3 stream. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report (Exhibit 9). The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map,this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre- developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50%of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site within Tract A. The pond will discharge to the existing conveyance system in 156th Avenue SE. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Overall, it is anticipated there would be no impacts to stormwater as a result of the proposed project, provided the project complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the Renton Amendments. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts:A Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and a Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) (Exhibit 6) were submitted with the application materials. The Tree Inspection Report states that of the 305 significant trees identified on the project site, 81 are considered dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200.The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) identifies 35 significant trees for retention. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are sold as individual lots, each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in perpetuity within an easement. Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees.The 23 trees proposed for removal (identified as trees ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&cL,,nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 6 of 11 5406, 5408-5415, 6181-6185, 6234, and 6229-6231) have been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6). The City's arborist will review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 5) and Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 6) and verify which trees located along the east property boundary are available for retention. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that an easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Mitigation Measures:An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations 4. Noise Impacts:Temporary construction noise is anticipated as a result of the subject project. Based on the provided construction mitigation description (Exhibit 13)the applicant has indicated that construction of the plat improvements is anticipated to begin in September of 2014 and finish in February of 2015. The construction of homes is anticipated to begin in April 2015 and finish in April 2016. The applicant has indicated that construction would comply with the City of Renton's adopted noise ordinance. As such, the temporary noise impacts are anticipate to be minimal and limited in duration. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts:The project site is located within the vicinity of three parks. Maplewood Heights Park is located to the east of the project site and Maplewood Neighborhood Park and the Cedar River Trail are located to the west of the project site. It is anticipated residents of the proposed development would utilize the existing parks within the project vicinity. It is not anticipated that the proposed development would adversely impact the City of Renton parks subject to the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 6. Transportation Impacts:Access to the project site is proposed via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. In addition, a dead end access is proposed connecting to the property to the south of the project site for future development. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround is proposed for emergency access pending future development to the south. Frontage ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&EL.,nomic Development .nvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 7 of 11 improvements including paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) (Exhibit 10) was submitted with the application materials. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level of Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds.The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10)that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12) citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 7. Fire& Police ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community&t,..,nomic Development cnvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 8 of 11 Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable,their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3);WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall—7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community& comic Development -nvironmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 9 of 11 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from Water District#90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and ext6ending the sewer main into, the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is$2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is$63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. Surface water: 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community& _ r)omic Development environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 10 of it for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8- foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Department of Community& I 7omic Development environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 11 of 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report 14-000241.docx EXHIBIT 1 . 2Eeo � f r� _.Mg". % ! O � O � | |2 �{k � 02 . ) r( �$ �F ■ . f . . ) ;o C-) | /q . §!§ | §@\ . B), ( §�\ | § `4F | » _ T _ | 2 \ � | |2 ' , | I ! EXHIBIT 2 gg THE ENCLAVE 22 :nom .e r u r°'h'T _I •i( S' I t,,r-ly;. ' -xoo7l.r�nti I �.� �, 1 1 ;� ® I:, .+s• �4_ � &v � % ��y i � I �N I I�K ' I I u���g �- m - - §14 m c g e moo ~'' • _ `n, I C�1. i. s ;111 (4 i NW I . I- SN i�.y._g�-1 xl rwivrrri enr = 1��I ?V � �`. 1 l:' 8 1 ,.j• ,� I � r.r'C G 6 r I /--y _" I '� - -= J in all ty r& /i 8orn� 50 50 rTi I I I" I k" 1' fiirr�!! 7I I I %•'L' / I' ,✓ 'L:• f X �''•\ — �--.-x'•50'— .vim i $ 1 �-e `i 4 r "r \ � X / t, :�� .� � .•S .; ,-.4�,�,1 Cly, ,� '� $E 1 B s I � € S La i, i bn� yl I y 11 p I I s , y r A �Tw^sV? Yoe t 1 .'' '(�, g ��. 7 /I � ice\ ,,"c:�T-_ a-r � ./r. ;�rao-/sxr� y� :• "��` ''�`j 4�' `K O` --RY 9" n _ _ _ — Q nr 1 11 I i I 1 i �� a Ek9 �g�g _� �—. o-aea-a"� •fi : liiip i !iig� IL> ' R e= d " dgagi�2s $bbd k iiijll iij ' iino Hill !i�i y pp RAMI p bb401 LL "a€ _•' 4�xs$ 6FAo$ 3 ,^..G3 'R it 00 Z�l iR I I I 7OI v -0[Zi S © R ¢ sxst RRA r tf00 a Z pp Zp <D-Di -C R A L r m fm €6€ rr m G - F6 � � � Q � >� ■F��Y x � g Do � nowcsyval�lunlap.rr.7wrMfmaw�ar�i inuaar._._� EXHIBIT 3 g THE ENCLAVE f iol tltltl� 8 ' 6 'z 1`• A f ai j i Esu i,° YI i E�c i• i.',•C�",� i I j R a ;e� _ Ah 'fit-•'i � i ro I i i awl i I y .._��1 3 S - i •S�� I d t �s i I . i:�o I ,} � jr 1 I yf I `{ `rn qk a ;' Ki -�p j;.•�5�.' b•' ji S`Ny�I f `` J� I� I a �� i c#�': Do I � _ .�' .• C i -,� �.� .i-- € i SSV 4-� '� `` :i i � �N A .--I._—�.'�' ! .�. .�. I�S k� I ��.• I a+. :.7 I/,'7�gRs` I yI, 7l�' 'L .i � I 3� �' ���� I S -I I I C'"�I I 14 I tV• ��� � y y y � .• %i '` ;7 I � 1 17 , ZO Zo a SZs A _z 8 a v<m rm Ra V o>m D to � � EXHIBIT 4 F THE ENCU L6 8 \ ss g m' I ss`5"7 '5111 / i 00 un I ` tir &, �' Y �'.• .'� as ^w� 1 } I I �. V�A 1AY�O o;•, -- - II I IT' A �" ° 'F ly� � I J c+ � ±�ci T _ - In .1J 9 I ern l r •I 'a S Z-< E ZO Y I-c i m � m z o ;o0 Z nnnnnnn ZD O Ay G ym V rr0 ym D A I Z a a "� wnr:a-1+TrVnT+W+rVr+Mlw+svmrp LNmr<anwm EXHIBIT 5 i THE ENCLAVE / I � . L \ / ' ���`�-vr F..-e_X[� •' T. � .mss ___ mac- _ •--_ _ ih V� i E g36 0 � � / / 11 ;•'N i 0 p - A �A �• ;" _ "$ oil ti s = Y Z� I I 11 zo I E p I I I I ;uo gal , -ni oZm O Z] 4 9 2 V R D M Z g go + s I 0 EXHIBIT 6 Greenforest Incorporateu Con u ting A 2/18/2014 REC--o'EIVED Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC CITY 0- rKi.. � 9675 SE 36th St. Suite 105 `TON PL.-`;PJNIN Di�V�S10,� Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, &9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet,which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels.Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated.A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary(Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease.This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary)with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street,Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES ' February 5, 2014 �,. Ste en H. Avrr< S Geologist' L nY WA-3 � SJ_17•• r 2 67 & NAL Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED �-f �® FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PLANK N'G DIVISION ! 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue Washington g 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 .Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 EXHIBIT 8 Sewal 27641 COMA COviflgtofl,�vti ytlCKFZ February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 I"'¢' - � j Mercer Island, WA 98040 '`-' I !�' D RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton FEB 2 fi 2014 SWC Job#13-187CITY PLANOr ,- 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge"plat,which consists of two Parcels(#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the"site"). Al 912320[0!0 42 97M 252000!0 9V25203039 9a 5_(K040 ,��_. X125200050 9i2320lk770 9V25200072 � 9a2320tY 9a75200U60 !4230390 7 1V63400068 'Y. 142305432 :f 4f wF' - ..i6N0006x �t. 3d59�0 f1230.S_ 7a230M 4163x00067.7 1a63100^E9 � ,�=a 5 3G 00003 � ,.; • .. 4230590/8 1423059 tl 5336700070 7{2:05902? 676vJ13- 336700020 7x13059030 .x29059720 336700025 .1167 K13_ P� 5 SxT� a23039013 !63x00081 ,x6 000 - Vicinity Map EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038156 1h Avenue SE Renton,Washington A. J U 0 W �0 s 15232 CS b - 1 I NAL DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant � FIVED PNW Holdings s LLC �'� 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 FEB 2 7 20 14 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared byliT pLANNI'tiIG DIVISION D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6207 th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by NORTHWEST rRA FF/C EX)=CgTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED ED FEB 2 7 2014 PLarVN4NG DiviSION EXHIBIT 11 David Michalski 6525 se 5th pl i Renton,Wa 98059 i March 21,2014 Jill Ding,Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156"'Ave Se.Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the,.,,..:.,.:.:,.. — traffic on 156th ave se is unbearable. Coming.out of any of the side streets off 15e ave se Is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down,there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156th. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, AIIAR civ+-�1`Y1 r Glk&sU:Z�Z, 4 David Michalski cirYPLAfV O'. t Email:dcmichalPmsn.com 1Vl��G�„VISION Ph#425-271-7837 EXHIBIT 12 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdin�(a�,rentonwa.zov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project#LUA14-000241,ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well.as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only 1E the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this proiect to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access-156 th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat,and the existing 156t`/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156t'/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines heing installed as part project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code),I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot 44. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus,anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such away as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter,I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RRo erAPaulsengcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application City of Renu -)epartment of Community& Economic Dever. gent ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:��II'uii1N li C�C/1 V Imo' COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2014 APPLICATION NO: LUA14-000241 DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 20,2014 = I APPLICANT: PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding rSk PROJECT TITLE: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge PROJECT REVIEWER: Rohini Nair - 4-- SITE AREA: 328129 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA(gross):n/a i; LOCATION: 14038 156th Ave SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street. The.proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C CODE-RELATED COMMENTS �;ch1. Ly v ��+Z��z 7'f�4� , , ' ft�� � ��j �C r I��i:,•v �1�-�� I '�-Le:�.S7�k'C�'-,�, f (,i�,,�� l,•1- Ci:.r� 'i, (� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we ha expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is n d to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date AR7 011 z C_ L azLL z jw O E aEi � e LLJ za a Nil 401 Y.e 011"'Iffifli'Ill!110: vi 00 C 91 F �W I I Q I a K 2a' L;I I I ra I I I Ile, A, t�. N ✓ L J gg I— r, 3S3i1 H1M Wj i WW UA u o •I N al I I 1 k 1► / { ��� i all j � a XXXX—XXX 3001d 3141218 1V 3AV1ON3 3Hl 3Y(VN 1]3rotld v�recaz.oyW.`.u¢mc-NN+N+r+N<1uv\K�aV.vu PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS (L 04-000241) � �► City of PLAN ADDRESS: 14038 156TH SE AVE APPLICATION DATE: 02/27/2014 RENTON,INA 98059-7419 DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4(Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. Community Services Review Leslie Beflach Ph: 425-430-6619 email: LBetlach@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Parks Impact Fees per Ordinance 5670 applies. Engineering Review Rohini Nair Ph: 425-430-7298 email: rnair@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: I have reviewed the application for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038—156th Ave SE and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER Water service will be provided Water District 90. SEWER Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton.There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Ave SE. STORM There is a 12-inch storm pipe in 156th Ave SE to the north. STREETS There are no frontage improvements in the area. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1.A water availability certificate from Water District#90 was provided. 2.New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 3.Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. SANITARY SEWER 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main,located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and extending the sewer main into the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE upto the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration for atieast half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE upto the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south will require pavement restoration at a minimum of overlay for at least%the street. 1.2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road,to the east property line(with a 10 feet sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 2.System development charge(SDC)fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot.The current fee per lot based on IX-inch or 1-inch water is$2,033.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 3.This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District.Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is$438.16 per new lot.Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. 4.All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot.Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. SURFACE WATER A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26,2014 was submitted by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers Inc.The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM,Chapters 1 and 2.All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report.The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County will also be provided a copy of these plans and reports that could impact King County s Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map,this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard,Forested Condition.The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control,which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50%of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. 2.Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review will be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer,and lining may also be required.3. IA geotechnical report,dated February 4,2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW,LLC.The report identifies the soils as sand April 16,2014A Page 1 of 4 directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the"LEGEND"block all tree items,utilities facilities and mailbox references,but do include in said"LEGEND"block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block,an owner's block,an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use,density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted,note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements,covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton"APPROVALS'blocks for the City of Renton Administrator,Public Works Department,the Mayor,City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Do not make references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing. If there is a Restrictive Covenants,Conditions&Restrictions document for this plat,then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants,agreements or easements to others(neighboring property owners,etc.)as part of this subdivision,they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s)are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first(with King County). The recording number(s)for the associated document(s)(said documents recorded concurrently with,but following the plat)need to be referenced on the plat drawings. There needs to be language regarding the conveyance of the Tracts(A'&B)created by the plat;please check with the Stormwater Utility to see if they will require that the City be the owner of Tract'A'if not and if there is to be a Homeowners' Association(HOA)created for this plat,the following language concerning ownership of"Tract A"(the detentiontwet vault area) applies to this plat and should be noted on the final plat drawing as follows: Upon the recording of this plat,Tract A is hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Name of Plat Homeowners'Association (HOA)for a detention/wet vault facility. All necessary maintenance activities for said Tract will be the responsibility of the HOA. In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations,as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen(18)months,then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwise,use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 31,inclusive,shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in"Tract A". The foregoing statements are to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat or reference to a separate recording instrument detailing the same. Similar language is required for Tract'B'. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s)of the subject plat,at the time of recording,need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, Include a current title report noting the vested property owner. Fire Review-Building Corey Thomas Ph: 425-430-7024 email: cthomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet(including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet,a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved,with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. April 16,2014 Page 3 of 4 Police Review Cyndie Parks Ph: 425-430-752 nail: cparks@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Minimal impact on police services. Estimated CFS Annually: 29 April 16,2014 Page 4 of 4 glacial till.These soils will not support infiltration.Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits.Due to the high moisture content,the geot •ecommends site grading be limited to the summer montf 4. The current surface% .ar system development charge(SDC)fee is$1,228.00 per n, lot.Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 5. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre.A Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)is required for this site. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1.The current transportation impact fee rate is$1,430.72 per new lot The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied.Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2.A traffic analysis dated December 27,2013,was provided by Traffix Northwest.The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips.Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site.Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips,with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site.An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SEISE 142 Place was done to determine what,if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection.This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F.The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development,while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection.Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. 3.A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards,the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060.The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way,with 26 feet of pavement,curb,gutter,an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code,the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE,the City traffic operations may impose left tum restrictions at that intersection 4. To meet the City's complete street standards,frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline,gutter,a 0.5 feet wide curb,an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6- 060.To build this street section,five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required.It is shown on the plans. 4. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City s Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 5. Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road.LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Separate permits and fees for,water meters,side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals.All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit.Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer.Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. Technical Services Bob MacOnie Ph: 425-430-7369 email: bmaconie@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number,LUA14-000241 and LND-10-0511, respectively,on the final plat submittal.The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number.Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used,per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found,per WAC 332-130-150. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been,or is to be,set at the comers of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated,if any. The lot addresses will be provided at the time of final plat submittal. Note said addresses and the street name on the final plat drawing. On the final plat submittal,remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities,trees,concrete,gravel,decks and other items not April 16,2014 Page 2 of 4 City of �� NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)–Planning Division of the.City of Renton.The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: WA14-000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridle.Ridge PROJECTDESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a a.8, acre project site. located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 - tracts(Tracts A and B).anda new publir.street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 ,square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed:between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059657 being.removed.from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present.on the projectsite. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156`"Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed.project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110;the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is.likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M areiintegrated Into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance.of'the DNS-M. PERMiT.APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION; March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC[SIM SE 36'h Street Suite 105, Mercer island,WA 98040/EML:Justin@americanclassichomes.cam Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which maybe.required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies; Drainage-Report,Geotechnical Report;Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)–Planning Division,Sixth'Floor Renton City Hall,.1055 South Grady'Way;Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 2Z.2014 before the Renton HearimExaminer in Renton Council Chambery at;10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 10SS South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project,complete this farm and return to:City of Renton,CED–Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File-No.: The Enclave a at Bridle Ridge/LUAI4-000241,ECF,PP NAME: �tJ AID Y V k"x V 614e Y f� MAILING ADDRESS: 12 !;65-- i �.��1L5.,� City/state/zip:f'fK TELEPHONE NO'.: 20(c CIO q-5<0 3 coo C( , Jill Ding From: Jill Ding Sent: Thursday,April 17, 2014 11:32 AM To: jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 This email is to let you know that a reconsideration/appeal has been filed for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge.As such,the hearing scheduled for April 22"d at 10:00 am is cancelled. We will reschedule the hearing at a later date when the City has had time to review and respond to the appeal.As a party of record, you will be informed when a new date and time has been scheduled for the Hearing. Thank you! Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton iding@rentonwa.gov Jill Ding From: Jill Ding Sent: Thursday,April 17,2014 11:20 AM To: 'highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com'; 'Roger Paulsen'; 'DAVID C MICHALSIQ' Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 This email is to let you know that a reconsideration/appeal has been filed for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge.As such,the hearing scheduled for April 22"d at 10:00 am is cancelled. We will reschedule the hearing at a later date when the City has had time to review and respond to the appeal.As a party of record, you will be informed when a new date and time has been scheduled for the Hearing. Thank you! Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton iding@rentonwa.gov 1 Denis Law Cl Of. Mayor �Y p A ( .L Ov TO April 17, 201.4 Department of Community and Economic Development - C.E."Chip"Vincent;Administrator M A. Hun-iu 6608 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 - SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge,.LUA14-000241, PP-ECF- Dear Mr.'Huniu: This-letter,is to-inform you, as.a party of record for th lave at' Bridle.Ridge, that an appeal/reconsideration request has been .filed and a hea ing originally scheduled for April 22 at 10:00 am has been cancelled to all the City. time to review the recansideration/appeal and prepare a response. ill be informed when a new hearing date has been scheduled Please contact me at (425)430-6598 orjding@rentonwa.gov if you have.any questions. Sincerely, . Jill'Ding Senior Planner Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 rentonwa.gov, t _�0� �,� 1 � � �� �� r � � � I i I �1 1 \n�,,�y (/�� / � '�Cs/� f Li� � _ A✓ � � �� ' ��. � "°z� �� ��-� -'2 G���/ �v�rr����r� � _ A L U �} 1 y-d a s �2��/�� ������ ��� � Z�� �- r= � [w x w -ice` Ktl�A�R d �s 1 March 17, 2014 Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District 420 Park Avenue N Renton,WA 98055 Subject: Enclave @ BridleRidge LUA14-000241 The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a Preliminary Plat located at 14038 and 14004 156th Ave SE. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 or fax to (425) 430-7300, by March 31,2014. Elementary School: Maplewood Elementary Middle School: McKnight Middle School High School: Hazen High Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes X_ No Any Comments: Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at(425)430-6598. Sinc .rely, � ` �;/Z ill Ding Senior Planner Enclosure March 22, 2014 Ms.Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdino(a-,rentonwa.,eov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms.Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave.at Bridle Ridge",Project#LUA14-000241,ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M.Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 156th even more difficult. The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project,and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this proiect to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south)from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsengcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application Lisa Marie McElrea From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 6:09 AM To: 'Roger Paulsen' Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair,jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Thank you for your comments,they will be included in the official land use file. Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:46 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair; jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Jill, Please find attached an electronic copy of my comment letter for the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I'm sending this via e-mail while traveling in order to meet the March 24`h comment period deadline. I'll be entering an area of the country (southern Utah) where Internet access is unreliable. I'm copying my son, Jason Paulsen, on this is so he can address any questions or issues you may have if I'm unable to respond. Jason can be reached at iasonmpaulsen(a? mail.com. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication via e-mail to both Jason and me. Thanksll Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(c Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(a)Rentonwa.gov>; Lisa Marie McElrea <LMcElrea(@_Rentonwa.gov>; Rohini Nair <RNair(cDRentonwa.gov> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 6:38 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Thank you for your email. Could you send us your mailing address so that we can add you as a Party of Record? The plan reviewer assigned to review the Enclave at Bridle Ridge for utility compliance is Rohini Nair. I have copied her on this email. I do not have her direct line, but she can be reached by contacting the front desk at 425-430-7200. 1 I primarily work remotely. I do go into U ie office once a week on Thursdays from 1Vam-2pm. I will also be happy to answer any questions you have on this project via email. I will let Vanessa respond to your request for public records, as I am not sure if we grant them electronically. Thank you, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:41 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Fwd: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Jill, I'm forwarding an e-mail I had copied you on --but had your address incorrect. Hopefully this one works!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message---- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(a-)_cs.com> To: VDolbee <VDolbee(c�Rentonwa.gov> Cc:jding <iding(d�renton.wa.gov>;jasonmpaulsen <jasonmpaulsen(a7gmail.com> Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 10:37 pm Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, This is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence regarding the project named "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", file number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP (see below). Now that the project has officially been posted, I request to become a party of record. Attached is an electronic copy of the required form, with my contact information. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, I am traveling out of the area, and won't return until after the end of the comment period on March 24th. I am an adjacent property owner(parcel 9425200080), and this project is of vital interest. I had arranged for my son (Jason Paulsen)to watch for official notice of the proposed development, and have been copied on Jason's correspondence with Jill Ding, of your department. Apparently Ms. Doing is out of the office on vacation until March 20th, and was unable to assist Jason in obtaining an electronic copy of information on the project. I'm writing you in the hope that you can help. If possible, I'd like to receive an electronic copy of application materials and supporting studies pertinent to the SEPA decision so that I can comment prior to March 24th closing date. I am especially interested in reviewing the traffic study. I am quite willing to pay the reasonable cost of providing this information. Let me know the best way to provide payment. Now that the project application has been officially accepted by the City, I'd like to pursue my question regarding sewer service. Can you tell me who I can/should contact to determine whether this project will provide an opportunity for adjacent properties to connect to the Renton Sewer system?? Thanks for any help you can provide!!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(a-Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsena-cs.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:28 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 2 Roger, Yes you are correct, as long as you are the property owner. The City uses the King Co. assessors data to mail out to the 300 ft. surrounding neighbors, so whatever address the assessor have for tax purposes is where the City will mail the notice. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogeraoaulsenna cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:33 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for the update!! My wife and I will be away from home for the next 6 weeks, so I won't be able to watch for the pink notice posters. Based on my conversation with Chris on Monday, I understand that we'll also receive a letter in the mail because we are within 300 feet of the development. Is that correct?? Our property actually abuts the development. We're having our mail forwarded, so I should receive the notice in time to become a party of record, and submit comments on the project. I'm assuming my question about access to the Renton Sewer system will need to wait until the City has actually accepted the application. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(a)Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen cs.com> Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 12:25 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, The name of the project based on your photos is "156th Ave. SE Assemblage" This project did go through the City's pre-application process but has not been submitted to the City as an official application. The developer is required to install these public notices signs prior to application to the City. At this point in time we do not have an official application to add you to as a party of record. Please keep an eye on the big white sign, once you see a bright pink "notice" poster stapled to the front of the sign, the application has been submitted to the City for review. At this time please contact the identified person at the City that is noted on the pink "notice" sign requesting to be added to the party of records list. Please let me know if you have any other questions. 3 Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(a-)cs.coml Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for getting back to me!!! Attached is a zip file with photos taken of the "Proposed Land Use" sign recently posted on the property. The address is 14038 156th Ave. SE. I believe the project number is 13117. Does that help?? Roger -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen cs.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 5:23 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, I have searched the City's permit system for a project with the title "Enclave at Bridle Ridge" or a variation of this title. We do not have any records of a project with this name in our system. Can you please provide me a site address or tax parcel number so I can identify what project you are inquiring about. If you would like to become a party of record for any project, the City has to have an application to assign "you" to. In order to do this I need to identify what application you would like to become a party of record for. Thank you for the additional information. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 4 From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapau,senCcDcs.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:09 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, By way of introduction, my wife and I live on the East Renton Plateau, adjacent to the NE corner of proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I had some questions about the development, and met yesterday with Chris in your department. He suggested that I forward one of my questions to you. Our property has a 50-year old septic system. It's currently functioning correctly, but I anticipate it's life is limited. I wonder if the new development will provide us an opportunity to connect to the Renton sewer system?? If you're not the right person to address this question to, please direct me to someone who can. Although we haven't yet been formally notified of the development, I would like to become a party of record. Can I do that via this e-mail?? If so, the following is my contact information: Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th PL Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 RogerAPaulsen@cs.com Thanks!!! Roger 5 Lisa Marie McElrea From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday,April 09, 20146:39 AM To: Lisa Marie McElrea Subject: FW:concerns:the Enclave at Bridle Rid ge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Lisa, Could you please include a copy of this email in the LUA14-000241 land use file? Thanks! Jill From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:38 AM To: 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' Cc: Rohini Nair Subject: RE: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Dear Mr. Michalski, Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding.Your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review.The City is aware of the delay at the 156th Avenue SE and SE 142nd Place intersection. Unfortunately,the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project.According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 2.3 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road,the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access.Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development to the City of Renton street system. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22, which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. If you have further comments or concerns, I encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again for your comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner From: DAVID C MICHALSKI [mailto:dcmichal(!5)msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP i Lisa Marie McElrea From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday,April 09, 2014 6:39 AM To: Lisa Marie McElrea Subject: FW: concerns:the Enclave at Bridle Rid ge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Lisa, Could you please include a copy of this email in the LUA14-000241 land use file? Thanks! Jill From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:38 AM To: 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' Cc: Rohini Nair Subject: RE: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Dear Mr. Michalski, Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding.Your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review.The City is aware of the delay at the 156th Avenue SE and SE 142nd Place intersection. Unfortunately,the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project. According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 2.3 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road,the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access.Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development to the City of Renton street system. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22,which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. if you have further comments or concerns, I encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again for your comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner From: DAVID C MICHALSKI fmailto:dcmichal@msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP 1 David Michalski 6525 se 5th pl Renton,Wa 98059 March 21, 2014 Jill Ding,Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of 5E5th pi and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156th Ave Se.Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the.,_., ----- traffic on 156th ave se is unbearable. Coming out of any of the side streets off 156th ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down,there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156th. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? "6co 1 Mq R 2 t?I/�a Sincerely, (� � f� � Uz�, C/T�`Ott David Michalski Email:dcmichal@msn.com PLaNw/NGo�NoO/V Ph#425-271-7837 r �,1V}lt V1 e r � CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M) of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on.the City's Zoning Map. A Master Applicetion has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Documents that (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton.The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Evaluate the Proposed Project Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Public APProvals. Development Regulations DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-11t LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-W0241,ECF,PP , I Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations a: appropriate. PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ' Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be Imposed on the proposer PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site bated within the R-4 project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts no (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 project construction shag be required to comply with the submitted geatechmical report square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line 00 adjustment(LUA14-0250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result In 30,175 project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.Noncritical areas are present on the be submitted In writing to 11II Ding,Senior Planner,CEO—Planning Division project site. Comments on the above application must 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by 5:00 PM an March 24,2014.This matter Is also tentatively schedule, PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156'Ave SE for a public hearing on April 22,Z014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall,1055 Scull Grady Way,Renton. If you are Interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure tha OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M):As the Lead Agency,the Gty of Renton has the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-6578. if comments cannot be submitted In writing by the dat determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore,as Indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearin permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of mmrd and receive addition: M Is likely to be Issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated Into a single comment Information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automaticail period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598 - Eml:,din¢ rentonwa.r:ov NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC/9675 SE 36'Street Suite 105, Mercer Island,WA 98040/EMU justin@americanclassiclwmes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where oppilation may Lo reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hail,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 �g�ggtgg PUBUC HEARING: Public hearing Is tentatively scheduled f Aril 22 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner In Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of �>e��•� Q Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT'NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete& If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA34-000241,ECF,PP Name/File No.:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: Gty/State/Zip: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/ZIP: TELEPHONE NO.: TELEPHONE NO.: CERTIFICATION? Ir 0r14a1 1/ 'l�%t iii , hereby certify that J copies of.the above document were posted in conspicuous places or nearby the described property on t Date: ?—/0 Signed: Crl�z�4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 1 ory-LO-5 K "V signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Z tM Dated: (1�afc�. 10 ac�j�( s _ • `` z Notary P lic in and for the State of WashinAl,n '0w+1L 1 Notary (Print): L� �oyv� SOF WPS� My nnnointment expires: 1' lAnUGlk �`l, a0I k CITY O RENTON �F 'DEP�#RTMENT F C IULM >AI Y& E �NOII IIC DE1fE QPMENT� , -.1EANN NG,�DIUIS1Dl� ' AFIDAi/!7 QF SERICE 13 INIAILING � 5 � x r s,. mK8<"�EF IPIIAZ 3. ., On the 10th day of March, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance and Notice of Application documents.This information was sent to: A. . x. Agencies See Attached Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC Applicant, Contact Richard Ouimet, Sally Lou Nipert Owners See attached 300'surrounding property owners 4'��(Signature of Sender): PC STATE OF WASHINGTON Ss PO COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa M. McElrea su - • " Z signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for thelias '�ncl fa mentioned in the instrument. OF W Dated: lfhuel 16), a JY ,#`t' N a Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print): My appointment expires: ao ► � a* The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge f LUA14-000241, ECF, PP template-affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept.of Ecology** WDFW-Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave.NW Suite 201 Attn:Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah,WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Auburn,WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region* Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* Attn:Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev.Serv.,MS-240 Seattle,WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn,WA 98092-9763 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp.of Engineers* KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn:Gretchen Kaehler Attn:SEPA Reviewer Ms.Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S.Jackson ST,MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia,WA 98504-8343 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers*** Depart.of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia,WA 98504-7015 KC Dev.&Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn:SEPA Section Attn:Steve Roberge Attn:Mr.Fred Satterstrom,AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave.SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev.Director Renton,WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle,WA 98059 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster,Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868,MS:XRD-01W Tukwila,WA 98188 Seattle,WA 98104-3856 Bellevue,WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn:SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle,WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an"Optional DNS",the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,&Notice to the following email address:sepaunitCa)ecv.wa.eov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT, &Notice the following email address:sepacenter(o)dnr.wa.gov template-affidavit of service by mailing 5336700010 1463400075 1463400079 NEVE MARGARET E PAWLIUK JAMI L TARWATER FREDERICK C 14045 156TH AVE SE 14235 156TH AVE SE 14229 156TH AVE SE RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059-7400 RENTON,WA 98056 1397500040 1397500050 1397500080 ISHII KAY+WILKINSON DAVID COYLE ROBERT W+KLUG MICHA M OBERENDER DALE C+MONICA 1 15822 SE 143RD ST 15812 SE 143RD ST 15710 SE 143RD ST RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 1397500110 1397500090 1463400080 KING COUNTY-WLRD ADM-ES-0800 MCGAHA RONNIE D SMITH JOHN F+SHARON L 500 4TH AVE 15616 SE 143RD ST 12216 164TH AVE SE SEATTLE,WA 98104 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 1463400078 1423059091 1423059013 FORSELL KATHY L LEX TIM+GINA MARGITH SUMPTER DONALD 1 15451 SE 142ND PL 13116 158TH AVE SE 1215 182ND AVE E RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98059 SUMNER,WA 98390 5336700030 1423059113 1423059030 BAGGETT BRIAN L+KELLY C YOU EVERETT ROBERT P III+BRIGID PENCE ALAN D+DENISE 15436 SE 142ND PL 6716 SE 8TH ST 15812 SE 142ND ST RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 5336700005 1463400070 1423059041 THORNBURY JAMES D MCCORKLE ROBERT L+SUSAN M THOMPSON DONALD L 14041 156TH AVE SE 14040 154TH AVE SE 6715 SE 7TH ST RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 1463400069 1463400067 1463400064 HARSCH PATTI J c/o HARSCH FAMILY DENADEL GARY L+BRENDA D FRANKFURTH ANTHONY D TRUST 14013 156TH AVE SE 14009 156TH AVE SE PO BOX 2344 RENTON,WA 98056 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 1423059037 1423059050 1463400068 PENARANDA JOSEPH ANDERSON ROGER R+SHIRLEY A DUNNING ROBERT W+DONNA J 6714 SE 7TH ST 15813 SE 141ST ST 16445 SE 16TH ST RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 BELLEVUE,WA 98008 1423059028 1423059057 1463400062 MAHONEY JAMES P NIPERT SALLY LOU OVERA ROGER+LINDA J 14011 160TH AVE SE 14004156TH AVE SE 14010 154TH AVE SE RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 9425200012 9425200080 9425200060 BECK SHAWN M+ERIC A PAULSEN ROGER A MURAYAMA PEGGY H 13928 156TH AVE SE 6617 SE 5TH PL 15649 SE 139TH PL RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 9425200059 9425200050 9425200040 FERENCJOZEF MICHALSKI DAVID C HEMNES VALERIE K 15643 SE 139TH PL 6525 SE 5TH PL 6519 SE STH PL RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 9425200030 1423059104 6084200160 HENRICKS SYDNIE M BRYANT VIRGINIA LI PU+QI CHENG 6513 SE 5TH PL 6705 SE 5TH PL 15919 SE 139TH ST RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 1423059088 1423059090 1423059044 STACHOWIAK C R HUNIU MARY ANN MCCULLOH JASON+JENNIFER 15652 SE 139TH PL 15642 SE 139TH PL 15636 SE 139TH PL RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 1423059087 1423059086 1423059027 FRANK REIKO M JENSEN JUSTIN+COLLEEN WILLOUGHBY WADE V+NANCY PO BOX 2461 6518 SE 5TH PL 15612 SE 139TH PL RENTON,WA 98056 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98056 1463400060 1463400081 1397500100 PHAN TRI HARRISON THERESA CROW SCOTT MATTHEW 2109 BREMERTON AVE NE 14207 156TH AVE SE 15606 SE 143RD ST RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98056 1423059046 6084200180 1397500070 MISHLER BRIAN DAVID TONG JEFF J BARKER SHARON 13908 156TH AVE SE 6731 SE 5TH ST 15718 SE 143RD ST RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 5336700020 9425200010 5336700025 CONNOR MICHAEL&BARBARA WILLETT CAROL+DAVID MACEY TONY LEE+SHIRLEY D 15446 SE 142ND PL 13922 156TH AVE SE 15440 SE 142ND PL RENTON,WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 5336700015 6084200170 1397500060 LINS JOSE ROBERIO S VUE YER+YANG LA MAY RONALD G 10516 172ND CT SE 15925 SE 139TH ST 15802 SE 143RD ST RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98056 1423059023 OUIMET G RICHARD 2923 MALTBY RD BOTHELL,WA 98012 -" City NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156'h Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC/9675 SE 36th Street Suite 105, Mercer Island,WA 98040/EML:justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 22,2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: I 1f A CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by 5:00 PM on March 24,2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22,2014,at 10:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing . Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml:idinl;@rentonwa.eov r ® i 1 U T 1! •, 9 1 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: Denis Law - Mayor-. Clty Of RY ^ Department of Comm unity.and`Economic Development March 10, 2014 C:E."Chip"Vincent;Administrator Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC: 9675 SE.36th Street. . Suite 105-` Mercer Island,,WA 98040 . Subject: Notice of`Complete Application .The.Enclave at Bridle Ridge,LUA14-000241,,ECF, PP Dear Mr.-Lagers: The'Planning Division of the City.of.Renton' has determined that the•subject-application, Js.complete according to submittal'requkements and, therefore; is accepted for review. It is tentatively.scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on March 31, 2014. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional'information_ is. required to'continue processing your application. In addition, this matter isAentatively scheduled for a Public-Hearing on April 22, 2014 at ' 10:00 AM, Council Chambers; Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055.South Grad-Way, Renton..The applicant or rep.resentative(s) of:the applicant are required to be present at the publichearing. A.copy of the staff_report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. ` Please contact me.at (425) 430-6598 if you have any questions. Sincerely,- Jill Ding Senior-Planner cc: G.Richard Ouimet,Sally Lou Nipert/Owner(s) Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way + Renton;Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: G. Richard Ouimet- as to Parcel B The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: ADDRESS: 2923 Maltby Road 14038156th Ave SE CITY: Bothell ZIP: 98012 Renton, WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425) 481-5862 1423059122 - Parcel A APPLICANT (if other than owner) 1423059023 - Parcel B1423059057 - Parcel C EXISTING LAND USE(S): "AME: PNW Holdings, LLC Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY(if applicable): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 RDL- Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 (if applicable) N/A EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-1147 R4 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R4 SITE AREA(in square feet): "AME: Justin Lagers 328,129 sq.ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAY T6E�' 4 COMPANY(if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC DEDICATED: 79,419 s .ft. CITY OF PENTc)N SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACC 'SEMEN S: ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 N/A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 ACRE(if applicable) 4.45 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS(if applicable) 253-405-5587 31 Justin@americanclassichomes.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS(if applicable): 31 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help HandoutsTlanning\masterapp.doe -1- 03/11 PROJECT INFORMATION continued V�NUM:BEROF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS(if applicable): PROJECTVALUE: $3,000,000.00 ARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF BUILDINGS(if applicable): 2800- 3300 Sq.ft. ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE(if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 11-1006f• BUILDINGS TO REMAIN(if applicable): NoneWs s ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS(if applicable): None ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq.ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN(if applicable): None ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq.ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS(if ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq.ft. applicable): None NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW LJ SHORELINE STREAMS&LAKES sq.ft. PROJECT(if applicable): N/A ❑ WETLANDS sq.ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 14 , TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 5E , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) G. Richard Ouimet ,declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one).X_the current owner of the property involved in this application or/ the authorized representative to act for a corporation(please attach proof of authorization)and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. AZ Signature of Owner/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence at / ar-c! Oi i Q2ef" signed this instrument and acknowledge it to b his er/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. C (t�arr Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Wash' gton s �ysl, Cd�y*iaf� 4 �, t Q'� a , No. s�o:.. i is y. Notary(Print): 'i Sr �'�.:a� My appointment expires: v 'rt+ili1tS�`i������* H:10ED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-14elp HandoutslPlanninglmasterapp.doc -2- 03/11 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECTOR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Sally Lou Nipert- as to Parcel A/Parcel C The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: ADDRESS: 14004156th Avenue SE 14038156th Ave SE CITY: Renton ZIP: 98059 Renton, WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 271-5581 1423059122 - Parcel A 1423059023 - Parcel B APPLICANT (if other than owner) 1423059057 - Parcel C "AME: PNW Holdings, LLC EXISTING LAND USE(S):Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY(if applicable): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 RDL - Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 (if applicable) NIA TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING ZONING: 206-588-1147 R4 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING(if applicable): R4 SITE AREA(in square feet): Ir k,-, "AME: Justin Lagers 328,129 sq.ft. FEB 2 7 20m SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY(if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC DEDICATED: 79,419 sq.ft. CITY OF RENTCW VaNININr n , ADDRESS: 8675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: N/A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 ACRE(if applicable) 4.45 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS(if applicable) 253-405-5587 31 Justin@americanclassichomes.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS(if applicable): 31 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help HandoutsTlanning\masterapp.doe -1- 03/11 PROJECT INFORMATION continued NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS(if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 2- $3,000,000.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF BUILDINGS(if applicable): 2800 - 3300 Sq.ft. ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE(if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL T009L.to F- BUILDINGS TO REMAIN(if applicable): None 4fib ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS(if applicable): Nolle SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL Ll FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq.ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN(if applicable): Norse ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq.ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS(if ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq.ft. applicable): None ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS&LAKES sq.ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT(if applicable): NIA ❑ WETLANDS sq.ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 14 , TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 5E , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Sally Lou Nipert declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am(please check one)X_the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation(please attach proof of authorization)and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Represent ive Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 'L'-/ signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hi he heir free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument fill Dated0 �y� Notary Public in and for the a of Wa ngton 0 ..=7 CO-'= t'' NOT' ON,4 i ms, e y� Notary(Print): C-✓—���.� ,�. !,Z/�64 ' CIG ja = . ,� �unu1%,.��N� � �My appointment expires: 4SHI+4G���.�`' H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help HandoutsTlanning\masterapp.doe -2- 03/11 PLANNING DIVISION WAILER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ..1N I C3t1- 1�•�• ,t Plat N.. a••• me Reservation 4Y. i .I n I .9 Pub lic Works Approval"Letter2 ':�'..�.'x.�"�':i:`':`.`:•:::::: :?:.:°:"' ' � �i°€i<"�ii�� c;iiii:;:S==is?:;:i:2=s;::; i=s:i is _. .E. ?ie Screening D g etail a �(t4• ..x i Stream ea m or Lake Study, Standard andarci a �t .w a. Stream m or Lake Mitigation Plana toet .P - Title Report or Plat Certificate a , . 0 r .s Traffic Study Yz e . tf tt n >a i Urban Design n , g Regulations Analysisa `":::.:::::•:::::?-::;:�'�'-'_''"°�''�����"'`: s; ;i?=' i==iii'?iii:;: :: .�?a r ar Iz Wetlands s I Mitigation g on Plan, Final a . a .f��j�•' txt� a Wetlands s nd Re ort! p Delineation a -•j�. s Applicant Agreement Statement i z ar�D 3 � Inventory of Existing Sites 2AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2AND3 This requirement may be waived by: 1..Property Services PROJECT NAME:- _ �sehlr�,o 2. Public Works Plan Review ) 3. Building DATE: 4. Planning - �• C' tY CITY"OF RENTON i _.P1 ANNJIi PLANNING 41VISION WAIVER.QF SUBMITTALREQUIREMENTS .FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS + u IN IN itSl Calculations .F� Construction..frac ion Mitigation Description zANoa . •''�ii:::i:'i�:i:]':':'i''::i:e'�:i:i;:'Ki:.::: i:i:i:c:c:isisisi:i:i:::;::::::5;:;:::::;:::::: .y. Density Worksheet 4 OWN b rainage Report z..:._.:_ .. :�t tis .A�:• - . t :•:::.:::::...:.:.:.:: :;- G eotut� vF=:• K• Envitonmental Checklist¢ - 1 1tnMad ..� e Existing Easements(Recorded Copy)4 Floor Plans sAND a .�/• ••.�•.• � h• Grading Plan, Conceptual 2` .a. Habitat-Data Report 4 mum lrri ati g on Plan 4 Landscape Plan, Conceptual t� d. Legal g Description 4 Master Application Form 4 en. �o Neighborhood Detail Map 4 • .I. .�-�:.>::••::.•��•::::::::::::':i4#ill':::: :: '•=� s '���� �� ' •t Plan Reductions(PMTs)4 ITY OF pt, This requirement maybe waived by: 't n P AN1 !vG DIV!S!c��7,,/� 1. Property Services- PROJECT NAME: (f� ( C 1 7- 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building DATE: 4. Planning PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat I. 14038156th Avenue SE PRE 13-001566 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division November 26, 2013 Contact Information: Planner: Vanessa Dolbee, 425.430.737.4 EC" M��� Public Works Plan Reviewer: Rohini Nair, 425.430.7298 FEB 2 7 201 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430.7024 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430.7290 CITY `' i Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use f. and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on ' the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal.The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community& Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). Fire & Emergency Services C; Of,, r � t . Department ' .: ,J1 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 11/18/2013 12:00:OOAM TO: Vanessa Dolbee,Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plan Review/Inspector SUBJECT: (156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat) PRE13-001566 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. It appears only a dead end 6-inch main is available in this area currently. 2. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. i i 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Dead end streets exceeding 500-feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not allowed and will not be approved without secondary access roadways being provided: Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D c; of & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ---- e ff tnn END M E M U R A N D U Nt DATE: November 22,2013 f TO: Vanessa Dolbee,Sr. Planner ; FROM: Rohini Nair, Plan Review ! i SUBJECT: 156 Assemblage Preliminary plat Preapp 14038156'Ave SE PRE13-001566 j r TE:The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. iew comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changesuired by City staff or made by the applicant. i I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced proposal.The following comments are based on the pre-tipplication submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. i WATER The proposed development is within the Water District 90's water service area.Water availability certificate from the Water District 90 must be provided to the City during the land use application. Approved water plans from the Water District 90 must be provided during the utility construction plan review. SANITARY SEWER 1. Sewer service shall be provided by the City of Renton. 2. The project can get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main,located south of the site on 156 Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street, up to the north property line(on 156 ' Ave)of the subject development site.Applicant will extend 8-inch sewer main on the internal public streets and on the private access easement in Lot 7,extending up to the north property line. 3. Each lot can be served by individual side sewers from the sewer main. 4. The development is subject to a wastewater system development charge(SDC)fee.The SDC fee for i sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the new home on each lot.The sewer fee for a%-inch or 1-inch meter install is$1,812.00(2013 rate)or$2033.00(2014 rate). 5. The Central Plateau Interceptor Special Assessment District.fee(SAD)fee will be applicable on the project.The SAD fee rate when it was established in 2009 was$351.95 plus interest per lot.As of j I i 1561h Assemblage Preliminary Plat Preapp-PRE13-001566 Page 2 of 3 November 22,2013 11/22/2013,the SAD fee rate per lot is$431.93 plus additional interest per day of$0.05112.The rate that will be applicable on the issuance day of the utility construction permit will be applicable on this project. SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage report complying with the City adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City Amendments will be required. Based on the City's flow control map,the site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard(Forested Site Conditions). The project is required to use the Flow Control Duration Standard(forested conditions)as the existing condition. Refer to Figure 1.1.2.A—Flow chart,for determining the type of drainage review required in the City of Renton 2009 I. Surface Water Design Manual Amendment.Storm drainage improvements on 156"'Ave SE may be applicable. Stormwater BMPs applicable to the individual lots must be provided.The drainage report must account for all the improvements provided by the project.Stormwater improvements based on the drainage report study will be required to be provided by the developer. 2. A geotechnical report for the site is required. Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options with typical designs for the site from the geotechnical engineer,shall be submitted with the application. 3. Surface water system development(SDC)fee is$1,120.00(2013 rate)for each lot.The SDC fee for stormwater will become$1,228.00 per lot. TRANSPORTATION 1. Payment of the transportation impact fee is applicable on the single family houses at the time of building permit issuance.The current transportation impact fee rate is$717.75 per single family house. The impact fee for this type of land use will increase on January 1,2014,to$1,430.72 per single family house.The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied,payable at issuance of building permit. . 2. 156th Ave is a Minor Arterial with an available right of way(ROW)width of 60 feet. Based on the Transportation plan for the 156th Ave corridor,the street will be a 3-lane roadway with a 12-feet wide center two way left turn lane, 11-feet wide thru travel lanes,5-feet wide bike lane on both sides,gutter, 0.5-feet wide curbs,8-feet wide landscaped planters,5-feet wide sidewalks,storm drainage improvements,and street lighting.This will require half street right of way dedication of 5.5 feet (subject to final survey)on the project frontage on 156th Ave SE.The half street frontage improvements will be required to be built on the 156th Ave SE frontage by the developer. 3. According to RMC 4-6-060 section H.2,two means of access is required if the length of the dead end street is greater than 700 feet.The dead end street appears to exceed 700 feet to Lot 18,which is not allowed by code.Dead end street,turnarounds,and secondary access must meet with fire approval and must meet the requirements of section H of RMC 4-6-060. 4. The proposed internal public street that dead ends at the south property line is offset from the existing public street south of the site. A street that will align directly with the existing dead end street south of the site must be considered. 5. The internal access is proposed via public residential streets of ROW width 53 feet.The public residential street must have 26-feet paved width,gutter,0.5-feet wide curb,8-feet wide landscaped H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\13-001566Vanessa\Plan Review Comments PRE13-001566.doc 1561h Assemblage Preliminary Plat Preapp—PRE13-001566 Page 3 of 3 November22,2013 planter,and 5-feet wide sidewalk as per RMC 4-6-060.Access to lots 7,8,and 9 is proposed via a 26-feet wide private access road.The private road can have a paved width of 20 feet in the 26-feet wide private access easement. i 6. Street lighting is required to be provided on 156th Ave SE and on the internal public streets. i 7. A traffic study is required.The study must include the analysis of the stop sign controlled intersection to the immediate south of the project,the proposed new roadway intersection on 156"', and any potential conflicts between these two intersections.Traffic impact analysis guidelines is attached. 8. All utilities serving the site are required to be undergrounded. 9. Maximum width of single family driveways for two car garage is 16 feet.Refer to RMC 4-4-080 regarding driveway regulations. 10. A minimum separation of 5 feet is required between driveway and the property line. 11. Informational comment—traffic safety guidelines include a minimum spacing of 20 feet between driveways. GENERA!COMMENTS 1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals.All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When utility plans are complete,please submit three(3)copies of the drawings,two (2)copies of the drainage report,the permit application,an itemized cost of construction estimate,and the application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. i i H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PRFAPPS\13-001565Vanessa\Plan Review Comments PRE13-0.01566.doc I I of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 26, 2013 TO: Pre-application File No. 13-001566 FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat I General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner,Community& Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director,and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or. made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for .$100.00 plus tax,from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal:The subject property(APN 1423059023 and 1423059122) is located on the east side of 1561h Avenue SE and is addressed as 14038 156th Avenue SE.There are no mapped critical areas on the subject property. The total area of the subject site is 372,290 square feet(8.55 acres) in area and is zoned Residential—4 dwelling units per acre (R-4).The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into 27 residential lots and two tracts, one drainage tract and one access tract. The residential lots would range in size from approximately 8,050 square feet to approximately 17,442 square feet. Access to the 27 proposed residential lots would be via a new public street dead ending in a cul-de-sac extending from 156th Avenue SE with an access tract extending off the new road in the northwest corner of the site, proving access for proposed lots 6—9. Current Use: There is currently a single-family house on the subject property,which is proposed to be removed. Zoning/Density Requirements:The subject property is zoned Residential-4 dwelling units per acre(R-4). There is no minimum density in the R-4 zone and the maximum density is 4.0 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac).The area of public and private streets h.\ced\planning\current plan ning\preapps\13-001566.vanessa\pre013-001566,assemblage pp,27-lots,r-4.doc 156x'Assemblage Preliminary Plat,PRE13-001566 Page 2 of 4 November 26,2013 I and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the"net" i site area prior to calculating density. The application materials identified a net site area of 298,821 SF(6.86 acres). Using the net square footage provided,the proposal for 27 lots arrives at a net density of approximately 3.94 du/ac(27 lots/6.86 acres=3.94 du/ac), which is within the density range permitted in the R-4 zone. Development Standards:The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A,"Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations"effective at the time of complete application (noted as"R-4 standards" herein). Single family residential development is permitted outright in the R-4 zone. Minimum Lot Size Width and Depth — The minimum lot size permitted in Zone R-4 'is 8,000 square feet except for small lot cluster development where R-8 standards apply. Minimum lot width is 70 feet for interior lots and 80 feet for corner lots; minimum lot depth is 80 feet except for small lot cluster development where R-8 standards apply. The proposal appears to comply with the lot size, width and depth requirements of the zone. Building Standards — R-4 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. The maximum impervious surface would be limited to 55%.. Building height is restricted to 30 feet from existing grade. The proposal's compliance with the building standards would be verified at the time of building permit review for the new residences to be located on all lots. Setbacks—Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required setbacks in the R- 4 zone are 30 feet for the front yard, 25 feet for the rear yard setback, interior side yards are required to have a 5 foot setbacks and side yard along a street requires a 20 I foot setback. The setbacks for the new residences would be reviewed at the time of building permit. I Residential Design and Open Space Standards: The Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115 would be applicable to any new residential structures. A handout indicating the applicable guidelines and standards is enclosed. Access/Parking:The applicant has indicated access to Proposed Lots would be via new public roadway extending from 156th Ave. SE. All lots would be access directly off the new public roadway with the exception of lots 6—9,which would be accessed via a shared access tract. The application was not clear as to whether this access is to be a private road or a shared driveway. Below are the standards for both. A shared private driveway may be permitted for access up to a maximum of four(4) lots. Up to three (3) of the lots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\13-001566.vanessa\pre013-001566,assemblage pp,27-lots,r- 4.doc 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat,PRE13-001566 Page 3 of 4 November 26,2013 driveway.The private access easement shall be a minimum of sixteen feet(16') in width, with a maximum of twelve feet(12') paved driveway. Private streets are allowed for access to six(6)or fewer lots, provided at least two (2)of the six(6) lots abut a public right-of-way. Private streets will only be permitted if a public street is not anticipated by the Department of Community and Economic- - - - - - -- - -- -- - Development to be necessary for existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision or to serve adjacent property. Such private streets shall consist of a minimum of a twenty six foot(26') easement with a twelve-foot (12')pavement width.The private street shall provide a turnaround meeting the minimum requirements of this Chapter. No sidewalks are required for private streets; however,drainage improvements per City Code are required, as well as an approved pavement thickness (minimum of four inches (4")asphalt over six inches (6") crushed rock).The maximum grade for the private street shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%), except for within approved hillside subdivisions.The land area included in private street easements shall not be included in the required minimum lot area for purposes of subdivision. It should be noted that the proposed public road which results in a stub at the southern property boundary is not aligned with the existing right-of-way improvements located one parcel south of the development. Such public roadways shall align in order to make the connections in the future. Landscaping: Except for critical areas, all portions of a development area not covered by structures, required parking,access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant,vegetative cover. Development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. The minimum on-site landscape width required along street frontages is 10 feet. In addition, if there is no landscape strip within the right-of-way such as for the private street,then two ornamental trees are required in the front yard setback area of each lot. These trees would need to be planted prior to the final inspection of the building permit. Please refer to landscape regulations(RMC 4-4-070)for further general and specific landscape requirements. A conceptual landscape plan would be required at the time of formal Short Plat application. Significant Tree Retention: It appears that several significant trees are located on the proposed project site. Since significant trees (greater than 6-inch caliper)would likely be removed, a tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application.The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 30 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. if staff determines that the trees cannot be retained,they may be replaced with minimum 2-inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. Critical Areas: There are no mapped critical areas on the subject site. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\13-001566.vanessa\pre013-001566,assemblage pp,27-lots,r- 4.doc 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat,PRE13-001566 Page 4 of 4 November 26,2013 Environmental Review: Because this preliminary plat proposal includes more than 9 residential lots, Environmental (SEPA) Review would be required. Note: The fee for Environmental(SEPA)Review is$1,030.00($1,000.00 plus 3%Technology Surcharge Fee). Permit Requirements;_Preliminary Plat requests would be processed concurrently with - the Environmental(SEPA) Review within an estimated time frame of 10 to 12 weeks, from the time that the application is accepted as complete. Note:The fee for a preliminary plat application is$4,120.00($4,000.00 plus 3%Technology Surcharge Fee), Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, impact fees are required. Such fees apply to all projects and would be calculated at the time of building permit application and payable prior to building permit issuance. The fees for 2013 are as follows: a Transportation Impact Fee-$717.75 per new single-family house; • Park Impact Fee-$530.76 per new single-family house; • Fire Impact Fee-$479.28 per new single-family house; and • Renton Schools Impact Fee-$6,395.00 per new single-family house. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Please note that all impact fees will increase in 2014. Note: When formal application materials are complete, the applicant must make an appointment with the project manager, Vanessa Dolbee, to have one copy of the j application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor public counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Ms. Dolbee may be contacted at(425)430-7314 or vdolbeeLMrenton wa.go v. Expiration: Upon approval, preliminary plats are valid for seven years. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\13-001566.vanessa\pre013-001566,assemblage pp,27-lots,r- 4.doc J1 j IL JA� RAN' JL -,Ir Z;z;j�J, �I ;Fr 5 El ----J wl + gg gg I9 71 wu t r- -'� •- � �' ��� Ay I ic ^�ra.� _ ar1.-1 i. I4 -yam 71 fill s .._ . ALL f 11Av � t , e • i C_ e"= February 25, 2014 Project No. 13117 CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NARRATIVE PREL11V11NARY PLAN OF THE ENGLA-VE-ATBRIDLE RIDGE The project is a proposed single-family residential development of 8.80 acres, known as Tax Parcels 1423059122, 1423059023 and a portion of 1423059057 into 31 single- family residential lots. The property is located approximately at 14038 156th Avenue SE in the City of Renton, Washington. All existing improvements on Tax Parcels 1423059122 and 1423059023 will be demolished or removed during plat construction. Project Contact Information: Developer: PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 588-1147 Engineer/Surveyor: D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 6207 th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Maher A. Joudi, P.E. Land Use Permits Required: F?'___'� IVED -Preliminary Plat Approval -Grading Permit -Final Plat Approval -Building Permit FEB 2 7 2014 -Environmental Review C'Ty PENION Zoning and Density: The property and adjacent properties are zoned R-4. Current use of Site and existing improvements: The Parcels are currently developed with two single-family residences, a garage and associated gravel driveways. All existing improvements on Tax Parcels 1423059122 and 1423059023 shall be removed. All existing vegetation and trees shall be removed on Tax Parcels 1423059122 and 1423059023 with the exception of 35 trees along the project boundary. A lot line adjustment (LLA) is proposed between Tax Parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in a portion (30,175 s.f.) of Parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed preliminary plat. Page 2 of 3 Special Site features: None Soil Type and Drainage Conditions: Per the King County Soil Survey, onsite soil consists of AgC, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with slopes ranging from 6-15%. Site runoff travels to the southwest and dischargesinto_existing_conveyance-systems -- --- Proposed Use of Property: The Project is the subdivision of two existing parcels (post LLA) zoned R4 (8.8 ac. total) into 31 single-family residential lots, per the City of Renton's subdivision process. This will result in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. Lot square footages range from 8,050 to 12,566 s.f., with no lot sizes below the minimum 8,000 s.f. threshold set by the City. Access, Traffic, and Circulation: The Project will locate its access road as depicted on the attached plan. Access to the subdivision will be from 156th Avenue SE at two locations. Proposed Site Improvements: Half street improvements on 156th Avenue SE will provide 22 feet of pavement width from centerline of right of way to face of curb and will install curb, gutter, 5 foot sidewalk and 8 foot planter strip on the east side of 156th Avenue SE as per City requirements; this will require a 5.5-foot right of way dedication. An existing water main in 156th will be tapped to serve the proposed development. Sanitary Sewer will be extended from the south from an existing sanitary sewer manhole at 156th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. One detention/water quality pond is proposed within Tract "A" to serve the subdivision. The Project will meet the drainage requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual), as adopted by the City. The project will locate a job shack on the site as prescribed by the contractor during construction. Model homes will be built, however, the lots on which these homes will be built has not been determined at this time. Cut Materials: Approximately 4,495 c.y. of cut and 36,888 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net fill volume is approximately 32,393 c.y. Tree Inventory: Thirty-five of the existing 303 significant trees on site will be retained onsite. There was an opportunity to retain an additional 15 trees located along the site's eastern boundary; however the project arborist has deemed them as either diseased or dangerous. These trees would eventually die and have the potential of being blown over during a storm if they are not removed during construction. Additional trees will be planted to meet the City's tree retention requirements. See tree retention spreadsheet. Page 3 of 3 Estimated Construction Cost& Proposed Market Value: The approximate construction cost is typical of a subdivision of this size and nature totaling approximately $3,000,000.00. The estimated fair market value of the proposed project is approximately $6,975,000.00. February 20, 2014 Project No. 13117 CITY OF RENTON CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION REPORT PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE The following is a report of expected construction dates and times, as well as proposed hauling/transportation routes, ESC measures and traffic control plan. Proposed Construction Dates: Clearing, Grading, Utilities and Roads September 2014 - February 2015 Home Construction: April 2015 —April 2016 Hours and Days of Operation: Monday — Friday, Hours to meet guidelines set forth by City ordinance Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes: South on 156th Avenue SE to SE 142nd Place, West on SE 142"d Place, SE 142nd Place turns into 154th Place SE to Hwy 169, SE Renton Maple Valley Road. ESC Measures: The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Design elements as listed in SECTION VIII (PART A) of Drainage Report shall be imposed to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics during Site construction. Special hours: No special hours proposed for construction at this time. Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: See attached ' k FEg 2 7 20i4 City o - FLgrd; City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1. 303 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 57 trees Trees in proposed public streets 46 trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 0 trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers 0 trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. 103 trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 200 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 60 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retain 4: 5. 35 tree E E I V E D 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 25 trees FEB 2 7 2014 (If line 6 is less than zero,stop here. No replacement trees are required). 77 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: ' =ichl 7. 300 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2"caliper trees required) 8. 2 inches 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6: per tree (if remainder is.5 or greater,round up to the next whole number) Measured at chest height. 9. 150 trees 2.Dead,diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester,registered landscape architect,or certified arborist,and approved by the City. 3,Critical Areas,such as wetlands,streams,floodplains and protected slopes,are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code(RMC). 4,Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a a'Inches of street trees,inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers,and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6"but are greater than 2"can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. R:\2013\1\13117\3\Documents\Reports\Preliminary\TreeRetentionWorksheetl3l l7.doc 12/08 DENSITY WORKSHEET ity-of-Renton-Plann ing-Divisjo 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 383,126 square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets** 79,419 square feet Private access easements** 0 square feet Critical Areas* 0 square feet Total excluded area: 2. 79,419 square feet 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 3. 303,707 square feet 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. 6.97 acres 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 5. 31 units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. 4.45 = dwellinREG&V E FEB 2 1 2014 *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be nOVui 4i4for' development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations} including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. R:\2013\1\13117\3\Documents\Reports\Preliminary\density 13117.doc -1- 03/08 DRS Project No. 13117 CITY OF RENTON -- ENV IRID NMENTAL—GH ECKLIST_- PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RlDff FIVED FEB 2 7 2014 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: CIT' c'FNON PLANNING DlviSION The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a Proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your Proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the Proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your Proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your Proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your Proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary de- lays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your Proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your Proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 1 of 22 City of Renton,Washington A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge 2. -Name-of-p-plican#: PNW Holdings LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Justin Lagers 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 (206) 588-1147 Contact Person: Maher A. Joudi, P.E. D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 620 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 425 827-3063 4. Date checklist prepared: February 25, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction will start upon the receipt of all required building and construction permits. This is estimated to occur in the winter of 2014. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this Proposal? If yes, explain. Construct 31 single-family residences. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 2 of 22 City of Renton Washington 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this Proposal. Critical Areas Study: Sewall Wetland Consulting Arborist Report: GreenForest, Inc. -Geotec-hnical-Report: Earth-Solutions--NW—LLC------ Traffic LC ----Traffic Impact Analysis: Traffex Level One Downstream Analysis: D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your Proposal? If yes, explain. None to our knowledge. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your Proposal, if known. Boundary Line Adjustment City of Renton SEPA Determination City of Renton Preliminary Subdivision Approval City of Renton Grading Permit City of Renton Final Subdivision Approval City of Renton Building Permit City of Renton Other Customary Construction Related Permits City of Renton General Construction Stormwater Permit Department of Ecology 11. Give brief, complete description of your Proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your Proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.). Subdivide approximately 8.8 acres into 31 single-family lots with a proposed net density of 4.45 du per acre. Access to the subdivision will be from 156th Avenue SE at two locations. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 3 of 22 City of Renton Washington 12. Location of the Proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a Proposal would_occur_over_a-range-of-area, p-rovide--the --- -- range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Project is located in the SE '/4 of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The Site is located at 14038 156th Avenue SE and 14004 156th Avenue SE. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 4 of 22 City of Renton Washington B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General descri tion of the site (circle -- one—Flat,-- Iling- steep-slopes,---- Z lope , - moun alnous o r In general, the majority of the property has slopes that range between 4 to 8%. Generally, the land slopes from the northeast corner of the site to the southwest. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The northeast corner of the Site has slopes that range between 9 to 15%. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils on the Site are mapped in the Soil Survey of King County, Washington, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and has classified the Site as Alderwood Series, slopes 6-15% (AgC), gravelly sandy loam. Additionally, see attached Geotechnical Report dated d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None to our knowledge. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 5 of 22 City of Renton Washington e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the site grading will __bE to_--construct the—subdivision - - ---- roads, utilities and homes. Approximately 4,495 c.y. of cut and 36,888 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net volume is approximately 32,393 c.y. of import. Select fill material will be imported as well as the possibility of exporting unwanted soils. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. There could be a short-term increase in the potential for on-site erosion where soils are exposed during site preparation and construction; however, the Project will comply with all applicable erosion control measures, short term and long term. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 53.3% of the Site will be covered by impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. A temporary erosion control plan will be implemented at the appropriate time. Erosion control measures may include the following: hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, stabilized construction entrance, and other measures which may be used ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 6 of 22 City of Renton Washington in accordance with requirements of the City of Renton. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air ---- - wo-uld—result fr-o-m--the Proposal (i.e:— -- dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, gen- erally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short-term emissions will be those associated with construction and site development activities. These will include dust and emissions from construction equipment. Long-term impacts will result from increased vehicle traffic. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your Proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emissions or odors are those that are typical of residential neighborhoods. These will include automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The Washington Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust. Construction impacts will not be significant and could be controlled by measures such as washing truck wheels before exiting the site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. In addition, dirt-driving surfaces will be watered during extended dry periods to control dust. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 7 of 22 City of Renton Washington 3. WATER a. Surface. i. Is there any surface water body --- -- -- ----- on-or-in the--immediate-vicinity-o# ---- --- ---- the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None to our knowledge. ii. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not to our knowledge. iii. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from sur- face water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None iv. Will the Proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. V. Does the Proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not to our knowledge. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 8 of 22 City of Renton Washington vi. Does the Proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, a public sanitary sewer ------------system will--be—Anstalled to– - serve the residential units. There will be no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground. i. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general de- scription, purpose, and ap- proximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. Public water mains will be installed to serve the development. No water will be discharged to the groundwater. ii. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemi- cals....; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material is proposed to be discharged into the ground. The Site will be served by public sanitary sewers and a public water system. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 9 of 22 City of Renton Washington C. Water Runoff(including storm water). i. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quanti- ties--if known).---Where—will—this------- water his --- —water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See attached Level One Downstream Analysis Report. ii. Could waste materials enter ground .or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed stormwater system will be designed to minimize or eliminate entry of waste materials or pollutants to ground water resources and/or surface waters. Oils, grease, and other pollutants from the addition of paved areas could potentially enter the groundwater or downstream surface water runoff. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. A City approved storm drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from storm water runoff. Temporary and permanent drainage facilities will be used to control quality and quantity of surface runoff during construction and after development. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 10 of 22 City of Renton Washington 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, --- vine—maple,—black-cottonwood—other: -- - (bitter cherry, pacific dogwood) x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, spruce, pine, other: x shrubs x grass (orchard grass) x pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: x other types of vegetation (Deer fern, blackberry, holly, scotch broom) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation within the development area will be removed at the time of development. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Zoning Code. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known or documented within the project area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. None proposed at this time. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 11 of 22 City of Renton Washington birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: crows mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, small rodents, raccoon, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish other: None to our knowledge. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Western King County as well as the rest of Western Washington, is in the migration path of a wide variety of non-tropical songbirds, and waterfowl, including many species of geese. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None proposed. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/or natural gas will serve as the primary energy source for residential heating and cooking within the development. Any wood stoves incorporated into the new residential units will comply with all local and State regulations. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 12 of 22 City of Renton Washington b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. C. What kinds of energy conservation - -- features are-included-in the-plans-of-this---------- Proposal? his-- -- - Proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The required measures of the Washington State Energy Code and the Uniform Building Code will be incorporated in the construction of the residential units. Energy conservation fixtures and materials are encouraged in all new construction. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this Proposal? If so, describe. There are no known on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today and none will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. i. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. ii. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Special measures are not anticipated. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 13 of 22 City of Renton Washington b. Noise i. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? --T-heprimarysource-of off-site - - noise in the area originates from vehicular traffic present on adjacent streets. ii. What types and levels of noise would be created by or as- sociated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term impacts will result from the use of construction equipment during site develop- ment and residential construction. Construction will occur during the daylight hours, and in compliance with all noise ordinances. Construction noise is generated by heavy equipment, hand tools and the transporting of construction materials and equipment. Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increased use of the property by homeowners. iii. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction will be performed during normal daylight hours. Construction equipment will be equipped with noise mufflers. ©2014 D.R.STRONG consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 14 of 22 City of Renton Washington 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are two single-family homes, out buildings and associated gravel --driveways—on—the site. T-he—current---- —- use of adjacent properties is listed as follows: North: Single Family Residential South: Single Family Residential East: Single Family Residential West: Single Family Residential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. C. Describe any structures on the site. There are two single-family homes, out buildings and associated gravel driveways on the Site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, all existing structures on Parcel No. 142305-9023 (single-family home, driveway, outbuildings) will be demolished. Structures on Parcel No. 1423059057 will remain. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification is Residential, R-4. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential Single Family (RSF) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 15 of 22 City of Renton Washington h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not to our knowledge. i. Approximately how many people would ---- -- r-esid-e-or-wo-rk-in-the-completed-project? - -- -- Approximately 71 individuals will reside in the completed residential development (31 units x 2.3 persons per household = 71.3 individuals). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The existing residence that is to be demolished is not occupied, so no individuals will be displaced. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None at this time. I. Proposed measures to ensure the Proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed development is compatible with the prescribed land use codes and designations for this site. Per the City Zoning Code, the development is consistent with the density requirements and land use of this property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The completed project will provide 31 detached single-family residential homes. Homes will be priced with a market orientation to the middle to high-income level homebuyer. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 16 of 22 City of Renton Washington b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One middle-income home will be eliminated. c-. P--r-o-p-osed--mea-sures-to-reduce-or-control — — housing impacts, if any. None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The maximum building height will conform to City of Renton Standards. b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views in the vicinity are not likely to be enhanced, extended or obstructed by development of this project. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? The location of the buildings adheres to or exceeds the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district. The landscaping will be installed at the completion of building and paving construction. A Homeowners Association will maintain the landscaping and common elements. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the Proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will be produced from building lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the site. The light and glare will occur ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 17 of 22 City of Renton Washington primarily in the evening and before dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? -- -- Light-and-glare from--the-projectnot cause hazards or interfere with views. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your Proposal? ,The primary off-site source of light and glare will be from vehicles traveling along the area roadways. Also, the adjacent residential uses and streetlights may create light and glare. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Street lighting will be installed in a manner that directs the light downward. The proposed perimeter landscaping will create a partial visual buffer between the proposed units and the surrounding neighborhood areas. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Maplewood Heights Park (Approximately 0.37 miles east from the Site). Maplewood Neighborhood Park (Approximately 0.3 miles west from the Site) Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail Site (Approximately 0.3 miles west from Site) ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 18 of 22 City of Renton Washington b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control --- - imp-actson--r-ecr-e-ation--including— - recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Park mitigation fees will be paid to the City of Renton. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. There are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the proposed project will be from 156th Avenue SE at two locations. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 19 of 22 City of Renton Washington b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The nearest public transit stop is approximately 0.12 miles south of the Site at the intersection of 156th Ave SE-and-E 1-44th-Street. -- - -- — -- C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will have garage and driveway parking spaces. Each home will have a minimum of two-parking spaces per lot. The project will eliminate those associated with the existing residence that is to be demolished. d. Will the Proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including drive- ways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). 156th Avenue SE will be improved per City of Renton road standards. A new public subdivision road will serve the development in a looped configuration and will provide a stub to the south. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 297 average daily weekday trips; 23 AM Peak Hour trips; 31 PM Peak Hour trips; Peak hours will generally be 7 AM — 9 AM and 4 PM —6 PM. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 20 of 22 City of Renton Washington g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. None. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, the proposal will result in an increase for those services typical of a residential development of this size and nature. The need for public services such as fire and police protection will be typical for a residential development of the size. School age children generated by this development will attend schools in Renton #403 School District. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. In addition to payment of annual property taxes by homeowners, the proponent will mitigate the direct impacts of the proposal through the City's traffic and school mitigation programs, if required. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 21 of 22 City of Renton Washington 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: lectrici natural as Ovate efus ec ele honanitary sewe __——septic-system—, other. -- -- — b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Water: Water District 90 Sewer: City of Renton Telephone: Century Link C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledgI understand the lead agency is re- lying on them to ake its decision. Signature: Maher A. Joudi, P.E. DATE SUBMITTED: , 2014. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat SEPA Checklist Page 22 of 22 City of Renton Washington PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: JUSTIN LAGERS 9675 SE 36TH ST,SUITE 105 MERCER ISLAND,WA 98040 PLAT RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7,2014 ; The plat name, ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE THE has been reserved for future use by PNW HOLDING LLO. I certify that I have checked the records of previously issued and reserved plat names. The requested name has not been previously used in King County nor is it currently reserved by any party. This reservation will expire February 7, 2015, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. If the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date it will be deleted. Deputy Auditor Leroy Chadwid FEB 2 7 2014 rn .♦ 4 •. •� IT :.�i` .wY? 201 N �R-. . . •oda � F'tr�fv(V!i:•:�DIViS!rJfv `�r�`tCJ1�� , R mencan rNe rnsurance Company `~ �4 818 cewart St,Ste 800 RrstAmeiican Seattle,WA 98101 Phn-(206)615-3206 Fax-(425)551-4107 Title Team Four Fax No. (866) 859-0429 Kristi K Mathis Michelle Treherne Title—Offlcer Title Officer (206) 615-3206 (425) 635-2100 kkmathis@firstam.com mtreherne@firstam.com Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 Stewart Street#800, Seattle,WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC File No.: 4220-2206449 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Your Ref No.: Mercer Island,WA 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers Re: Property Address: 14004156th Ave SE, Renton,WA 98059 FEB 2 7 2014 CITY.-F ` TON PLANNLRIG Dlvlslory RWAmencan Title Form No.1068-2 imitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 2 of 10 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRSTAMERICAN TITLEINSURANCECOMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agree to issue a policy to you according to the terms of this Commitment. When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The General Exceptions and Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions. This Commitment is not valid without Schedule A and Section I and II of Schedule B. First American Title Insurance Company Kristi Mathis,Title Officer Fkr Amencan Td/e Form No.1068-2 imitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 3 of 10 SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: January 31, 2014 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX Homeowner's Rate Standard Owner's Policy $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow --- Proposed-I-nsured: — ----- ---- PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company Simultaneous Issue Rate ALTA Extended Loan Policy $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow Proposed Insured: To Follow 3. (A) The estate or interest in the land described in this Commitment is: Fee Simple (B) Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Sally Lou Nipert, as her sole and separate property 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Firs American Title Form No.1068-2 imitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 4 of 10 SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMENTS The following requirements must be met: (A) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured. (B) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. ------(C)-----Documents satisfactory to us creating the Interest in the an andJortre mortgag— a to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorded: (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions. (E) Releases(s)or Reconveyance(s) of Item(s): (F) Other: (G) You must give us the following information: 1. Any off record leases,surveys, etc. 2. Statement(s) of Identity, all parties. 3. Other: SCHEDULE B SECTION II GENERAL EXCEPTIONS PART ONE: A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. C. Easements,claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. E. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (B) or (C) are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the escrow or interest or mortgage(s) thereon covered by this Commitment. RlstAmencan rile Form No. 1068-2 imitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 5 of 10 SCHEDULE B SECTION II EXCEPTIONS PART TWO: Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction. —The-printed-exceptions-and exclusions-from-the coverage of the polity or policies are—available from the — office which issued this Commitment. Copies of the policy forms should be read. 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2143 2. General Taxes for the year 2014, which cannot be paid until the 15th day of February of said year. Tax Account No.: 142305-9057-05 1st Half Amount: $ 626.30 Assessed Land Value: $ 62,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 79,700.00 2nd Half Amount: $ 626.29 Assessed Land Value: $ 62,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 79,700.00 Note: Taxes and charges for 2013 were paid in full in the amount of$1,255.68. 3. The taxes for the current year reflect an exemption as allowed under RCW 84.36 for senior citizens. Any curtailment of the exemption may result in an additional amount being due for the current year and for any re-assessment of land and improvement values. 4. Taxes which may be assessed and extended on any subsequent roll for the tax year 2014, with respect to new improvements and the first occupancy which may be included on the regular assessment roll and which are an accruing lien not yet due or payable. 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Operating Agreement of PNW Holdings LLC. According to said Agreement dated May 01, 2012, Robert Gladstein, Michael Gladstein and Joel Mezistrano is/are the manager(s) thereof. Any amendments to said Agreement must be submitted. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the property must be executed by said manager(s)as provided for therein, subject to said amendments, if any. 6. Potential lien rights as a result of labor and/or materials used, or to be used, for improvements to the premises. The Company reserves the right to make additional requirements prior to insuring. An indemnity agreement to be completed by PNW Holdings LLC, is being sent to Closing Escorw and must be submitted to us prior to closing for our review and approval. All other matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy. Items A through E and G and H on Exhibit B herein will be omitted in said extended coverage mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage policy to be issued. First American Title Form No. 1068-2 nmitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 6 of 10 7. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "City of Renton, Washington Ordinance No. 5465" Recorded: November 05, 2009 Recording No.: 20091105000541 RrstAmerican Tide Form No. 1068-2 imitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 7 of 10 INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. Potential charges,for the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge, as authorized under RCW 35.58 and King County Code 28.84.050. Said charges could apply for any property that connected to the King County Sewer Service area on or after February 1, 1990. Note: Properties located in Snohomish County may be subject to the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charges. B. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, certain format and content requirements must be met (refer to RCW 65.04.045). Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder or additional fees being charged, subject to the Auditor's discretion. C. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as,a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. D. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. PTN SEC 14 TWP 23N RGE 5E NW QTR SW QTR SE QTR, KING COUNTY APN: 142305-9057-05 E. All matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage policy to be issued. F. The following deeds affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 36 months of the effective date of this commitment: NONE Property Address: 14004 156th Ave SE, Renton,WA 98059 NOTE: The forthcoming Mortgagee's Policy will be the ALTA 2006 Policy unless otherwise noted on Schedule A herein. NOTE: We find no judgments or Federal tax liens against the vestee herein, unless otherwise shown as a numbered exception above. NOTE: A FEE WILL BE CHARGED UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THIS COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THIS COMPANY. RmtAmerican Title Form No.1068-2 imitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 8 of 10 CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a)"Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b)"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title according to the state law where the land is located. 2. LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3. EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to: comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B-Section II. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this commitment and is subject to its terms. cc: PNW HOLDINGS LLC. Cc: Sally Lou Nipert FirstAmer%can Title Form No.1068-2 imitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 9 of 10 First American rifle Insurance company i 818 Stewart St,Ste 800 irst Amefic Seattle,WA 98101 Phn-(206)615-3206 Fax-(425)551-4107 Hirst American Wde Privacy Information We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information In order to better serve your needs now and in the future,we may ask you to provide us with certain information.We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information-particularly any personal or financial information.We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us.Therefore,together with our subsidiaries we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information that you provide to us.It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source,such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity.First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing,the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications,forms and in other communications to us,whether in writing,in person,by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us,our affiliated companies,or others;and • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party.Therefore,we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except:(1)as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us;or(2)as permitted by law.We may,however,store such information indefinitely,including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased.Such information may be used for any internal purpose,such as quality control efforts or customer analysis.We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies.Such affiliated companies include financial service providers,such as title insurers,property and casualty insurers,and trust and investment advisory companies,or companies involved in real estate services,such as appraisal companies,home warranty companies and escrow companies.Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect,as described above,to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf,on behalf of our affiliated companies or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer,our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information.We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you.We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values.We currently maintain physical,electronic,and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. Information Obtained Through Our Web Site First American Financial Corporation is sensitive to privacy issues on the Internet.We believe It is important you know how we treat the information about you we receive on the Internet. In general,you can visit First American or its affiliates'Web sites on the World Wide Web without telling us who you are or revealing any information about yourself.Our Web servers collect the domain names,not the e-mail addresses,of visitors.This information is aggregated to measure the number of visits,average time spent on the site,pages viewed and similar information.First American uses this information to measure the use of our site and to develop ideas to improve the content of our site. There are times,however,when we may need information from you,such as your name and email address.When information is needed,we will use our best efforts to let you know at the time of collection how we will use the personal information.Usually,the personal information we collect is used only by us to respond to your Inquiry,process an order or allow you to access specific account/profile Information.If you choose to share any personal information with us,we will only use it in accordance with the policies outlined above. Business Relationships First American Financial Corporation's site and its affiliates'sites may contain links to other Web sites.While we try to link only to sites that share our high standards and respect for privacy,we are not responsible for the content or the privacy practices employed by other sites. Cookies Some of First American's Web sites may make use of"cookie"technology to measure site activity and to customize information to your personal tastes.A cookie Is an element of data that a Web site can send to your browser,which may then store the cookie on your hard drive. FirstAm.com uses stored cookies.The goal of this technology is to better serve you when visiting our site,save you time when you are here and to provide you with a more meaningful and productive Web site experience. Fair Information Values Fairness We consider consumer expectations about their privacy in all our businesses.We only offer products and services that assure a favorable balance between consumer benefits and consumer privacy. Public Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for society,enhances consumer choice and creates consumer opportunity.We actively supportan open public record and emphasize its importance and contribution to our economy. Use We believe we should behave responsibly when we use information about a consumer in our business.We will obey the laws governing the collection,use and dissemination of data. Accuracy We will take reasonable steps to help assure the accuracy of the data we collect,use and disseminate.Where possible,we will take reasonable steps to correct inaccurate information. When,as with the public record,we cannot correct inaccurate information,we will take all reasonable steps to assist consumers in identifying the source of the erroneous data so that the consumer can secure the required corrections. Education We endeavor to educate the users of our products and services,our employees and others in our industry about the importance of consumer privacy.We will instruct our employees on our fair information values and on the responsible collection and use of data.We will encourage others in our industry to collect and use information in a responsible manner. Security We will maintain appropriate facilities and systems to protect against unauthorized access to and corruption of the data we maintain. Form 50-PRIVACY(8/1/09) Page 1 of 1 Privacy Information(2001-2010 First American Financial Corporation) FirstAmevican Title Form No.1068-2 imitment No.:4220-2206449 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 10 of 10 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Exhibit"A" Vested Owner: Sally Lou Nipert, as her sole and separate property Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: THE WEST 440 FEET OF THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9057-05 Situs Address: 14004 156th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 FirstAmerican Tit/e '� o R os sm o 0 � � a$ o, m _ � m 0 OE]= ZcI ,y6 p i _ ZET _ �1. o N o o OFT c3 3 �60-9Z-O N L; ^ Q z .FIR �SN ..OSO O c0 gym o o N po o: g Y El oD o L�B�.......h O ZET m m ...OS o N rn m i3 HSM 5N F EL - cn 0'OS _ Z8'8SZ M SO-LZ-.O $ .. .o ZET OL'B9Z Bi '9ET1 _ R...�.-0 UT - - OE 0£' '. br£ SET"'--3 ET--�)Z=D N.�:^ s£'£9£ 36Z-9Z-ON SZ'86Z w y m 'II N co m m m co .n m o p Ir: o 1{_M IJ N w c g8 No cD c - CO 1Q. Cip r o o r�E: ZD'DOT 1 DOTI , z ink c> '^ ai o p . rn N o co ..9"S£T m m�' Q o o m �,. Z 3 I m : V- o z xI C OpOO m m t rn 1)0& m 0 y `C7 Cl O V r T se m m1O I -99 SEI/-.. m ODLj y J oN !i fn VJ 2 o R2o N 3 a n fps'] I c 3 i Im Q p I i c m ~ loo, 0 •8 m — z J �� I. S9 CE/ F o r mp0 N .CIA L m is SD"59 LL SEI FEB 2 7 2014 3 TO- Z-O N Re C( T 7o ZL'OL 11 !!� 6E :STI C.A,..�10% d, 9B'9£T M.__._._.-OOT bT'99Z.._.... 36T-OZ-ON sZ"B6Z -8 ISE 0 m 3 I- 3 60 0NLZ 69 0 N b£z/To6 3'S 3AV'H199L t d) SZ E54Z _,... 3 OS-BZ 0 N __ - M sT'sZ 0 S"`.... _" a b££I � ':.... o , �IaH) 3 ZD-D S ----� (LZb 9Z '1„40A 7'O SZ-CT-B 'SS3 '£ZOZ 'ON '08 NO.LHO 'f'M) o �, �0 .�.o o p M wok., 9`n �-_-� - N4 - •seL•s£T LstEE --� seL•zB tr-D£ z� 9i-- sz. —� a w\ pp o m O o 3 rn w, p3 COI \ ; o a p cD p r v O N. �•fj 1 0 � �- o ti m O ��\ cl �m -. _... . s= z 0 o t � rn oo 6£ 61. LE'95 2 W Q., Ooo __. .6S•9 10 a 0 o,'r °810 op N\l 1Ae n G ;Sy. of o a 3$ i SepCi Rc aS1101 't?Cblf3 196213) ' .si•'tUG'T v i Sep 5. L+ 1 oeo.rge Ouimet and CEithleen M. OltImpt, tlAf c;. ..M.. to John C. Ripert and Sally Lou NIpert, 11111f tie sd:,` Stilly Lost Nipent being the daughterar fp t�t�X i The W 444 ftof hell 1.0o ft of thetTL4:u Of the Silk of the S§k Of see 14-2345 ew;m., ezc the k' 60 .ft throf. i .w n ok mi to gde t f J 1 f • I D "pr 169-56 Apr3-56 z & A (Non t4bj 211535. George Ouimet andXathleen M Ouimtt j hw, to John C Nipe rt and Sally 12Tou Nipprt, .. Cy andW R 30 ftofW 6o rtof N loo ftofthaNWL of trAswk t Sts o of sac 1.4-23-5 ewm inKCW � XCNUK M1 to -- FaUySTc 5121'1 5 K i i I i I I 20091105000541.001 20091105000541 Return Address: CITY OF RENTON ORD 76.00 City Clerk's Office PAGE-001 OF 0 11!03/2009 10:2:2 4 City of Renton KING COUNTY, WA 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, W-A-98057------_— --- ---- Please print or type information WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet(RCW 65.04) Document Title(s)(or transactions contained therein):(all areas applicable to your document must be filled in) 1. Ordinance#5465 2. 3. 4. Reference Number(s)of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference#'s on page_of document Grantors)(Last name first name,initials) 1. City of Renton , 2. Additional names on page____of document. Grantee(s)(Last name first,then first name and initials) 2. , Additional names on page_of document. Legal description(abbreviated: i.e.lot block,plat or section,township,range) These portions of Sections 13, 14, 15,22,23,&24,all in Township 23 north,Range 5 East, W.M.,and Sections 18& 19,both in Township 23 North,Range 6 East,W.M.,all in King County,Washington,more particularly described as follows... Additional legal is on page 3 of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Number ❑ Assessor Tax#not yet assigned 142305911901 and others The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information provided herein. I am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional fee as provided in RCW 36.18.010. I understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some pare of the text on the original document. Signature of Requesting Party 20091105000541.002 CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE N0. 5465 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO AND/OR BENEFITTING FROM THE CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR PHASE H AND ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE UPON CONNECTION TO THE FACILITIES. TI IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. There is hereby created a Sanitary Sewer Sen•ice Special Assessment District for the area served by the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase 11 project in the northeast quadrant of the City of Renton and within King County, which area is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. A map of the service area is attached as Exhibit "13". The recording of this document is to provide notification of potential connection and interest charges. While this connection charge may be paid at any time, the City does not require payment until such time as the parcel is connected to and, thus,benefiting from the sewer facilities. The property may be sold or in any other way change hands without triggering the requirement,by the City,of payment of the charges associated with this district. SECTION H. Persons connecting to the sanitary sewer facilities in this Special Assessment District,and which properties have not been charged or assessed with all costs of the Central Plateau interceptor Phase II as detailed in this ordinance, shall pay, in addition to the payment of the connection permit fee and in addition to the system development charge, the following additional fees: CERTIFICATE t,the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Renton,Washington,certify that this is a true and correct copy of 1 Drdina. Al. Sy65.Subscribed and sealed this—A/'day of Aja kst ,20P City Clerk 20091105000541.003 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 A. Per Unit Area Charge. New connections of residential dwelling units or equivalents shall pay__a fee -of $351,_.95 per dwei ng_unit. Those properties included within this Special Assessment District and which may be assessed a charge thereunder are included within the boundary legally described in Exhibit "A" and which boundary is shown on the map attached as Exhibit"B". B. Per Unit Frontage Charge. There is hereby created a sub-district within the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase I1 Special Assessment District consisting of properties fronting on the sewer. New connections of residential units or equivalents shall pay a fee of $5.810.34 per dwelling unit. The properties to be assessed for the per unit frontage charge are described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. A map identifying the properties within the sub-district is attached as Exhibit "B". The properties located within this sub- district are subject to both charges (Area and Frontage). SECTION M. In addition to the aforestated charges, there shall be a charge of 5.30% per annum added to the Special Assessment District charge. The interest charge shall accrue for no more than ten (10) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. Interest charges will be simple interest and not compound interest. SECTION IV. This ordinance is effective upon its passage, approval and thirty (30) days atter publication. 2 20091105000541.004 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 6th day of July ' 2009. ��'i��1t.c.L�• WGA+� Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 6th day of July ,2009. Denis L Lw-- aw, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 7/10/2009 (summary) O RD.15 5 3:5/21/09:scr 3 20091105000541.005 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA ASSESSMENT B.----,QUNDARY— ___ _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 & 24, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., and Sections 18 and 19, both in Township 23 North, Range 6 East, W. M., all in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right of way margin of SE 128`h St(NE 4`I'Street) and the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, crossing 155th Ave SE and 156t1i Ave SE, to the east line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way margin, crossing 160t1i Ave E and the west half of 164`h Ave SE, to the section line common to said Sections 13 and 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way, crossing the east half of 160'Ave SE and 169`h Ave SE, to an intersection with the east line of the West quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13; Thence southerly along said east line and the Urban Growth Boundary(UBG) Iine, to an intersection with the north line of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said north line and said UBG line,to the west line of the East quarter of said subdivision; Thence southerly along said west line and said UBG line,to the Northwest corner of Lot i of King County Short Plat S90S0040, as recorded in Book 101 of Surveys, Page 236, records of King County, Washington; Thence easterly along the North line of said Lot I and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, said Northeast corner also being on the west line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said UGB, crossing 172"d Ave SE,to the intersection of the easterly right of way margin of 172nd Ave SE and the southerly right of way margin of SE 132"d St.; EXHIBIT A—CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 OF 6 20091105000541.006 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence continuing easterly along the southerly right of way margin of SE 132nd St and said 1JGB line, crossing 173`d Ave SE, 175th Ave SE, 178th Ave SE and the west half of 180`" Ave SE.to an intersection with the east line of said subdivision, said east line also being the west line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence continuing easterly along said southerly right of way margin of SE 132nd St and said UGB-line, crossing[he easthalf of-180`n-Awe—SE,1 X15`Ave SE and 182"d Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 182"d Ave SE; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin of 182d Ave SE and said UGB line, to an intersection with the westerly extension of the northerly right of way margin of SE 134"' St; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and the northerly right of way margin of SE 134"' St and said UGB line, crossing 182nd Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of"184`h Ave SE in the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way mawin of 184"'Ave SE and its southerly, extension and leaving said 1JGB line, crossing SE 134` St, SE 135"' St, SE 136t" St and SE 140i1' St, to an intersection with the north line of Tract 23, Renton Suburban Tracts Division No. 4. recorded in Volume 61 of Flats, pages 74-76, said records, in Government Lot 4 of said Section 18; Thence easterly and southerly along said north line and the east line of said Tract,to an intersection with the northeast corner of Renton-Suburban Tracts Division No. 8, recorded in Volume 69 of Plats, pages 74-76, said records, in said Government Lot 4 of said Section 19, said northeast corner also being on said UGB line; Thence southerly along the east line of said Plat and said UGB line, to the Southeast corner of said flat at the southeast corner of Government Lot 1 in said Section 19; Thence westerly along the courses of the south boundary of said plat and said UGB line, to an intersection with the south line of Renton-Suburban Tracts Div. No. 6, recorded in Volume 66 of Plats, pages 33-35, said records, in the Northeast quarter of said Section 24; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat and said UGB line, to the most Southwest corner of said Plat, said Southwest corner also being the Northeast corner of Government Lot 5 of said Section 24; Thence southerly along the east line of said Government Lot 5 and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Lot 31 of Renton-Suburban Tracts Div. No.7, recorded in Volume 69 of Plats, pages 39-41, said records; Thence southwesterly and northwesterly along the south boundary of said plat and said UGB line, to an intersection with the east line of Government Lot 10 of said Section 24, said east line also being the east line of Tract A of Briarwood South No. 6, recorded in Volume 97 of Plats, pages 68 and 69, said records; EXHIBIT A--CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 2 OF 6 20091105000541.007 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along said east line of said Government Lot 10 and said Tract A and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said Tract A; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract A, and said UGB line,to the Northwest corner of said Tract A, said Northwest corner also being a point an the east line of fheNortheast quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Tract C of Skyfire Ridge Div. No. 1,recorded in Volume 141 of Plats,pages 93-99, said records; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract C and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said Tract C, said Northwest corner also being a point on the east line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence westerly along the north line of said subdivision and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said subdivision, said Northwest corner also being the Northeast corner of Government Lot 7 of said Section 23; Thence continuing westerly along the north line of said Government Lot 7, to the Northwest corner thereof,said Northwest corner also being the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the Southeast corner of Lot 9, Briar Hills No. 3, recorded in Volume 107 of Plats, page 36, said records,said west line also being the east line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23; "Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat, to the Southwest corner thereof, Thence northerly along the west line of said Plat, to an intersection with the Southeast corner of Briar Ridge, recorded in Volume 113 of Plats, pages 60 and 61,said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat, to the Southwest corner thereof, in Government Lot 1 of said Section 22,said Southwest corner also being a point on the west line of the East half of the East half of said Government Lot 1; Thence southerly along said east line, to the northerly bank of the Cedar River; Thence westerly along said northerly bank, to an intersection with the east line of Tract A, Cedar River Bluff, recorded in Volume 172 of Plats,pages 53-56, said records; Thence northerly along said east line, to the Northeast corner of said Tract A; EXHIBIT A—CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 3 OF 6 20091105000541.008 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 "Thence westerly along the north line of said Tract A, to an intersection with the east line of Maplewood Heights, recorded in Volume 78 of Plats, pages 1-4, said records; Thence southerly along said east line, to the Southeast corner thereof; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat,to the Southwest corner thereof, said corner --- also-being-apoint-on the-eastAine-of Government L-ot 6-of Section Thence South 01°08'21" West, along said east line, to a point 641.73 feet southerly of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 6; Thence North 55°51'39" West,a distance of 391.81 feet; Thence North 26°45'23" West, a distance of 494.29 feet, to a point on the north line of said Government Lot 6, said point also being on the south line of the Southwest quarter of Section 15; ']hence westerly along said south line,and along the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 3945, to the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest club-ter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 15; "Thence northerly along the east line of said subdivision and said City Limits, to the Northwest corner of Lot 21, Block 1 of said Maplewood Heights in said Southwest quarter of Section 15; "]'hence northeasterly along the north line of said Block I of said Plat, to an intersection with the xcest line of Lot 10, East Crest, recorded in Volume 87 of Plats, page 49,said records, in said Southwest quarter; Thence northerly along said west line, to the Northwest corner thereof,said Northwest corner also being a point on the south line of Tract A, Hideaway Home Sites, recorded in Volume 81 of Plats, pages 88 and 89, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said Tract A, to the Southwest corner thereof, Thence northerly along the west line of said Tract A and the northerly extension of said west line, and along the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 3143, to the south line of the Northwest quarter of Section 22; Thence westerly along said south line and along said existing City Limits and along the south line of Lot 14, Goe's Place, recorded in Volume 85 of Plats,pages 12 and 13, said records, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 14; Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 14, to the Northwest corner thereof; Thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 14,to the Northeast corner thereof; EXHIBIT A-CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 4 OF 6 20091105000541.009 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along the east line of Lot 13 of said Plat and its northerly extension,to an intersection with the westerly extension of the north line of the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and said north line and along the existing City limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 5074,crossing Duvall Ave NE,to its in eerrsection with the west fine—oft e o—Ahwest quarter of said Section 15; Thence northerly along said west line crossing NE 2"a St,to the most westerly southwest corner of Alder Crossing, recorded in Volume 251 of Plats,pages 37 -42, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the southeast corner thereof; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat,to its intersection with the north line of the south half of the north half of the north half of the north half of said Section 15; Thence easterly along said north line of said subdivision crossing Hoquiam Ave NE and Jericho Ave Nl , to the easterly right of way margin thereof; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin, to the Southwest corner of Tract 2, Black Loam Five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 101, said records; Thence continuing easterly along said existing City Limits and the south line of said Tract 2, to the east line of the west half of said Tract 2; Thence northerly along said east line, to the south line of the north 150 feet thereof, Thence easterly along said south line, to the east line of the of the West half of the West half of the East half of said Tract 2; Thence northerly along said east line, a distance of 8 feet; Thence easterly along the south line of the north 142 fee thereof, to the east line of the west half of the east half of said Tract 2; Thence southerly along said east line, to the south line of the Northeast quarter of said East half of said Tract 2; Thence easterly along said south line, to the westerly right of way margin of Lyons Ave NE; Thence continuing easterly along the easterly extension of said south line,crossing Lyons Ave NE, to the easterly right of way margin thereof; Thence northerly along said easterly right of way margin, to the southerly right of way margin of NE 4`h St. EXHIBIT A-CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 5 OF 6 20091106000641.010 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, to the intersection with the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14 and the point of beginning. EXHIBIT A--CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 6 OF 6 20091105000541.011 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA "A7' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot I and Tract B, Carolwood,recorded in Volume 11 I of Plats, pages 99-100,records of King County, Washington; "TOGETHER WITH Lot 11, Carolwood No. 2, recorded in Volume 114,page 74, said records; and TOGETIIER WITH that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; and TOGETHER WITH the West 150 feet of the East 180 feet of the North 165 feet of the South half of said Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH the West 160 feet of the east 190 feet of the South 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH the East 165 feet of the West 330 feet of said subdivision,EXCEPT the North 264 feet thereof, and EXCEPT the South 132 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH the South 20 feet of the North 284 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 330 feet thereof, and TOGETHER WITH the North 120 feet of the South 252 feet of the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 150 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the North 284 feet thereof and EXCEPT the South 252 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the East 230 feet of the South 132 feet of the North 264 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH the West I65 feet of the East 195 feet of the North 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 481066, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8109100503, located in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; LESS Roads. Exhibit A— Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage-Area A Page 1 of 1 20091105000541.012 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and the 20 feet wide undivided interest parcel lying between said Lot 1 and Lot 2,of King County Short Plat No. 576015,recorded under King County Recording No. 7905170580, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots 1 and 2, King County Short Plat No. 677116, recorded under King County Recording No. 7905170582; and TOGETHER WITH Tract A and Tract B of King County Short Plat No. 675 02 1, recorded under King County Recording No. 7602040384; and TOGETHER WITH Tracts 4, 5,6 and the West 150 feet of the North 80 feet of Tract 7, all in Block 3, Cedar Park Five Acre Tracts,recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, page 91, records of King County, Washington. All situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 14 and the North half of Section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Exhibit A— Central Plateau interceptor SAD, Frontage-Area B Page 1 of 1 20091105000541.013 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECI-AL—ASSESSMENT DISTRICT-------- AREA ISTRICT-- - -AREA "C" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 8 and Lot 17,Ridge Point Estates, recorded in Volume 165, pages 64-65, records of King County, Washington; TOGETI II'R WITH that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section.23, "Township 23 North, Range 5 North, W.M., King County, Washington, lying easterly and southerly of said plat of Ridge Point Estates and westerly of the westerly right of way margin of 154'" PL, SE(W.J. Orton Rd); and TOGE'TIJER W1TI1 the North 133 feet of the East 120 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter;and TOGETI IER WIT11 that portion of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, lying easterly and southerly of Linda Homes, recorded in Votumc 74, page 6,said records;and TOGETt IF,R WITH that portion of the South half of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, and the south half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, both in said Section 23, lying westerly of the westerly right of way margin of 156`x'Ave SE (Co. Rd. 1049, August E. Gerber Rd.) and easterly of the northeasterly right of way margin of 154`h PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd.); LESS Roads. Exhibit A–Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage-Area C Page 1 of 1 20091105000541.014 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA"D" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots i and 50, Briarwood West,recorded in Volume 93 of Plats,pages 91-92, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots I and 16, Marywood, recorded in Volume 90 of Plats,page 32, said records; and TOGETHER WITH the South 165 feet of the North 195 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS the East 30 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITI-I the west 150 feet of said East half of said subdivision, Iying northerly of the South 365 feet thereof and southerly of the North 195 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying northerly of the north line of Lot I of King County Short Plat No. 1286002, as recorded tinder King County Recording No. 8708140726; and TOGETHER WITH Lot I and Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 1286002, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8708140726, said Lot 2 being later amended by Lot Line Adjustment No. 890718, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9010241356, said lots being a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS Roads. Exhibit A—Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage-Area D Page 1 of 1 11 ' [ 111 • [ is �� Syr i�'`�-■►•� U►,/��sH,gn MM Of -nulREM ■' (L:n arti, r:. •.�. i N►N!��,Ira:_ a--:: i �fLl.F—M -1606 ..lIl1I1�► ��111 iur■_,mow ■ Ck MAA M in r i RP r i���♦ �p��11/IIIIIN�� �' VIM :■ it �.����tai r/s,t��..•`�III �� :_=■ _rr �t/Ilx[I••n[u ��liana _• �.fnl�� •una�c.�'��nill���al,�a:nll ����1 ���� = Lam=, ���1111/nllllllt ■ .� . ���- - 'na►1111111 It''5:.1!'!![�: .: �L9 a?■►���•a�■� Illilllll::!Q is �LIIIIIIII:Q C��\\/!�- ?`�- +�1--;,■■i.t moi. UP . 111 111 a aZSl+ilt3•*�_•'� ��' r�a■t�u•��... / ^3i 1 Ie11'�lnluuni� ���'1����uuii - C rq 1 ff ee�!ff!!!!�\I �'• �� p Ili 1[�-�11[ � . .?,-YI���ktLf lai;lff►����� ���A�y�^.��t�l�L �Ilr �l �r 1� F,�`!!1!!•I�Mi;' z=�' s i' � 1 it ,a // 1' r r rr r•r r iUu.:• .`6111 1111'. r-�h =r,,;,;:: �. qq r'tat 11 �/ 11�■ ��'�a ■ RILI / a,r ,ffi fig enc__1 �1 s 1 1.IN;Mg •• -CC c w r r� w 1� ■■ r�� ; i �• ff r=i1 1 f-lid =_� • ti U N EW ff all �.� g 1111!�11l1 Jim= :11111111-"1�1� !11":�■ 'li •'x:11 I!11111Id1L 1115. / ■ { E = 11N1 U/fiIin in rM / ■ M4 Sam -rwr--a.in in= f1111W �I i •, � „ = 1 IIIIII,, ' i ■ �II II1 VIII :i�111�IIIII) 11 On1� = 1111 , on� of a �:Ell * *WARNING* PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PRIOR TO CREATING THIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT. You MUST obtain a signature from an Advisory Title Officer or - ---Underwriter-(as-applicable-in-your-state-and/or-county), on-the-- bottom of this page, indicating their approval as to the form and content of the Indemnity Agreement PRIOR to delivery of the document to the Indemnitor for execution ; AND • You MUST indicate, on the bottom of this page, if the basic provisions of the Indemnity Agreement form have been modified from its standard form. NOTE: If the Indemnitor requests or makes any modifications to the approved Indemnity Agreement, those modifications must be specifically approved by a State Underwriter. ************************************************************************************* Prepared by: (print name) Standard Form: [ ] Yes [ ] No If No is checked, indicate the Paragraph Number(s) that contain the modified information: THIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR DELIVERY TO THE INDEMNITOR THIS DAY OF r 20 BY: Authorized Signatory (print name) RETAIN THIS .IGNED COPY OF THIS PAGE _,1 YOUR FILE. THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY- -DO NOT SEND WITHINDEMNITYAGREEMENT Accepting Office: First American Title Insurance Company Address: 818 Stewart St, Ste 800, Seattle,WA 98101 OR: 4220-2206449 Filing Reference: INDEMNITY AGREEMENT I (Mechanics' Liens) THIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT(this "Agreement") is made and entered into this Sixth day of February, 2014, y Sally Lou Nipeft—(in�icividual(y an —c—ollectively, tfie—"Indemnitor"), fn favor of First American Title Insurance Company, a California corporation and its agents and employees (collectively "First American Title Insurance Company"). RECITALS: A. Indemnitor is the owner of, and/or has, either directly or indirectly, an interest in, the Property or in a transaction involving the Property. B. Construction of certain improvements has or will commence on the Property. C. In connection with a contemplated transaction involving the Property, First American Title Insurance Company has been requested to issue one or more Title Policies in respect to the Property insuring against loss by reason of Mechanics' Liens. D. In connection with future transactions, First American Title Insurance Company may issue one or more Title Policies insuring against Mechanics' Liens and if First American Title Insurance Company, at its sole discretion, elects to so issue a Title Policy for the Property, it will do so in material reliance on each of the covenants, agreements, representations and warranties of Indemnitor set forth in this Agreement. NOW,THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows: AGREEMENT: 1. DEFINITIONS: As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings: TERM: DEFINITION: Construction: Any and all work, construction and/or placement or segregation of materials which may give rise to the right for liens to be filed against the Properly under the applicable statutes and/or equitable laws of the State. Construction All costs, fees, expenses and/or obligations for labor, materials and/or services for or Costs: in connection with,the Construction. Effective Date: The date this Agreement becomes effective in accordance with Paragraph 3 below. Mechanics' Liens All liens or rights to lien existing against the Property or which subsequently attach or are claimed against the Property due to Construction. Policy Date: The date of issuance of a Title Policy for the Property. Property: That certain real property as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. State: The state in which the Property is located. Title Policy(ies): Policy or policies of title insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company with respect to the Property insuring against loss or damage due to Mechanics' Liens. 2. REPRESENTATIONS,WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS As of the Effective Date, Indemnitor shall be deemed to represent, warrant and covenant to First American Title Insurance Company as to the Property that (a) all sums due and owing for Construction on the Property have been paid or will be paid promptly and in full before the respective times for filing Mechanics' Liens affecting the Property; (b) Indemnitor has funds sufficient to pay all Construction Costs applicable to the Property; and (c)there are no Mechanics' Liens or potential Page 1 of 8 October 2001 ©2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved Mechanics' Liens against the Prop ,y except as previously specified by Indemr, in writing to First American Title Insurance Company. All representations,warranties and covenants contained herein are material to First American Title Insurance Company decision to issue a Title Policy for the Property. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. Delivery of this Agreement by Indemnitor to First American Title Insurance Company shall not be deemed acceptance of this Agreement by First American Title Insurance Company or a commitment to issue a Title Policy for the Property. First American Title Insurance Company has no duty to Indemnitor to accept this Agreement or, in the future, to agree to issue a Title Policy for the Property. Upon acceptance of this Agreement by First American Title Insurance Company as evidenced by the issuance of a Title Policy, this Agreement shall remain in effect as long as First American Title Insurance Company has any possible liability under any Title Policy issued at any time in reliance on this Agreement. First American Title Insurance -----Company-ma-y-rely-on-this-Agreement to-issue-Title-Policy-at anytime-without notice-to-or-further--consent by ----- Indemnitor. 4. MULTIPLE INDEMNITORS. 4.1 Joint and Several. If there is more than one Indemnitor under this Agreement, all of the obligations contained in this Agreement shall be the joint and several obligations of each and every Indemnitor. Each Indemnitor shall be fully liable to First American Title Insurance Company even if another Indemnitor is not liable for any reason, including the failure of such Indemnitor to execute this Agreement. 4.2 Waiver and Release. First American Title Insurance Company has the right, in its sole and absolute discretion and without notice to or consent by Indemnitor, to (a) waive any provision of this Agreement as it relates to any Indemnitor, at any time or from time to time, without providing the same or similar waiver for the benefit of any other Indemnitor, and/or (b) release any Indemnitor from any or all obligations under this Agreement at any time or from time to time, without releasing any other Indemnitor. S. INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS. 5.1. Payment of Construction Costs. Indemnitor covenants and agrees that all Construction Costs on the Property shall be paid promptly and in full before the respective times for filing Mechanics' Liens affecting the Property. 5.2. Indemnity. In addition to any other rights or remedies available to First American Title Insurance Company, at law or in equity, Indemnitor agrees to pay, protect, defend, indemnify, hold and save harmless First American Title Insurance Company from and against any and all liabilities, claims of liability, obligations, losses, costs, charges, expenses, causes of action, suits, demands, judgments and damages of any kind or character whatsoever, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs (including appellate fees and costs) incurred or sustained by First American Title Insurance Company, and actual attorneys' fees awarded against First American Title Insurance Company, directly or indirectly, by reason of, or arising under any Title Policy relating to Mechanics' Liens, or in any other action at law or in equity under any theory of recovery as a result of the existence of Mechanics' Liens. 5.3. Duty to Notify First American Title Insurance Company. In the event that (a) Indemnitor is in any manner notified of a claim which could affect the interests of First American Title Insurance Company under a Title Policy relating to Mechanics' Liens, or(b) any action is filed at law or in equity or any judicial or non-judicial proceeding (including arbitration) is commenced against the Property relating to Mechanics' Liens, Indemnitor agrees to promptly notify First American Title Insurance Company in writing of such claim, action or proceeding as soon as possible of Indemnitor's acquisition of knowledge thereof but, in no event, later than seven (7) days from receipt of said knowledge. 5.4. Rights and Obligations. Upon the filing of any action at law or in equity or the assertion of any claim, cause of action or judicial or non-judicial proceeding relating to Mechanics' Liens, or at any other time which First American Title Insurance Company shall, in its opinion, deem it reasonable to protect itself or its insured(s) under a Title Policy, First American Title Insurance Company shall have the right, but not the obligation, (a)to take such action as First American Title Insurance Company deems reasonable to protect its interest and that of its insured udder any Title Policy, and/or (b) to demand that Indemnitor, at Indemnitor's sole cost and expense, promptly do, one or more of the following: (a) Cause a properly executed release of the Mechanics' Lien to be filed of record in the proper governmental office. (b) Cause to be recorded with respect to the Mechanics' Lien a bond releasing the Property from the effect of the Mechanics' Lien, should such bond be available and effective in removing the effect of such Mechanics' Lien from the Property as a matter of law. (c) In situations where affirmative legal action or proceedings at law or in equity are necessary to discharge, eliminate, or remove the Mechanics' Lien with respect to the Property, Indemnitor shall cause (1) counsel selected by First American Title Insurance Company to institute such action or proceeding as is necessary to discharge,eliminate or remove the Mechanics' Liens as to Page 2 of 8 October 2001 ©2001 First American Title Insurance company All Rights Reserved the Property; and (2) such counsel to deliver to First American Title Insurance Company a written representation in a form reasonably satisfactory to First American Title Insurance Company that such counsel (i) has accepted employment as counsel to commence and vigorously prosecute to conclusion such action or procedure, (ii)will promptly undertake any and all steps reasonably necessary to diligently prosecute such action, and (iii) will keep informed as to the status of such action or procedure as reasonably requested by First American Title Insurance Company, at no cost or expense to First American Title Insurance Company. Indemnitor may object to First American Title Insurance Company choice of counsel for reasonable cause. (d) If an action or proceeding concerning the Mechanics' Lien is instituted by a third party, - --Indemnitor shall-cause-(1)-such-action or proceeding to be timely defended and-resisted-by -- —- -- counsel selected by First American Title Insurance Company which counsel will protect First American Title Insurance Company and any and all insured(s)to whom First American Title Insurance Company may have possible liability as a result of the issuance of a Title Policy; and (2) such counsel to deliver to First American Title Insurance Company a written representation, in a form reasonably satisfactory to First American Title Insurance Company to the effect that such counsel (i) has accepted employment as counsel to defend any such action or resist any such proceeding, (ii)will promptly undertake any and all reasonable steps to protect First American Title Insurance Company and its insured(s), and (iii)will keep First American Title Insurance Company informed as to the status of such action or procedure as reasonably requested by First American Title Insurance Company, at no cost or expense to First American Title Insurance Company. Indemnitor may object to First American Title Insurance Company choice of counsel for reasonable cause. (e) If the payment of a sum of money will discharge, eliminate or remove the effect of the Mechanics' Lien as to the Property, Indemnitor shall pay such sum as is sufficient to discharge, eliminate or remove the Mechanics' Lien in a manner legally sufficient to effect the release of the Mechanics' Lien of record and shall deliver documents to First American Title Insurance Company, in a form reasonably satisfactory to First American Title Insurance Company. (f) Indemnitor shall take such action with respect to the Mechanics' Lien as First American Title Insurance Company shall, in its discretion, authorize Indemnitor in writing to undertake, provided that any such authority shall not be a waiver by First American Title Insurance Company to require Indemnitor at any time to comply with the foregoing subparagraphs of this Paragraph above, within ten (10)days of First American Title Insurance Company written revocation of authority to take action other than that under any other subparagraphs of this Paragraph, and demand that Indemnitor comply with any other subparagraphs of this Paragraph. S.S. Interest. Indemnitor agrees that any sums which might be advanced or incurred by First American Title Insurance Company pursuant to this Agreement or by its exercise of any rights hereunder shall be repaid by Indemnitor to First American Title Insurance Company within ten (10) days of Indemnitor's receipt of First American Title Insurance Company written demand,together with interest thereon at four percent(4%)above the reference rate as charged by Bank of America as of the date such sum was advanced by First American Title Insurance Company and continuing until it is repaid in full, but in no event, shall such rate of interest exceed the lesser of: (a)ten percent(10%) per annum, or(b)the maximum rate permitted by law. 5.6. Determination of Coverage. Any determination of coverage by First American Title Insurance Company shall be conclusive evidence that the matter is within the Title Policy coverage as to the Mechanics' Liens for purposes of this Agreement. If First American Title Insurance Company accepts the defense of a matter within the Title Policy as to the Mechanics' Liens with a reservation of rights, all costs, damages, expenses and legal fees incurred by First American Title Insurance Company shall be deemed within the terms and obligations of Indemnitor under this Agreement even if the matter is subsequently determined by a court to not be within the Title Policy as to the Mechanics' Liens. 6. REMEDIES. Indemnitor specifically acknowledges that upon any default by any Indemnitor under this Agreement after demand by First American Title Insurance Company, First American Title Insurance Company shall have the right to exercise any and all remedies available at law, in equity or under this Agreement against any or all of the Indemnitors, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, specific performance, damages, self-help and/or resort to any collateral held by First American Title Insurance Company to secure the obligations of Indemnitor under this Agreement. Page 3 of 8 October 2001 ©2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 7. SUBROGATION AND SUBC )INATION. Indemnitor hereby unconditio, y grants to First American Title Insurance Company any and all rights of subrogation Indemnitor may have with respect to the Mechanics' Liens and agrees to promptly execute any documents with respect to the Mechanics' Liens or any other matter relating to this Agreement request by First American Title Insurance Company with respect to such right of subrogation and to deliver same to First American Title Insurance Company. Indemnitor hereby subordinates any and all debts owed to any Indemnitor from any other Indemnitor to the obligations owed to First American Title Insurance Company under this Agreement. 8. FINANCIAL INFORMATION. Each Indemnitor represents and warrants to First American Title Insurance Company as of the date of delivery of the financial statements that the statements delivered to First American Title Insurance Company with respect to that Indemnitor: (a) were prepared in accordance with generally accepted-accounting-principles-("GAAP")-unless-otherwise-noted-therein, (b)-are-true,, complete-and-correct in all---- material respects; (c) disclose all material financial information regarding Indemnitor; (d) fairly represent and present the financial condition and operations of Indemnitor; (e) if said statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP, no GAAP statements and/or audited financial statements exist; and (f) since the date of the financial statements delivered to First American Title Insurance Company, there has been no material adverse change in the financial condition, operations, assets, liabilities, properties or business prospects of Indemnitor. Each Indemnitor agrees to promptly notify (but in no event later than ten (10) days after Indemnitor learns, by any means, of such event) First American Title Insurance Company in writing of any event which would reasonably be anticipated to, or which, in any event, would materially alter or in any material respect change said financial condition, operations, assets, liabilities, properties or business prospects. Upon request by First American Title Insurance Company, each Indemnitor further agrees to deliver to First American Title Insurance Company current financial statements and that by delivery of same, such Indemnitor shall be deemed to make all the same representations and warranties as to the new financial statements as set forth herein above except as otherwise disclosed in writing to First American Title Insurance Company concurrently with the delivery of the financial statements. Each Indemnitor hereby specifically grants to First American Title Insurance Company and its agents, representatives, and professionals, the right, at any time and from time to time, at the sole cost and expense of Indemnitor, to (a) examine the books, accounts, records and property of Indemnitor pertaining to the financial condition of Indemnitor, (b) furnish to First American Title Insurance Company for examination and copying all such books, accounts, records and other pertinent information, and/or (c) provide such further assurances as may be reasonably demanded by First American Title Insurance Company. In the event of more than one Indemnitor, each Indemnitor shall independently comply with this paragraph. 9. WAIVERS AND COVENANTS. In the event that Indemnitor is indemnifying First American Title Insurance Company with respect to a Property which is not directly owned by Indemnitor, Indemnitor understands and agrees that First American Title Insurance Company has no obligation to secure an indemnity from the owner(s) of the Property ("Owner"). Indemnitor agrees that the validity of this Agreement and the obligations of Indemnitor hereunder shall in no way be terminated, affected, limited or impaired by reason of(a) the assertion by First American Title Insurance Company of any rights or remedies which it may have under any other indemnity agreement or against any person or entity obligated thereunder or against the Owner, (b) First American Title Insurance Company failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any such right or remedy or any right or remedy First American Title Insurance Company may have hereunder or in respect to this Agreement, (c) the commencement of a case under the Bankruptcy Code by or against the Owner or any person or entity obligated under the law or any other indemnity agreement, or(d)Indemnitor owning less than the entire interest in the Property. Indemnitor further covenants that this Agreement shall remain and continue in full force and effect as to any Title Policies issued at any time by First American Title Insurance Company with respect to the Property and that First American Title Insurance Company shall not be under a duty to protect, secure, insure, or enforce any rights it may have under any indemnity agreement or any other right against any third party, and that other indulgences or forbearance may be granted under any or all of such documents, all of which may be made, done or suffered without notice to, or further consent of, Indemnitor. First American Title Insurance Company may, at its option, proceed directly and at once, without notice, against any Indemnitor to collect and recover the full amount of the liability hereunder or any portion thereof, without proceeding against the Owner or any other person or entity. Indemnitor hereby waives and relinquishes (a) any right or claim of right to cause a marshalling of any Indemnitor's assets; (b) all rights and remedies accorded by applicable law to indemnitors or guarantors, except any rights of subrogation which Indemnitor may have, provided that the assurances and obligations provided for hereunder shall not be contingent upon the existence of any such rights of subrogation; Page 4 of 8 October 2001 ©2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved (c) notice of acceptance hereof A of any action taken or omitted in relic ; hereon; (d) presentment for payment, demand of payment, protest or notice of nonpayment or failure to perform or observe, or other proof, or notice or demand; (e) any defense based upon and election of remedies by First American Title Insurance Company, including without limitation an election to proceed in a manner which has impaired, eliminated or otherwise destroyed Indemnitor's rights of subrogation and reimbursement, if any, against the Owner or any third party; (f) any defense based upon any statute or rule of law which provides that the obligation of a surety must be neither larger in amount nor in other respects more burdensome than that of the principal; (g) the defense of the statute of limitations in any action hereunder or in any action for the collection or performance of any obligations covered by this Agreement; (h) and any duty on the part of First American Title Insurance Company to disclose to Indemnitor any facts First American Title Insurance Company may now or hereafter know about the Owner, since Indemnitor acknowledges that Indemnitor is fully responsible for being and keeping informed of the financi—al condition�he Owner and of-alF—ciroriistanc�earing on the risk of nonperformance of any obligations covered by this Agreement. 10. NOTICE. Any notices, demands or communications under this Agreement between Indemnitor and First American Title Insurance Company shall be in writing, shall include a reasonable identification of the Property together with First American Title Insurance Company order number, and may be given either by personal service, by overnight delivery, or by mailing via United Stated mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to each party as set forth on the signature page of this Agreement. If the address for First American Title Insurance Company is not completed on the signature page, notice to First American Title Insurance Company shall be given to First American Title Insurance Company State office. All notices given in accordance with the requirements in this Paragraph shall be deemed to be received as of the earlier of actual receipt by the addressee thereof or the expiration of ninety-six (96) hours after depositing same in the United States Postal System. 11. MISCELLANEOUS. 11.1. No Waiver. No delay or omission by First American Title Insurance Company in exercising any right or power under this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by First American Title Insurance Company of a breach of any of the covenants, agreements, restrictions, obligations or conditions of this Agreement to be performed by the Indemnitor shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants, agreements, restrictions, obligations or conditions under this Agreement. Furthermore, in order to be effective, any waiver must be in writing executed by First American Title Insurance Company. 11.2. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is only between Indemnitor and First American Title Insurance Company, and is not intended to be, nor shall it be construed as being, for the benefit of any third party. 11.3. Partial Invalidity. In any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 11.4. Modification or Amendment. Any alteration, change, modification or amendment of this Agreement or any documents incorporated herein, in order to become effective, shall be made by written instrument executed by all parties hereto. 11.5. Execution in Counterpart. This Agreement and any modification, amendment or supplement to this Agreement may be executed by Indemnitor in several counterparts, and as so executed, shall constitute one Agreement binding on all Indemnitors, notwithstanding that all Indemnitors are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart. 11.6. Qualification; Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of an Indemnitor which is an entity, represents, warrants and covenants to First American Title Insurance Company that (a) such entity is duly formed and authorized to do business in the State, (b) such person is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of such entity in accordance with authority granted under the organizational documents of such entity, and (c)such entity is bound under the terms of this Agreement. 11.7. Merger of Prior Agreements and Understandings. This Agreement and other documents incorporated herein by reference contain the entire understanding and agreement between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties with respect to Mechanics' Liens for future transactions involving the Property and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, shall be of no force or effect. Page 5 of 8 October 2001 ©2001 First American Title Insurance company All Rights Reserved 11.8. Other. This Agreemo shall be construed according to its fair mE ng as if prepared by all parties to this Agreement. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State and Indemnitor hereby agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court of First American Title Insurance Company choosing having competent jurisdiction,and to make no objection to venue therein should any action at law or in equity be necessary to enforce or interpret this Agreement. If any action at law or in equity is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to have and to recover from the other party its reasonable attorneys' fees and other reasonable expenses in connection with such action or proceeding in addition to its recoverable court costs. Titles and captions are for convenience only and shall not constitute a portion of this Agreement. The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated into this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine-or-neuter-gender-and-the-singular--or-plural-num ber-shall-be-deemed-to-include-the-others-whereverand---- - whenever the context so dictates. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 12. SECURITY. Indemnitor has or will provide security for this Agreement to First American Title Insurance Company as follows: [ X ] None at this time [ ] Letter of Credit Agreement with Sight Draft Form [ ] Security Agreement* (Non cash) [ ] Control Agreement [ ] Security Agreement* (cash) [ ] Deed of Trust [ ] Security Agreement(Letter of credit) [ ] Mortgage A breach by an obligor, pledgor or debtor under any of the foregoing documents as well as any documents which may be referenced in such documents shall be deemed a breach by Indemnitor under this Agreement. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, any sums held by First American Title Insurance Company as security may be held by First American Title Insurance Company in its general accounts and not deposited into an interest bearing account. Indemnitor understands that as a result of maintaining its accounts with a financial institution and its on-going banking relationship with the specific financial institution, First American Title Insurance Company may receive certain financial benefits such as an array of bank services, accommodations, loans or other business transactions from the financial institution ("collateral benefits"). Indemnitor agrees that any and all such collateral benefits shall belong solely to First American Title Insurance Company and First American Title Insurance Company shall have no obligation to account to Indemnitor for the value of any such collateral benefits. If the funds are deposited into a special interest bearing account, all such interest shall be added to and retained in the account as part of the security for First American Title Insurance Company. Any such interest earned shall be attributed for tax purposes to the Indemnitor depositing same. (Note: If security is to be taken, additional forms must be executed. Please be advised that additional documents maybe needed to perfecta personal propertysecurity interest. Please follow directions on said forms as to additional requirements or consult your local underwriter.) 13. ESTOPPEL. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE IN THE PARITY OF THE PARTIES HERETO, INDEMNITOR UNDERSTANDS THAT First American Title Insurance CompanylS UNDERTAKING A RISK SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN THAT UNDERTAKEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF PROVIDING TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES AND RELATED SERVICES BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND ISSUING POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE IN RELIANCE ON THIS AGREEMENT, AND, THEREFORE, INDEMNITOR HEREBY DECLARES ITS WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND TO INDUCE First American Title Insurance Company TO ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT, REALIZING THAT INDEMNITOR'S BEST INTEREST,IN THE OPINION OF INDEMNITOR, IS BEING SERVED THEREBY. Page 6 of 8 October 2001 ©2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved NOTICE: THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS PROVISIONS WHICH PERSONALLY OBLIGATE INDEMNITOR. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT INDEMNITOR CONSULT LEGAL COUNSEL PRIOR TO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT. INDEMNITOR: Sally Lou Nipert Name: Name: SSN: SSN: ADDRESS FOR NOTICE TO First American Title Insurance Company: (If this information is not completed,please see Paragraph 10.) Notice Address: 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, WA 98101 *Requires a UCC Financing Statement to be executed and filed. i Aii persons/entities executing thisAgreementsha//be deemed named parties to this Agreement as if their name also appeared in the introductory paragraph on page 1. Page 7 of 8 October 2001 ©2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Order No. 4220-2206449(REQUIRED) Legal Description: THE WEST 440 FEET OF THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ---QUARTER OF-THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER-OFSECTION14-TOWNSHIP-23-NORTH-RANGE-5-EAST, ---- ---- W.M., EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING,STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 8of8 October 2001 ©2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved rAlt,, ,« �4 Fit American Title Insurance Company erlrcan 818 Stewart St,Ste 800 Seattle,WA 98101 Phn-(206)615-3206 Fax-(425)551-4107 ESCROW COMPANY INFORMATION: Escrow Officer/Closer: BRIE REGALIA SUDDERTH bregaliasudderth@firstam.com First-American Title Insurance Company - 11400 SE 8th St, Ste 250, Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425)455-3400- Fax: (800)363-0756 Title Team Four Fax No. (866)859-0429 Kristi K Mathis Michelle Treherne Title Officer Title Officer (206) 615-3206 (425) 635-2100 kkmathis@firstam.com mtreherne@firstam.com Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 Stewart Street#800,Seattle, WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC File No.: 4243-2195519 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Your Ref No.: Mercer Island,WA 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers Re: Property Address: 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton,WA 98059 SECOND REPORT REC/k/ FEBF2 7 Z'014 CITY C.- FirstAmerican Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment —ommitment No.:4243-2195519 Page 2 of 9 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRSTA MERICA N TITLEINSURANCECOMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agree to issue a policy to you according to-the terms-Of this-Commitment.— -- When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The General Exceptions and Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions. This Commitment is not valid without Schedule A and Section I and II of Schedule B. FirstAmerican Title Insurance Company Krish Mathis,Title Officer FirstAmerican Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment .bmmitment No.:4243-2195519 Page 3 of 9 SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: January 29, 2014 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX Homeowner's Rate with 10% Combination Discount Standard-Owner's-Policy --- — - -- Proposed Insured: PNW Holdings LLC,a Washington Limited Liability Company Simultaneous Issue Rate with 10% Combination Discount ALTA Extended Loan Policy $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow Proposed Insured: To Follow 3. (A) The estate or interest in the land described in this Commitment is: Fee Simple (B) Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS SPOUSE ON OCTOBER 21, 2008, DATE OF ACQUIRING TITLE 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. FirstAmerkan Tit/e Form No.1068-2 .ommitment No.:4243-2195519 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 4 of 9 SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMENTS The following requirements must be met: (A) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured. (B) Pay us the-pr_emi_ums,_f-eesand_char-ges-for-the-policy. -- (C) Documents satisfactory to us creating the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorded: (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions. (E) Releases(s)or Reconveyance(s)of Item(s): (F) Other: (G) You must give us the following information: 1. Any off record leases,surveys, etc. 2. Statement(s) of Identity, all parties. 3. Other: SCHEDULE B SECTION II GENERAL EXCEPTIONS PART ONE: A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. E. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (B) or (C) are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the escrow or interest or mortgage(s) thereon covered by this Commitment. FirstAmerican Title Form No.1068-2 Commitment No.:4243-2195519 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 5 of 9 SCHEDULE B SECTION II EXCEPTIONS PART TWO: Anypolicy_we-issue-will-have-the-fallowing-exceptions unless-they are-taken-care-of to-our-satisfaction'-- --- The printed exceptions and exclusions from the coverage of the policy or policies are available from the office which issued this Commitment. Copies of the policy forms should be read. 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78 %. Levy/Area Code: 2143 2. General Taxes for the year 2014,which cannot be paid until the 15th day of February of said year. Tax Account No.: 142305-9023-06 1st Half Amount: $ 2,699.94 Assessed Land Value: $ 340,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 36,000.00 2nd Half Amount: $ 2,699.93 Assessed Land Value: $ 340,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 36,000.00 Note: Taxes and charges for 2013 were paid in full in the amount of$5,009.81. 3. Question of identity of the spouse of George Richard Ouimet on October 21, 2008, date of acquiring title. In addition, title is subject to matters which the record may disclose against the name of said spouse. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Operating Agreement of PNW Holdings LLC. According to said Agreement dated May 01, 2012, Robert Gladstein, Michael Gladstein and Joel Mezistrano is/are the manager(s) thereof. Any amendments to said Agreement must be submitted. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the property must be executed by said manager(s)as provided for therein, subject to said amendments, if any. 5. Any and all offers of dedication, conditions, restrictions, easements, fence line/boundary discrepancies, notes and/or provisions shown or disclosed by Short Plat or Plat of King County Testamentary Division No. L08M0034 recorded under recording number 20080812900004. FirstAmerican Title Form No.1068-2 -ammitment No.:4243-2195519 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Page 6 of 9 INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. Potential charges, for the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge,as authorized under RCW 35.58 and King County Code 28.84.050. Said charges could apply for any property that connected to the King County Sewer Service area on or after February 1, 1990. Note: Properties located in Snohomish County may be subject to the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charges. B. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, certain format and content requirements must be met (refer to RCW 65.04.045). Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder or additional fees being charged,subject to the Auditor's discretion. C. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. D. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s)to be insured. LOT B, KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIV. NO. L08M0034, REC. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY APN: 142305-9023-06 E. All matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage policy to be issued. F. The following deeds affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 36 months of the effective date of this commitment: NONE Property Address: 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton,WA 98059 NOTE: The forthcoming Mortgagee's Policy will be the ALTA 2006 Policy unless otherwise noted on Schedule A herein. NOTE: We find no judgments or Federal tax liens against the vestee herein, unless otherwise shown as a numbered exception above. NOTE: A FEE WILL BE CHARGED UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THIS COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THIS COMPANY. &i American Tit/e Form No.1068-2 :4243-2195519 ALTA Plain Language Commitment commitment No. Page 7 of 9 CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a)"Mortgage"means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b)"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title accordingtQthe-state-law-w-here-the land-is-located. ----- -- 2. LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3. EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to: comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B -Section I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B-Section II. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this commitment and is subject to its terms. cc: PNW Holdings, LLC cc: Richard Ouimet FirstAmerican Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment i-ommitment No.:4243-219SS19 Page 8 of 9 firstAmerican Tit/e Insurance Company AfttA m- en-hm 818 Stewart St,Ste 800 Seattle,WA 98101 Phn-(206)615-3206 Fax-(425)551-4107 HimtAmerican 71de Privacy Information We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information In order to better serve your needs now and in the future,we may ask you to provide us with certain Information.We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such Information-particularly any personal or financial information.We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us.Therefore,together with our subsidiaries we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information that you provide to us.It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source,such as Information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity.First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing,the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect Include: • Information we receive from you on applications,forms and in other communications to us,whether in writing,in person,by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us,our affiliated companies,or others;and • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party.Therefore,we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except:(1)as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us;or(2)as permitted by law.We may,however,store such information indefinitely,including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased.Such information may be used for any internal purpose,such as quality control efforts or customer analysis.We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies.Such affiliated companies include financial service providers,such as title insurers,property and casualty Insurers,and trust and investment advisory companies,or companies involved in real estate services,such as appraisal companies,home warranty companies and escrow companies.Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect,as described above,to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf,on behalf of our affiliated companies or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer,our Privacy Policy will continue to appy to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information.We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those Individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you.We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values.We currently maintain physical,electronic,and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. Information Obtained Through Our Web Site First American Financial Corporation Is sensitive to privacy issues on the Internet We believe it is important you know how we treat the information about you we receive on the Internet. In general,you can visit First American or its affiliates'Web sites on the World Wide Web without telling us who you are or revealing any information about yourself.Our Web servers collect the domain names,not the e-mail addresses,of visitors.This Information Is aggregated to measure the number of visits,average time spent on the site,pages viewed and similar Information.First American uses this information to measure the use of our site and to develop ideas to improve the content of our site. There are times,however,when we may need information from you,such as your name and email address.When information is needed,we will use our best efforts to let you know at the time of collection how we will use the personal Information.Usually,the personal information we collect is used only by us to respond to your inquiry,process an order or allow you to access specific account/profile information.If you choose to share any personal information with us,we will only use it in accordance with the policies outlined above. Business Relationships First American Financial Corporation's site and its affiliates'sites may contain links to other Web sites.While we try to link only to sites that share our high standards and respect for privacy,we are not responsible for the content or the privacy practices employed by other sites. Cookies Some of First American's Web sites may make use of"cookie"technology to measure site activity and to customize information to your personal tastes.A cookie Is an element of data that a Web site can send to your browser,which may then store the cookie on your hard drive FirstAm.com uses stored cookies.The goal of this technology is to better serve you when visiting our site,save you time when you are here and to provide you with a more meaningful and productive Web site experience. Fair Information Values Fairness We consider consumer expeditions about their privacy in all our businesses.We only offer products and services that assure a favorable balance between consumer benefits and consumer privacy. Public Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for society,enhances consumer choice and creates consumer opportunity.We actively support an open public record and emphasize its Importance and contribution to our economy. Use We believe we should behave responsibly when we use information about a consumer in our business.We will obey the laws governing the collection,use and dissemination of data. Accuracy We will take reasonable steps to help assure the accuracy of the data we collect,use and disseminate.Where possible,we will take reasonable steps to correct inaccurate information. When,as with the public record,we cannot correct inaccurate information,we will take all reasonable steps to assist consumers in identifying the source of the erroneous data so that the consumer can secure the required corrections. on We r to educate the of our cts and services,our oyees and ourrfairtinformation values and and on a responsible b e collecctinu d use of data.We will encourage urage others inrs n our our industry to about Ilett and seinformationce Of n.nua responsible mannerInstruct our employees on Security We will maintain appropriate facilities and systems to protect against unauthorized access to and corruption of the data we maintain. Form 50-PRIVACY(8/1/09) Page 1 of 1 Privacy Information(2001-2010 First American Financial Corporation) FrrstAmerican Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Commitment No.:4243-2195519 Page 9 of 9 FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Exhibit"A" Vested Owner: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS SPOUSE ON OCTOBER 21,2008, DATE OF ACQUIRING TITLE Real-property-in-the-County-of-King,—State of-Washing on described as follows: LOT B OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY WASHINGTON: LESS NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 440 FEET. Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9023-06 Situs Address: 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 RMAmerican Tine m N ~ 'dam ES-TZ-TO N Ix I �s k" o Se vl wr � m --. a a1.,. 1I' £_ T + d ~ CD 88 .i G m + 98 -?'T�0 A 5£'E9E 36Z-9Z-Of1 �' SZ'86Z ET 'S'6CT ' 1 N 4 m o I4P9I_-_i ES-i r o M - o MIT Wz i€ r xa A n N 6S-TZ-19 LI n O ZD•EOT 3'T-O' o 1 LEOT w t co ae o 00 'Sfi4 vi o o <OOi '?.�. d Es-TZ�-TO N r•. O 3'�� ... N ^•n of �4 mo� Rm O 111 � o ypprill, o a o z p p pp ;` sz d s O £ J nO8p8iff JQ ppe r1l"I' l Q 0 0 03 vp-q° VE Q m r T /! FEB l CU O `yf `+T /! I� Dfi'SET h 00 L(J;4 oi�n ? Nr N ,IVM ° c Ali �o aE r.•' rfi S v o EI'BZ-ON S"H Z_ c,g•y°I q 99 �T adm� N m r.1 uE 'TS 3At!'H1991 a A ociri r i z60oc�... '-.-ASN 1x — � �a-- -- s_ '£ �z oN •� Nose ' 3 !�__�At/'FI1996 l� �• s _ T 0£ - .:SBL'SEi Lti'L:F 98L'ZB -flE,� �,-9-`3L� --- i_ _ _ -- TEE 0 00 O s�D } rep o O 1�� 99` �9.. `"I.` C CO a. O O ` �s I o O NO c O 3 o Ow N Og _�',�' o 0 0 Ic o . v o c. IJ s, c Ce .y O C p nc 09 20081021000150.001 Filed for Record at Request of& When Recorded Return To G.R.Ouimet 2923 Maltby Road 20081021000150 CHICAGO TITLE D 43.00 Bothell, WA 98012 PAGE001 OF 002 10/21/2008 09:48 KING COUNTY, WA -- ----. ---- E2368093 - 10/21/2008 09:48 KING COUNTYWA TAX , SALE $$0.00 PAGE001 OF 001 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED (Upon Distribution of Separate Real Property from Testate Estate) Grantors: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT,Co-Personal Representatives of Estate of Kathleen M.Ouimet,deceased Grantee: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET Abbreviated Legal Descr.: LOT B,KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.L08M0034, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20080812900004,IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel No.: 142305-9023 1. Grantors. We, GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT,are the duly appointed,qualified,and acting Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET, Deceased,King County,Washington, Superior Court Case No. 08-4-01861-7 KNT. 2. Grantee. The Grantee is GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, a married man. 3. Decedent's Estate. Decedent KATHLEEN M. OUIMET died testate on January 27, 2008. On February 29,2008,Decedent's Will was admitted to probate and Grantors were appointed Co-Personal Representatives of Decedent's estate and granted Nonintervention Powers for the administration of Decedent's estate. 4. Will Provision. Article IV of Decedent's Will provides that the residue of Decedent's estate shall pass to Decedent's children. 5. Real Property. Among the assets of the residue of Decedent's estate is the following described real property located in King County, Washington: LOT B OF KC TESTAMENTARY DIV#L08M0034 REC 20080812900004 BEING NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF STR 14-23-05 LESS N 100 FT OF W 440 FT LESS CO RD TAXABLE PORTION PARTIALLY EXEMPT UNDER RCW 84.36.381 THRU .389 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Number: 142305-90CHICAGO TITLE INS.CO 23. REF# 227a,:�o�.io 6. Consideration. This conveyance is made in consideration of Decedent's gift in her Will. 7. Conveyance. Grantors convey,grant,and quitclaim to GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET all of the interest of Decedent's estate in the real property described in this Deed(together with all after-acquired title of the Grantors to the real property), which interest represents Decedent's interest in the real property at her death. DATED: Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET,Deceased GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, Co-Personal Representative Jo X 95_� SALLY LOUNIPERT, Co-Personal Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET and SALLY LOU NIPERT,known or proved to me to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing Personal Representative's Deed,and acknowledged that they and each of them signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal on: Sigture 140'TA* - Printed Name NOTARY PUBLIC for Washington ,�+�+ *!Mt h. ay�� Residing at: -0 ' ��''ti,,OF p 0 My appointment expires on: r°� Aly 1? OL0 .2 VOL./PAGECD > 0 € > •�� Z 3 ape Z cW .. 2 a :• N m \Q, 1.0 W� n �� 3 a Vm 'w O 44 0 w e CQ cri :5. :.•. q o =W ;;.... nt[ti o a� € " 1P�= � WX w o . LJ: W Nz W N W W F ...• W J� U G�� ¢5U O yp�il Od � �mx < 3 i Q FwS _ Z N=0 VI �<U Z d cn r C O UwL. OpOO�Z U a N O O rC`1I C1`I O. . ..:. NK WO W,N V-Z UI j� Sw fpq,I •..i`OZ w V � '•..WW Z�y1��(n s,, p '':• SONO �.•I ZZK ttFF � � �•.•�-', 3 X03 �O' z w � •� c z'w �w4 �5�. ¢�Oala;Ok03N w � w—�� r \'• 3 � p O K O' �wN°www'4Uz0 �� z OW Z O• Z W N O r�'.��.yy,,�� •:: 2 Z Z —z Si O °2 2 O': O v�}� Z �I U •O 144 . O 04 w0�¢U < ZSR w p�W 17 O M ^7= W O ~I••.:. ': C� W 4W F Y N° 00 m .�_.WwO WO NQ a= d <z°aFi o °� w y SOY pCpx30,O 02 oo %;Z. WI<n< 3 s NO�II' O� p N WO Ix .O l -",Z 30 YY�F-Z a3oQ 2 z 3 Ort-Ui. 5 _ ,'k1� W < O ¢� °�� I :z mw's a: INN as�Iw moi€ zmOx iY'4r �0 3: N _QI R. z� H°<ww• 3 0� 3 0 3 >� Vic.§n oti. Q;_¢: Q�' LL cwi wa N Z �e 0 0 0 o x p- '.� o rn z� ;.� nraza�3.0o 050 0 N� rwz=� z I �iy ^hur dfc` Sw z Z wW0 W W CSW' N 0 / 'C`� Q N < �''• ox�y N°N jsgLf z �Sa\p z� II S o ° o A rti �'• zo��aoWWo= �< a mop �^�^u^ � �' oW nY \/ o°a°NU��z3 �E H o o oF�a=� 0 0. ¢ Uz o NSBS� i Np oQx� �I, VOL. L CD 00 2.1 0- Al W 3 n N i CD CM =0M�a C rrl�^^ � R'i �j�j Q���:�.•. Z .41n��g.:.:.;•° O� �p6p �+ 02;,C23 S U,,� N� � � \ N �•VI R WS�a2 KVO W o w ma. U '.• �ti �c wy#S� to j �S < :, h v �' S c1 W uoim�' a �z' •: ''�' 0 3 c x zz y� Wa G ��° W � rn �+ o o $�;. b z z Q 3 0, tx� o f S z r .'•' � � �:. Cs �C�y M� �vw,�°a'•,m F�]'dX z��Yy��_:''Gy �j�' �W¢y�'p� tay �y"d�'$3m? �a� :�w O� � Oj .. r`�O 'tet �O�'O Y-I S'•F��R�+J �i N00 H¢2 � �UG �U CJ 4 N 4 9:4\ C EY ......P.. V co ti rl < ': i$Sz�' NS I•.... Iwo , 13 -• �nW�ti3��.���I YQV hu :'i U�I4 I� ww I ww W::..2 •�I l�'U yme� i • w°hy�.:-Z , °d� "'2 Z3 °Z :.• °j '21gC ?y ..y mGz°r$ �Q ,W� �e�i•'.: I 3" I �W yy��3� '1. 3>. 3�' m O<eW W ° `.�I�•,;. UinU I �.> I Wi, m..CY•::••:•• 1•• m �m I �y Z ":.. • I 1,74 T991LR.3'.WS :, I I �m �W rl� j 69 V IT C '•:... "., C2W:.' __-_� r2.ou I.'O2W•'•' �2 W 64 �vi h,2S°j o ` p8 � wwi *zld $m� Vin$ Yoo� 88 zh z U •vrj � � nN I �i�� �+� � �x�"i ..;:. �•.;... a ;, ,ZO'OOi_ _ .6rmapT.w-" (GTWO) .056993.CG.83.DON ,N ,� _ - •00'L36i 3.PT.83.0ON �'S -VAd Kd9Bl VOL./PAGE w 8. .. LD ¢ mD > D:. �1 Y = Z N a '54 T W\ ti a � VI rN ^ n \3a u m d W 03 :'•�1 Ul 0 U F O W o � � ag O 114 cdgil ,p sF :. 0 14 ~ co E-4 cv EN O 04 y + 8 � . .;. ::. yz KKK W Jct U ppr� ;.. ..• UZD � 1D O us W oW< < 7� �W ............ V) U 2 d ry<}�' .,•D...NWW ...::�' _ Zm '•'lyj. - � O N � O O[ `•'J mW 1�S�¢Q�W 6FQ .. Z _U N• V� : F ]N ••':. 4'w•�So'- o. w w"':. .mFw= I.�• ,a=a � a 3z' L7, s 1 w NN.. 4V.:zaZS a CN Q z '•4 ;. O •� �wN❑Z W'00 ❑ -ALF C UWfL•. °40.' N .Y Q''':'" �'•'• y.. mUz � o� mz�o. � o�� .:'!C!Q�+ti�'i:..••...r�W` ~tiI'•.:.(��;�`.;.. "'•ff"Qti�Y1V.�c''`..:.•�WwWaZ'Nxxw~Qo::.�oLLQ.dzr`o.W�WJzoN_a��3woxF3�NWwm�YKr``'lIII O7dvZZi o i�ffi -."' . gmwW J IvozFo❑wpD\__Nx�0D4do° '�v❑+ - ;I az6a0 wrxr. ,NII y�+ wpm�z r 0 $ `J- O z ° 3: 0 cj 0y1 d Q G ao�Qa zZazawaw o W0ya z4coo o f o 8= •'•�' �•.._ � _rn a❑_a o o_ N a � i. �CC))LL w o... ��• N�14 �O- -m Z W U S VS a N W O ° O ! m N O Q!^ ij y -v5,�lf,� ° ❑ N �❑ I o VwI� O W ZOy Y'FZ 3Q z C z °FWFLz S3 p +Q4i J z� O N \� w ;Y c : ��sa I o lin O s #❑�pmi❑� _ Y x a o ❑��w < " W€ v+�n ¢a �w awl§ �-a o G a zWo %�[' o 3, ❑0(h ov wa SIN z ��Yn�$ �.. �wi zZ�Zzl!�--`Ww o'S 4 0 ❑S zo �vv�� o I '.?9+�1�0 ''� o 0 2'YY �iM0 C `0 NW�OaWONCI OW • w� V XWyWN Z l u�nWS�. � f Sy �Z F z yyl`o2 '�:..;.,• =�ywN it k' o z w�¢=p oo +6,+4 <,- O 1 z< z z z�W w \a nypp. "� w O O O ' v zo�� o o= It` a o moo❑ wr ow $o m SOY i ❑aovai°��z3 ��i�i u+ o P3a=a �0 4 a as W CM O Q DS YW VOL./PA6E:::.S' G;•., ol cm '•3 a m � `tea O ':.:5?C�ui�m •.::�--W wl _Y •O �NSL'S" rWa� zo8a '•:. o Iry- �}+o �2� �'� .. a��- Ito axy�� •.:. pI ei 8^og z, 4 � E, - d ^ a.� ;n� �.' �/] VI G •:' 3�2'` I �£� m Y 'S �^2T m �. � �z,'e \�� I%1— ry !};'C/] � � c's'¢Qoi -p. n ng � 8 8 �g_ �' •o � ..ui m �- Li �r�,' p V] U� U � d AY W Y m e Qi' y f0.-•.. y ry '!(.�. R'..:.: ga yob' '�'� y 0 3` W p UP QaR U �o� gZr .;' �.'• •� ;.,.�a .. Q E, Di w E`•I,^^ C.5 - �1 y E,44 '� 50 '; Fo•ss..... V �� W 84- rE� rp�11r����'o , • n: �.��b C1•:�.i N .:�. N 1 '�N I n •.r0206 N3��. b j .. �QCqI ,!' I�j_ W � � WU I"•: W .I HU v�Wm L4W In Wim- V :I zW t7&r2 � �<ti1 2�pp�..:'� � ui � •• ".I 210^ �I 2U'p'O m3• I 4a o�'" I 3� i W W3� .I. 3> 3p�� m 2ppp� W �o�l •• � U I �mm I W� �Om .,.I ��m �Ogl •'dry Iy<�W ':.. .. I 1 .•' " Rt In ,-In I I 414i%llEL 51°.005 I I m'^-Cl .• 2� 2 •• .• SE'E9E .StlBsi' � y� to 14 CF o O RiAo :: '•:., ai 5 '::_:___ � •:.fit� Ul i F:N� � jy as �1 ••:. ':`•, N••:• ----'mei—'' oU �i02 '•.02 W kra]-in) gW-'Ch 6E£55 sou oav .09 E99 aK.Be.OON -- .007au a K BZ.OON N Y's LFAV HS999 I 4medran ride Insurance Company .r t .. e`rican 818 Stewart St,Ste 800 Seatde,WA 98101 ` Phn-(206)615-3206 Fax-(425)551-4107 ESCROW COMPANY INFORMATION: Escrow Officer/Closer: BRIE REGALIA SUDDERTH bregallasudderth@flrstam.com First American__Title-Insurance-Company------ 11400 T_itle_Insur-ance-Company — -11400 SE 8th St, Ste 250, Bellevue,WA 98004 Phone: (425)455-3400 - Fax: (800)363-0756 Title Team Four Fax No. (866)859-0429 Kristi K Mathis Michelle Treherne Title Officer Title Officer (206) 615-3206 (425)635-2100 kkmathis@fimtam.com mtreherne@firstam.com Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 Stewart Street#800,Seattle, WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC File No.: 4243-2173612 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Your Ref No.: Mercer Island,WA 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers Re: Property Address: To be determined, Renton,WA 98059 THIRD REPORT FEBIVED z CITY La.Nrvir'dr ; " N FifstAmerican Tribe Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment ommitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 2 of 10 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRSTAMERICAN TITLEINSURANCE COMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agree to issue a policy to you according to the terms of this Commitment. Whenwe show-the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B-I. The General Exceptions and Exceptions in Schedule B-II. The Conditions. This Commitment is not valid without Schedule A and Section I and II of Schedule B. First American Tit/e Insurance Company Kristi Mathis,Title Officer FkstAmerinan Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment bmmitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 3of10 SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date:January 29, 2014 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: General Schedule Rate with 10% AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX combination discount Standard Owner's Policy__ Proposed Insured: PNW Holdings LLC,a Washington Limited Liability Company Multiple Coverage Rate ALTA Extended Loan Policy $ To Follow Proposed Insured: $ To Follow $ To Follow To Follow 3. (A) The estate or interest in the land described in this Commitment is: Fee Simple (B) Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: SALLY LOU NIPERT,AS HER SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. First American Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment mmitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 4of10 SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMENTS The following requirements must be met: (A) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured. (B) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. —_(C) Documents-satisfactory to-uscreatingthe-interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed,delivered and recorded: (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions. (E) Releases(s)or Reconveyance(s)of Item(s): (F) Other: (G) You must give us the following information: 1. Any off record leases, surveys, etc. 2. Statement(s)of Identity, all parties. 3. Other: SCHEDULE B SECTION II GENERAL EXCEPTIONS PART ONE: A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. E. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (B) or (C) are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the escrow or interest or mortgage(s) thereon covered by this Commitment. rwr tAmedcan Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment )mmitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 5of10 SCHEDULE B SECTION II EXCEPTIONS PART TWO: Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction---- e-printed-exceptions and-excluslons-from-the coverage of the po icy or policies are available from the office which issued this Commitment. Copies of the policy forms should be read. 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein,the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2143 2. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for sewer, water and public facilities of City of Renton as disclosed by instrument recorded under recording no. 20091105000541. 3. General Taxes for the year 2014,which cannot be paid until the 15th day of February of said year. Tax Account No.: 142305-9122-06 1st Half Amount: $ 2,436.80 Assessed Land Value: $ 340,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 0.00 2nd Half Amount: $ 2,436.79 Assessed Land Value: $ 340,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 0.00 Note: Taxes and charges for 2013 were paid in full in the amount of$4,326.59. 4. Taxes which may be assessed and extended on any subsequent roll for the tax year 2014, with respect to new improvements and the first occupancy which may be included on the regular assessment roll and which are an accruing lien not yet due or payable. 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Operating Agreement of PNW Holdings, LLC. According to said Agreement dated May 01, 2012, Robert Gladstein, Michael Gladstien and Joel Mezistrano is/are the manager(s) thereof. Any amendments to said Agreement must be submitted. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the property must be executed by said manager(s)as provided for therein,subject to said amendments, if any. 6. Potential lien rights as a result of labor and/or materials used, or to be used,for improvements to the premises. The Company reserves the right to make additional requirements prior to insuring. An indemnity agreement to be completed by PNW Holdings, LLC, is being sent to The Closing Escrow Company and must be submitted to us prior to closing for our review and approval. All other matters regarding extended coverage have been cleared for mortgagee's policy. Items A through E and G and H on Exhibit B herein will be omitted in said extended coverage mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage policy to be issued. FiistAmerican Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment mmitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 6 of 10 7. Any and all offers of dedication, conditions, restrictions, easements, fence line/boundary discrepancies, notes and/or provisions shown or disclosed by Short Plat or Plat of King County Testamentary Division No. L08M0034 recorded under recording number 20080812900004. FirstAmerlcaq Tit/e Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment )mmitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 7 of 10 INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. Potential charges, for the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge, as authorized under RCW 35.58 and King County Code 28.84.050. Said charges could apply for any property that connected to the King County Sewer Service area on or after February 1, 1990. Note: Properties located in Snohomish County may be subject to the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charges. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. C. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. D. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s)to be insured. LOT A, KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIV. NO. L08M0034, REC. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY APN: 142305-9122-06 E. The following deeds affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 36 months of the effective date of this commitment: NONE Property Address: To be determined, Renton,WA 98059 NOTE: The forthcoming Mortgagee's Policy will be the ALTA 2006 Policy unless otherwise noted on Schedule A herein. NOTE: We find no judgments or Federal tax liens against the vestee herein, unless otherwise shown as a numbered exception above. NOTE: A FEE WILL BE CHARGED UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THIS COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THIS COMPANY. RrstAmeiican Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Mmitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 8of10 CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a)"Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b)"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title according to the state law where the land is located. 2. LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3. EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to: comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B- Section I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B -Section II. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this commitment and is subject to its terms. cc: PNW Holdings, LLC cc: Sally Lou Nipert FirstAMa4Cap Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment )Mmitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 9of10 iix fix#carr ;} ,i "• FirstAmerican Me Insurance company i stAm 6can 818 Stewart St,Ste 800 Seattle,WA 98101 Phn-(206)615-3206 Fax-(425)551-4107 ty trot ericw fide Privacy Information We Are Committed to Safeguarding customer Information In oder to better serve your needs now and in the future,we may ask you to provide us with certain information.We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information-particularly any Personal or financial information.We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us.Therefore,together with our subsidiaries we have adopted this Privacy Polity to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability FThis Privacy Policy governs our use of the information that you provide to us.It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source,such as irst American obtained from a public record or from another person or entity.First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use ofpersonal information regardless of its source Fist American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing,the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications,forms and in other communications to us,whether in writing,in person,by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us,our affiliated companies,or others;and • Inforation we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party.Therefore,we will not release your information to nonaffiliated partes except:(1)as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us;or 2 as permitted by law.We after which any customer relationship has ceased.Such information may be used for any internal purpose,such as quality control efforts or customer analysis.We may also provide all of the nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies.Such affiliated companies Include financial service providy,however store ers,such as title lnsure s,Property i and the period insures,and trust and investment advisory companies,or companies involved in real estate services,such as appraisal companies,home warranty companies and escrow companies.Furthermore, we may also provide all the Information we collect,as described above,to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf,on behalf of our affiliated companies ort other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even If you are no longer our customer,our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure at no unauthorized parties have s to any f Your information.We restrict access to ividua.Is and entities who need o know that information to provide products or services oro you.We wiilll use our best efforts to train and overseeouremlployees and agents o ensure that your information handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values.We currently maintain physical,ic electronic,information d p procedural safeguards that dcomply with federal regulations o guard your nonpublic personal information. on will be Information Obtained Through Our Web Site Fist American Financial Corporation is sensitive to privacy issues on the Internet We believe it is important you know how we treat the information about you we receive on the Internet. In general,you can visit First American or its affiliates'Web sites on the World Wide Web without telling us who you are or revealing any information about Yourself.Our Web serves collect the domain names,not the e-mail addresses,of visitors.This information is aggregated to measure the number of visits,average time spent on the site,pages viewed and similar information.First American uses this measure the use of our site and to tent our There are times,ho eover,when a may n ed Information from you,lsuch as your name and emailevelop ideas to improve the address.Wheneinformation is needed, q we will use our best efforts to let you know at collection how we will use the personal information.Usually,the personal information we collect is used only by us to respond o your Inquiry,process an order or allow you to access speck account/profile information.If you choose o share any personal information with us,we will only use it in accordance With the policies outlined above. the time of Business Relationships First American Financial Corporation's site and Its affiliates'sites may contain links to other Web sites.While we try to link only to sites that share our high standards and respect for privacy,we are not responsible for the content or the privacy practices employed by other sites. Cookies Some of First American's Web sites may make use of"cookie"technology to measure site activity and to customize information to your personal tastes.A cookie is an element of data that a Web site can send to your browser,which may then store the cookie on your had drive. First4m com uses stored cookies.The goal of this technology is to better serve you when visiting our site,save you time when you are here and to provide you with a more meaningful and productive Web site experience Fair Inormation Values Fairness We consider consumer expectations about their privacy in all our businesses.We only offer products and services that assure a favorable balance between consumer benefits and consumer privacy. Public Record We believe that an open public rend creates significant value for society,enhances consumer choice and creates consumer opportunity.We actively Support and emphasize its importance and contribution to our economy omy. Use We believe we should behave responsibly when we use information about a consumer in our business.We will obey the laws governing the collection,use and dissemination of data public resod Accuracy We will take reasonable steps to help assure the accuracy of the data we collect,use and disseminate Where possible,we will take reasonable steps o correct inaccurate Information.When,as with the public record,we cannot correct inaccurate Information,we will take all reasonable steps to assist consumers in identifying the sourceof the erroneous data so that the consumer can secure the required corrections. Education We endeavor o educate the uses of our products and services,our em our fair ion We n values and on the responsible collection and use a data.our will encourage and others in our industry about the importance a consumer privacy.We will instruct our employees on Security We will maintain appropriate facilities and systems o Protect against unauthorized access o and corruption of theto danwe aintainnedon in a responsible canner. Form 50-PRIVACY(8/1/09) Page 1 of 1 Privacy Information(2001-2010 First American Financial Corporation) Fir&American Title Form No.1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment mmitment No.:4243-2173612 Page 10 of 10 PIRSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Exhibit"A" Vested Owner: SALLY LOU NIPERT,AS HER SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: LOT A OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,W.M., KING COUNTY WASHINGTON: LESS NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 440 FEET. Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9122-06 Situs Address: To be determined, Renton, WA 98059 FiistAmerican Title eos h 4 5 6 .S 7 ^; ry 10999 SFZ '0 IF iX•- ! omo �'�' --25.55 �.'v< >0.02 42.02 ; 1.13 AC '130 010 10350 5 10350 S 10350 5 ~2 12256 u .i Y 90? 0 2Q n 21 22 In 0030 10350 IF 0070 ooe - "WW90 'voro 2n3 20 a 25 m 0055 59.11 0040 0050 0060 66.36 8 5774'" 9836!m 4314{m 297.2t/- (/1 75 0190 0200 9776/m 3977im 4]2 91°P' 966 h A zoo 4p000N0 iN 20.01 j,-- S.E.138TH.PL. 741800 >�, 12544 IF 50..02 sa.,o 0210 0220 0230 0240 30250P ---- - - - - - ----------- N 300 r I 0080 113,59 N 8 99-OB-90 E D�_-_519__---N--_-_- °° � _ 92 Ox 50.0 �zy al- ( Re45 S 88-OB-90 E a 5964{ 40 ... 0 - 90 3 56.86 89,61 75 O VOL 83.69 ., '" 12 d 0120 55 avvv ..���. o 75 ry `' 112.30 m 11 10'4 9 6 7 Lot 1 z e 9 z,on 92.30 4732#:v`, 'o�w W >a ry 1017#Q>-12. 0110 n3112 m nvu °m W 67,B9 r 96963^375]# 96961 1.01 AC { oN r 16 15 '° °'u '°'" ,,,, `"� vwv 13 0130 '" '.55.37 E",^,0107 0090 D080 „° m 27.27 0070 43]90# 1 N' .P1.1? •°j+ 14� ,'�' 12 r�.r W 90.94 Ra So 40am` 50 0057 is ° 1096]sF 13 11 10 ": a e-_- --- 139TH-ST - 10957 5 ~ ~ vW v�y 12638 SN�0 14m ... a ,e 00�-, O 0160 Ol$O 01 9 S 10941 s 10933 IF 10425 5 Z °uo 0 88.4640 c ofn bS 50 -.75.- 0130 0120 0110 "12975 IF 0090 ;,,a z X20 33.05 - 10 f� ---a. '.F4 S.B.F_33-5 E 0100 _ 1093#OP-1 �'60g eo"m 60 - ..,-,n _b53 67_._. _ 75 -'-� ry 19 mao ' ... .° 20 �m21 349, 7_ _.. 30 w 15 52631 of �9 o X73:6]"'+T ® 0150 a 99•]1 -45569 q 4500 ow i n 0190 # 5400# I e 86.97 uM n 0200 0210 m m - 106 t9]-Lm- -1�7 z5s 50 0 W ub'1•� °0ie aro c 15 5317{i c n 9293#r 80 85 DO ,,,, W.. w 0160: 0170 m ,",� 18 5871#0 72 ry o o0 oI 13681 9 vavn N 5osoj 022 10937 IF 10930 IF voee -'-�5- . 50-. _ LDa 0180 W i 9046 9027 10924 IF 10917 5 10910 sF -7�T" �s_,_... 100 80 9086 9087 16857 IF ry - 90 6o so 9088 L J 30q- •re a 80��^�� 123-75 /- S.E.139TH «evv >e 42- ogo ;N55,56 76 591._35 `N KCSP481D65- 9819 0010 IF e 3 942520„ ° 4 ]6 79.79 -7t' 2 I ry IALSUNN~ ory ;i LOT 1 " 0060 AC y 1m� SLOPES W z 1 vasm 4 S.xa VOL 73-73 ui/` 8y� wp 10761 °w0 "' 7 �ry yyo 30 10312 S 10308 S 10304 SF n 42;-_-�T 0012 0030 0040 0050 10029 sl~ 10296 s6; 10809 se-f 80587 IF o $d p 30._ ,-._f„t ;-•�.6-_-.- 00 _ .N 9e 19- 7 W 0059 0070 0080 1.85 AC 130 �: --.�. 'I 9104 86 U NB9.18 710:7"'213`7 �� 311.92 1107.6^2�^'°^""�.."'�"'°'.`�.v.®:,o8w: E 45 r 8.3591 em f, 40998 IF uaq 410 9057 em. 1.93A 19960# W�" N88-28-1OW 410.10 r 0062 0068 N o�- 300 Jry ® v LOT A 160 24900# O 300 0064 150 h 10°0 am° 0: 21647 IF ~ 29501 °RP Qlz� 9050 23760 IF 0067 12450# m - �p0 9037 Iso 0069 r 1 ^ry 165 180 0 4.27 AC p� 186202# m ry r J- 740-203 - 9122 N 'Fi•, N 89 20-21 W m N88-28-09W 623.967 i o 10920! r 10 m Wn0005 p0 N 99-31-58 E m 190 Oq7� v°ve mva2 30 m.� W N 10640# w LOT B s Ac N 75`19_3p 0010' I On 3 eevan4p Il,jj /lvoa 1.14 AC j�� h 984 bs r 10500i s 10 4 r 7s�o 0015 m�` 0 �. 0 4 w losoot 4,:/,4• I- � ro KCSP 475042 OBDt 5^ >r� >0 0020 rv,4,h 1 4.27 AC e(�.� W' o Wm �bti ( 186089/ TRC �TL�rv' TR B TRA losootDO s ->-••------ �° 9023 YS�e F F„ ems' q 0/12 946 � _ vv N88-28-09W 629.12 •� 25 lam'- I'M - p t 1320 6.,8 2103�5�61 :i 720.36 170100 9113 e 52�6'l5 I �f 1378 50 0 - 5- - II 10164{ -a,4 93941 -1 - - 2.82 AC 5 0078 75 0081 >.� 'S 13 ,- - - -' 5,0. 9013 ® 160 r ....a; 11'..10.-:-, 139750 37i R,. TR.A 10 1' B 9000; a `W 9+®°p N"+ 7 1.1 5 5 88-28- 9 E1248.40 (P)`y 159 0079 °ro CAROL Z mwo �m �° e1 W 5 W W 08434~ �- yS 9 16951 o OOD ° z 10753 IF WI W m 4 0080 ' 9000! u J.o 3e 9 0100 17914 IF 15432 IF 12022 IF nl W VOL 771/99.100„`• `Iy"m mve ry q i 99'B9 132.00 090 0110 0080 0070 N iI W 15000 OF, a m°15000 seo g Iso 0075 0 u9.o° e9.o0 69 00��� ^'j ¢ �9 i"' 0060 0 0050 z 15001 SFz~ 0040 K: -- =1 111.91 _ 112.18 -- ---- 608.0_0 zl b S E 143RD ST s Be 38 07-ELT 1080,00------------------ -S-Ba- - .. >-... 20081021000'1-400 Filed for Record at Request of& When Recorded Return To Sally Nipent 2@@81021000149 14004 156"'Ave.SE Renton,WA 98059 CHICAGO TITLE D 43.00 PAGE001 OF 002 10/21/2008 09:48 KING COUNTY, WA E2368@92 10/21/2008 09:49 KING COUNTY, WA SALE$10.00 $0.00 PAGE001 OF 001 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED (Upon Distribution of Separate Real Property from Testate Estate) Grantors: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT,Co-Personal Grantee: Representatives of Estate of Kathleen M.Ouimet,deceased SALLY LOU NIPERT Abbreviated Legal Descr.: LOT A, KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.L08M0034, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20080812900004,IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Parcel No.: I42305-9122 1. Grantors. We, GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT,are the duly appointed, qualified,and acting Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET,Deceased, King County, Washington, Superior Court Case No. 08-4-01861-7 KNT. 2. Grantee. The Grantee is SALLY LOU NIPERT,a single woman. 3. Decedent's Estate. Decedent KATHLEEN M. OUIMET died testate on January 27, 2008. On February 29,2008,Decedent's Will was admitted to probate and Grantors were appointed Co-Personal Representatives of Decedent's estate and granted Nonintervention Powers for the administration of Decedent's estate. 4. Will Provision. Article IV of Decedent's Will provides that the residue of Decedent's estate shall pass to Decedent's children. 5. Real Property. Among the assets of the residue of Decedent's estate is the following described real property located in King County, Washington: LOT A OF KC TESTAMENTARY DIV#L08M0034 REC#20080812900004 BEING NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF STR 14-23-05 LESS N 100 FT OF W 440 FT LESS CO RD Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9122. CHICAGO TITLE INS.C09 REFS /�7o2Sa 7 -Jo 5. Consideration. This conveyance is made in consideration of Decedent's gift in her Will. 7. Conveyance. Grantors convey,grant, and quitclaim to SALLY LOU NIPERT all of the interest of Decedent's estate in the real property described in this Deed(together with all after- acquired title of the Grantors to the real property), which interest represents Decedent's interest in the real property at her death. DATED: Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET, Deceased By: e GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, Co-Personal Representative r SALLY LO NIP.ERT, Co-Personal Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING )ss. On this day personally appeared before me GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET and SALLY within and foregoing Personal Representative's Deed,anLOU NIPERT,known or proved to me to be the individual described in and who executed the d acknowledged that they and each of them signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal on: tttNttl�1►++b+p/r < < ,ee--. ����7�t��`���i4Siture i �0' P►RY Fri Cv'/Y KvF'nfh�9 .. nted Name ;per« PUAtit�;,a NOTARY PUBLIC for Washington pr � Residing at: /�! '���H►HlfgNpttt My appointment expires on: 41# -� VOL./PAGE" LU CL o yWFE ., > m `° .. 33 <1 Eli :.• ...: N \w $p N y m n 4 -• _ '79c7 = a T Ing g.-. r . n .,, Fy Q $• o�R� 'a � w .... �� N NNZ N WED z�N }c KWU 41 �z O NOti < W NMI N W<W ri O Cl) mWS loo `0 o W O '• w&or.w o z o N o O. :::• °�wo'(v, rz zsrw N• i r MM�•'"'•� 3"•��o���=ZS'a_{ � w.•..+ pz�� ••-�°�• a?� .. K! :: Fazes<�NCIil '�•.• W yN.. .� • W O $Wom ;O�O�N UY x x a�Q6 °� z Q'i ti„ Q �:::, Fwa cno �w��z❑ rc� C ��W'� r \• O c xz n o rc ° aZ � �� gnW owl- -O '�: � 'a :. :..� �� Wa E�v=i4 to '� m c �wNay� •» ar z = o z `� ^I •''. ��y':. 6 Wo4SO ZU�OZS cOi�'u \ �Z0Z\ZQ U '::: <lS�U CCV Uvli Cj :•'-�I w QO.�NQ 2 J 4. °Q <ZO O ....eE F- OQI F- N = �• ✓ o.3to,rO'oo vi zzxrz �-w<gwo Uoi Fz < y�WUNr ¢z ° w FF �:®= Q �:• mz oFxv�`��v�m� z w �� dza �wb<<4y n 9 °° Z� -,zOYy H2 3o O O N WO U A io�omo� i z_ o Fag. x •' }� �I�ZHZH°a� 'ID o 3 " >Q. "9 � „�, o i J^e4 OQj "t3 a cn o -% •.,�/, �¢N�¢2QZ~Z1Q-Oa �S W O ❑S 2Uz� O 4 2 y Q 0= w N 2S OQ < Z �eN�3 �• •': 41SNL WON W Gw� O V XWY= jw ilk aNq.m.wo+a�•l`o= F1•. ° t r < o �BFx is O OxZ'-'� 2� (� > N OW $° aY• z C/J�z w N ' y O Q O1 YW IY w VOL./PAdttt-Y-CD CL > pp (DWtow Scow 2 G� Ee' W g 1� �NR�S�x�' ,6W] �i`�,,.06. •. 031 ��is��� � �54 a'n uxi Ro jN2S�2+ �_••• A-1 v.. U N 0 $ � W ':f n J 0 R F VJ WSNy 3g 1 W y �jU �Z3�'Sz:�#:;:;, 2'.ry•':'vlH .'';,p� og aaY �g ��ez W u' Izl'�S.�t9U �•'f':;03�O�;. '•S � 3W a �4� Ile#j o �, ��0.• U rf� .:' �a t7S 4S d', it ti o Z w i 1�� .� o�t 'i fiJ 7 L1i^ n az W mai Sadit . ,1 s F 3 I,i m 3 ` •�) [[[///��� "D y, GI O� 0 ;: y�°' cL 02� S •', CZ y b�222222 � atU�' 2 W W�qqu=¢ [a'� � I0 ! NO1���+ ��� �W na �n4 'ry ®•'�•:� •• S ry E 04 C' t. G1 z p -•..:. WyT F� •I' �� 1".; •a�c•�':., � � �a 1 '1 arc .'Yi � i '' ylb _ .>•,•V'1?Gj^ 1 •4'•lt., '-'•�'• le- 1^N ,t- 1 :.''� r YmC r ^QI �; �O �'" sN .I":. c�� ••,•'•"1,. 1 WO ' � �i .:'I •�� W ti ,, Ya W o� •p2•o�l :.eZ3 'r' I�r I 4C I (y N •�rUy�'YN3wO�,'�'•a � �YiQgppq'_ .1 �C� W • � W�. , 1 �VC 'djny O�'��•.�Z�1 � Y�i .:I OW I W3 W 1 b W::. W .:I 4!(1 mep 'rl.awl - €y•g'. z I z �'`� '•.1 �`� g:Wl S ��.i e o :F pc"•: I m z I ' 2w0ffi 0o3`'•.'I �¢a2'• 3� 1 ' •'••! � •� 2 C Ub� '. W 2 C�• U C ' �.> I WW '"�' 1:. ; W3�1 y 2N^ v'''''. �'• Pio0'"' i^ 1 �.:� I W �^�... I.. .m �m 1 •� 22 I "'•1' Y35 yl ••••3,Wx- 2••; ___ 419'!93 A629,.'005 :• 1 I C�Xqq I LSF ry� °/• .WE56 W,- I ru r ID OCIDi = N kq, " •: n : r e n a^ .. 4;`� MR 03 11 ail v3 :;. • m I :; •�• _ c ------�-. - •n_� .row„ OON Ai Ys ffly HS9S< VOL./PAGE LL) < N . N:.:'.- :; • � Es.: ZO � it V. Roo < ES _ ..N Z :. /• U i r O m 6 a y m m ilti it!. it W n o 3 q ti H w . � q 5otti� s� � s o cQ o79 � oW co cv E-4 < o w� it U �o . ... . •. o� e N Cr p � Utit EIJI LJ O U z=y L� yzw LJ wos U W -0 Q U W UZ= O m it � N E3 6 Q os< o Np� S - zc3 Z3V F- k� t`V t^�I O.•'•: Uxx OUy a� •fn S QQ� `S .O:..;2UWtiZ40 3giqom i� 13 y ¢ y �CO 1 .'h' ::. Q•'':Yyn/� o'd a �=z .o:• y : �'^ �y'i Y •ate jZY p y a� m �I Ol •� �yU •O Damon ''••� ~I �.. •• W Q'��N�WK �I�< W � ��2W �': CMO � O �} Y zW€OUYi{ CC pl�yp U �,.. p W y< >> Qd C i. /7 :•'�1 •[VJf <0.g110i�Ez ] as 06 o �fA !C.r, WQ,(y~}O •'�` W mZZW QciwS�a�=mW o = iyy' w3 ¢Y Z� `,Swu�� ��/'! Q �z ° �0= O ,,zzO "�iQYWS<=- 302 y2 z '3 0=��= __ 5 ; p VI0 MEMO) W yK R ` JEOa ar G a < y � N •• c�w�ir� Boa 3 } a Z3"' �F W I ` o : JOE 3_ 'a p �' plyy O .� yLiN � w CW 0MiN�yms �wa�hS�d ° g 3LY �0�c�• •5 'Y :S�`�oa'ocpi��i3 -81 a 'o z �ooN� i° n ..."� n� w W "' < }}•' o0 ° z p o iia=a oo a o> 08 tcoi � �0 8N e� N W °e o z VOL./PAG :•:5' ,L In A` 3 iL �W�Sgtlgyy� H :;:�<Y$:•':. yam• � � O.i• � 3'N• �� p gt '^iiu$ss ri �ZpZp. b.'••. Y.,.�e• y. 1W�. 0it w$ Sli i.itit O m y m Etc O M Q!QitmOV�04 F: 0 RZa N UG �pW 'U 4 ~1 �6,n3 F .. NE Wa ,•fe2 cuu�� •� a 02 Cx1 F1 WVI �a¢ Nnrc Q O04 OH ••"' yio���rrrr co :. lel i .: t°❑ :It ^ , i tit V �❑ I''. I ¢ 1 V UUP ..� I �I - ,•��W�4I��.,���':;�o�l 2^Vhu :'� W I�•F W I ,� W � i�l� bK ' y Ohl I 7 1 pW 1W3 U .. I � W•`• „1 F$ ��b2 r wX �y� I - 2 44�:.;�'I � j 1 jy LWZi L62 ••I �$x,•.��:1u1 > 2 1 �UO� 4�3`•.�I y`S33 I W3 I yl 37 ':f 3� d =1 � O �^ 1 O. 7•. Ux ri e.> 1 W thy,...., !: •" ✓'idol "•:. h:. I ?OO 1 I.� �..�. I li�C�I .4y . zi22222 Y••''n O I .;. i":l• COI rya< 1 I I Y.iM i •3�x i•• ___ � 174t93 A6�4.4005 - 1 1 ?�xtl 1ai yi.it ti :. 5 ! � r p5 y9 xo� ':.gthC �"•�4 'hC "� W_< '� yg��'.^' S�` r�,,7 lit �� �•••' '�:�`y � ti 06� �e ��V'C � W; C< I "J r^ :" O ❑ s Op C •crl •:l� `:•9. '�!"::. ':•, •C'__—- i�3 O hN� ❑ � � ngyl2 � ZZ Al BVI r 0 o H� W ' ti5 n 0fl {gy gW, p$W �w2 � 2 NyStOI rO` 3•:: 2 � 4�i'II- 1 �yW� 3�I� 30$. 31`.� � W 7 W � �� SSU♦4♦00 CrI V � �C I Sx i-O p ppoW X30o' �O4a � itly� ':� � S3 Fw I g•�• !� �� �yNirO olrx .05'E9B a n,Bp.OON ,t .00'CdEi - �S .74V HY9S< -�� 20091105000541.001 20091105000541 Return Address: cCITE-0e1RENNTO5ORD 76.00 City Clerk's Office 11/05C2�9Y10:224 City of Renton KING 1055 South Grady Way --R—ent-on— WA 9$057 Plcasc print or type information WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet(RCW 65.04) Document Title(s)(or transactions contained therein):(all areas applicable to your document must be filled in) 1. Ordinance#5465 2. 3. 4. Reference Number(s)of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference#'s on page_of document Grantor(s)(Last name first name,initials) 1. City of Renton , 2. Additional names on page_of document. Grantee(s)(Last name first,then first name and initials) 1. 2. , Additional names on page_of document. Legal description(abbreviated: i.e.lot block,plat or section,township,range) These portions of Sections 13, 14, 15,22,23,&24,all in Township 23 north,Range 5 East,W.M.,and Rt i`- Sections 18& 19,both in Township 23 North,Range 6 East,W.M.,all in King County,Washington,more particularly described as follows... FEB 2 7 01 Additional legal is on page 3 of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Number O Assessor Tax#not yet assign6&,,,,q••,rr i�l A ,tV 142305911901 and others v`:D Vi51�:w The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information provided herein. I am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional fee as provided in RC W 36.18.010. I understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some pare of the text on the original document. Signature of Requesting Party 20091105000541.002 CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE N0. 5465 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO AND/OR BENEFITTING FROM THE CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR PHASE II AND ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE UPON CONNECTION TO THE FACILITIES. TI IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. There is hereby created a Sanitary Sewer Service Special Assessment District for the area served by the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II project in the northeast quadrant of the City of Denton and within King County, which area is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. A map of the service area is attached as Exhibit "13". The recording of this document is to provide notification of potential connection and interest charges. %k%hile this connection charge may be paid at any time, the City does not require pa)•mens until such time as the parcel is connected to and,thus,benefiting from the sewer facilities. The property may be sold or in any other way change hands without triggering the requirement,by the City,of payment of the charges associated with this district. SECTION IL Persons connecting to the sanitary sewer facilities in this Special Assessment District,and which properties have not been charged or assessed with all costs of the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase 11 as detailed in this ordinance, shall pay, in addition to the payment of the connection permit fee and in addition to the system development charge, the following additional fees: CERTIFICATE t,the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Renton,Washington,certify that this is a true and correct copy of I Dtd�'no��c 3� 65.Subscribed and sealed this—#day of Ay3 ksf ,20Q± Ahlt-lw�l I/ City Clerk 20091105000541.003 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 A. Per Unit Area Charge. New connections of residential dwelling units or equivalents shall pay a fee of $351.95 per dwelling unit. Those properties included within this Special Assessment District and which may be assessed a charge thereunder are included within the boundary legally described in Exhibit "A" and which boundary is shown on the map attached as Exhibit`B". B. Per Unit Frontage Charge. There is hereby created a sub-district within the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II Special Assessment District consisting of properties fronting on the sewer. New connections of residential units or equivalents shall pay a fee of $5.810.34 per dwelling unit. The properties to be assessed for the per unit frontage charge are described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. A map identifying the properties within the sub-district is attached as Exhibit "B". The properties located within this sub- district are subject to both charges (Area and Frontage). SECTION M. In addition to the aforestated charges, there shall be a charge of 5.30% per annum added to the Special Assessment District charge. The interest charge shall accrue for no more than ten (10) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. Interest charges will be simple interest and not compound interest. SECTION IV. This ordinance is effective upon its passage, approval and thirty (30) days after publication. 2 20091105000541.004 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 6th day of Ju1Y ' 2009. Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 6th day of July , 2009. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: .7/10/2009 (summary) ORD.1553:5/21/09:scr 3 20091105000541.005 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA ASSESSMENT BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Those portions of Sections 13, 14, 15,22, 23 & 24, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., and Sections 18 and 19, both in Township 23 North, Range 6 East, W. M., all in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right of way margin of SE 128th St(NE 4"'Street) and the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, crossing 155t''Ave SE and 156`h Ave SE, to the east line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way margin, crossing 160`'Ave E and the west half of 164th Ave SE, to the section line common to said Sections 13 and 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way, crossing the east half of 164th Ave SE and 169`h Ave SE, to an intersection with the east line of the West quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13; Thence southerly along said east line and the Urban Growth Boundary(UBG) line, to an intersection with the north line of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said north line and said UBG line,to the west line of the East quarter of said subdivision; Thence southerly along said west line and said UBG line,to the Northwest corner of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat S90S0040, as recorded in Book 101 of Surveys, Page 236, records of King County, Washington; Thence easterly along the North line of said Lot 1 and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, said Northeast corner also being on the west line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said UGB, crossing 172"d Ave SE,to the intersection of the easterly right of way margin of 172nd Ave SE and the southerly right of way margin of SE 132nd St.; EXHIBIT A—CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 OF 6 - 20091105000541.006 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence continuing easterly along the southerly right of way margin of SE 132d St and said UGB line, crossing 173`d Ave SE, 175th Ave SE, 178th Ave SE and the west half of 180Th Ave SE.to an intersection with the east line of said subdivision, said east line also being the west line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence continuing easterly along said southerly right of way margin of SE 132nd St and said —- ---UGB-line;crossing-the-east halfof-I-84th Ave SE, 181-SrAve SE and 1-82"d Ave SE jo an - intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 182"d Ave SE; "Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin of 182nd Ave SE and said UGB line, to an intersection with the westerly extension of the northerly right of way margin of SE 134i1' St; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and the northerly right of way margin of SE 13 " St and said UGB line, crossing 182nd Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of' 184`" Ave SE in the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin of 184t"Ave SE and its southerly extension and leaving said 1JGB line, crossing SE 134 St, SE 135'St, SE 1361' St and SE 1401" St, to an intersection with the north line of Tract 23, Renton Suburban Tracts Division No. 4, recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, pages 74-76, said records, in Government Lot 4 of said Section 18; Thence easterly and southerly along said north line and the east line of said Tract, to an o intersection with the northeast corner of Renton-Suburban Tracts Division No. 8, recorded in Volume 69 of Plats, pages 74-76, said records, in said Government Lot 4 of said Section 19, said nortlicast corner also being on said UGB line; Thence southerly along the east line of said Plat and said UGB line, to the Southeast corner of said flat at the southeast corner of Government Lot 1 in said Section 19; Thence westerly along the courses of the south boundary of said plat and said UGB line, to an intersection with the south line of Renton-Suburban Tracts Div. No. 6, recorded in Volurne 66 of Plats, pages 33-35, said records, in the Northeast quarter of said Section 24; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat and said UGB line, to the most Southwest corner of said Plat,said Southwest corner also being the Northeast corner of Government Lot 5 of said Section 24; Thence southerly along the east line of said Government Lot 5 and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Lot 31 of Renton-Suburban Tracts Div. No.7, recorded in Volume 69 of Plats,pages 39-41, said records; Thence southwesterly and northwesterly along the south boundary of said plat and said UGB line, to an intersection with the east line of Government Lot 10 of said Section 24, said east line also being the east line of Tract A of Briarwood South No. 6, recorded in Volume 97 of Plats, pages 68 and 69, said records; EXHIBIT A—CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 2 OF 6 20091105000541.007 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along said east line of said Government Lot 10 and said Tract A and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said Tract A; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract A, and said UGB Iine,to the Northwest corner of said Tract A, said Northwest corner also being a point on the east line of the-Northeast quarterof said-Section 23;---- Thence 3; ---Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line,to the northeast corner of Tract C of Skyfire Ridge Div. No. 1, recorded in Volume 141 of Plats,pages 93-99, said records; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract C and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said Tract C, said Northwest corner also being a point on the east line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line, to the Northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence westerly along the north line of said subdivision and said UGB line, to the Northwest corner of said subdivision, said Northwest corner also being the Northeast corner of Government Lot 7 of said Section 23; Thence continuing westerly along the north line of said Government Lot 7, to the Northwest corner thereof, said Northwest corner also being the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the Southeast corner of Lot 9, Briar Hills No. 3, recorded in Volume 107 of Plats, page 36,said records,said west line also being the east line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat, to the Southwest corner thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of said Plat, to an intersection with the Southeast corner of Briar Ridge, recorded in Volume 113 of Plats,pages 60 and 61,said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat, to the Southwest corner thereof, in Government Lot 1 of said Section 22, said Southwest corner also being a point on the west line of the East half of the East half of said Government Lot 1; Thence southerly along said east line,to the northerly bank of the Cedar River; Thence westerly along said northerly bank, to an intersection with the east line of Tract A, Cedar River Bluff, recorded in Volume 172 of Plats,pages 53-56, said records; Thence northerly along said east line, to the Northeast corner of said Tract A; EXHIBIT A-CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 3 OF 6 20091105000541,008 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence westerly along the north line of said Tract A, to an intersection with the east line of Maplewood Heights, recorded in Volume 78 of Plats, pages 1-4, said records; Thence southerly along said east line, to the Southeast corner thereof; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat,to the Southwest corner thereof,said corner alsobeing_a-point_onthe_east-line_o-f-Government L-ot-6-of-Section-22;---- "Thence South 01°08'21" West, along said east line, to a point 641.73 feet southerly of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 6; Thence North 55°51'39" West,a distance of 391.81 feet; Thence North 26°45'23"West, a distance of 494.29 feet, to a point on the north line of said Government Lot 6, said point also being on the south line of the Southwest quarter of Section 15; Thence westerly along said south line,and along the existing City Limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 3945, to the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 15; "Thence northerly along the east line of said subdivision and said City Limits, to the Northwest corner of Lot 21, Block 1 of said Maplewood Heights in said Southwest quarter of Section 15; Thence northeasterly along the north line of said Block 1 of said Plat, to an intersection with the gest line of Lot 10, East Crest,recorded in Volume 87 of"Plats, page 49,said records, in said Southwest quarter; Thence northerly along said west line, to the Northwest corner thereof, said Northwest corner also being a point on the south line of Tract A, Hideaway Home Sites, recorded in Volume 81 of Plats, pages 88 and 89, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said Tract A, to the Southwest corner thereof, Thence northerly along the west line of said Tract A and the northerly extension of said west line, and along the existing City Limits of Renton,as annexed under Ordinance No. 3143, to the south line of the Northwest quarter of Section 22; Thence westerly along said south Iine and along said existing City Limits and along the south line of Lot 14, Goe's Place, recorded in Volume 85 of Plats,pages 12 and 13, said records, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 14; Thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 14, to the Northwest corner thereof, Thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 14, to the Northeast corner thereof., EXHIBIT A--CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 4 OF 6 20091105000541.009 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along the east line of Lot 13 of said Plat and its northerly extension,to an intersection with the westerly extension of the north line of the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and said north line and along the existing City limits of Renton, as annexed under Ordinance No. 5074, crossing Duvall Ave NE,to its intersection-with-the-wesrIine ofthe NDrthwest quarter of said-Section 1 5; Thence northerly along said west line crossing NE 2nd St,to the most westerly southwest corner of Alder Crossing, recorded in Volume 251 of Plats,pages 37 -42, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the southeast corner thereof; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat,to its intersection with the north line of the south half of the north half of the north half of the north half of said Section 15; Thence easterly along said north line of said subdivision crossing Hoquiam Ave NE and Jericho Ave NE, to the easterly right of way margin thereof; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin, to the Southwest corner of Tract 2, Black Loam Five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 101, said records; Thence continuing easterly along said existing City Limits and the south line of said Tract 2,to the east line of the west half of said Tract 2; Thence northerly along said east line,to the south line of the north 150 feet thereof; Thence easterly along said south line, to the east line of the of the West half of the West half of the East half of said Tract 2; Thence northerly along said east line,a distance of 8 feet; Thence easterly along the south line of the north 142 fee thereof, to the east line of the west half of the east half of said Tract 2; Thence southerly along said east line, to the south line of the Northeast quarter of said East half of said Tract 2; Thence easterly along said south line, to the westerly right of way margin of Lyons Ave NE; Thence continuing easterly along the easterly extension of said south line,crossing Lyons Ave NE, to the easterly right of way margin thereof; Thence northerly along said easterly right of way margin, to the southerly right of way margin of NE 4`h St. EXHIBIT A—CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 5 OF 6 20091105000541.010 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin,to the intersection with the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14 and the point of beginning. EXHIBIT A--CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD,AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 6 OF 6 20091105000541.011 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT----.-- EA«A„ --- AR ---- — LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 and Tract B, Carolwood, recorded in Volume 111 of Plats, pages 99-100, records of King County, Washington; "TOGETHER WITH Lot 11, Carolwood No. 2, recorded in Volume 114, page 74, said records; and TOG ETI IER WITH that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; and TOGETHER WITH the West 150 feet ofthe East 180 feet of the North 165 feet of the South half of said Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH the West 160 feet of the east 190 feet of the South 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETI IER WITH the East 165 feet of the West 330 feet of said subdivision,EXCEPT the North 264 feet thereof, and EXCEPT the South 132 feet thereof, TOGETHER WITH the South 20 feet of the North 284 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 330 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the North 120 feet of the South 252 feet of the East half of said subdivision, EXCEP"C the West 150 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the North 284 feet thereof and EXCEPT the South 252 feet thereof, and TOGETHER WITH the East 230 feet of the South 132 feet of the North 264 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH the West 165 feet of the East 195 feet of the North 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 481066, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8109100503, located in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; LESS Roads. Exhibit A— Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage-Area A Page 1 of 1 20091105000541.012 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT -- - AREA' ---- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and the 20 feet wide undivided interest parcel lying between said Lot 1 and Lot 2,of King County Short Plat No. 576015,recorded under King County Recording No. 7905170580, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots I and 2, King County Short Plat No. 677116, recorded under King County Recording No. 7905170582; and TOGETHER WITH Tract A and Tract B of King County Short Plat No. 675 02 1, recorded under King County Recording No. 7602040384; and TOGETHER WITH Tracts 4, 5,6 and the West 150 feet of the North 80 feet of Tract 7, all in Block 3, Cedar Park Five Acre Tracts,recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, page 91, records of King County, Washington. All situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 14 and the North half of Section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Exhibit A—Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage-Area B Page 1 of 1 20091105000541.013 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA "C" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 8 and Lot 17, Ridge Point Estates, recorded in Volume 165, pages 64-65, records of King County, Washington; TOGETI lE.R WITH that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 North, W.M., King County, Washington, lying easterly and southerly of said plat of Ridge Point Estates and westerly of the westerly right of way margin of 154'x' PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd); and TOGETHER WITII the North 133 feet of the East 120 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter;and TOGETI IER WITH that portion of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter ofthe Northwest quarter, lying easterly and southerly of Linda Homes, recorded in Volume 74, page 6,said records; and TOGETHER WIT11 that portion of the South half of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, and the south half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, both in said Section 23, lying westerly of the westerly right of way margin of 156`x'Ave SE (Co. Rd. 1049, August E. Gerber Rd.) and easterly of the northeasterly right of way margin of 154`h PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd.); LESS Roads. Exhibit A—Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage-Area C Page 1 of 1 20091105000541.014 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA"D" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 and 50, Briarwood West, recorded in Volume 93 of Plats,pages 91-92, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots I and 16, Marywood, recorded in Volume 90 of Plats,page 32, said records; and TOGETHER WITH the South 165 feet of the North 195 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS the East 30 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITI-1 the west 150 feet of said East half of said subdivision, lying northerly of the South 365 feet thereof and southerly of the North 195 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying northerly of the north line of Lot I of King County Short Plat No. 1286002, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8708140726; and TOGETHER WITH Lot 1 and Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 1286002, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8708140726,said Lot 2 being later amended by Lot Line Adjustment No. 890718,as recorded under King County Recording No. 9010241356, said lots being a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS Roads. Exhibit A—Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage-Area D Page 1 of 1 G�ii=i i i�r�-i ii:ia�a���1a■ c �. ,i •+i+i .r��' ,.111= �. i S'n�•':%SII r •�■• i_•`.lnl__�+s ..�ai��'' a►�/.e_roan sem, •�i~��i�■ I.av��l�nta�� .. rr:: rI yiii�•��1j►Innuru r �� i iw ~ a��rr■111�ilrli■� �c-iiiiiii c.rrl ��,1�, �i•.�% ��rat.L�cu C�asu u1FC. / � ray*• ��♦�,�:_:_��!:= �� . •al is~� ,��1 �I■fl� i.7w 1ia1 �� ■ *� �. „rub-�n: auflhs �1 1�lgood �IB91L.rI ,� �Xjg �� �i.1/?:a-11!1!11!+•IIIII'I�����l1/���LI���_,-■ �; �irrn :illl;l,lts�'�+1Of�� � 1i1�s:H11 �rLrltil niff ,�,n��i1111 1!11111!!! jm �n�!/'1111TH O'!S[.\�'S�F�: r. �u_■!'_���,�-���- �111111l11.:rjii ii��nu w S w ��■..CVS •�n • �LII�11111 ii 1 1 111 0; g /tl 1111��/1111111111 C i1r�W ■ 111111. �116G1iJ .11:��/,qra � � Ilrlli _'. j���k.ii1 a,lr`@U w1�■i �p�i' .^.+e.I7Yytt � r 11- /r�■1 \��1 MUM •VIII � �= sw a■�tip'. � �i]rr !1 1_silt = ME oil r' ! �• - r-.www sUa.. �iI1B111� Iw�h S"! it. =M• �� 'il F��iF r IrC,� r � II C � ME`� H� �H vI of Ii t. =IM nlilWool m ru � 11•JIIIJ���� -- ....:'s' ii �wi;511���lj��111� �■,%WIN off !lIC sib '•'�CIBC�!��t��rQ�rc�E��:■=��� ■ i =iso ■,q---�' � � �;ras■ as:a ���w=' �� rigs•��--�IfYlliiifi>! ■ • • all 1111111,=p i/�t�111111; 1�i1111 Ifl t1:Jn10 fill! , - RECEIPT EG00020176 cityof,g t^Y r :F t4 Transaction Date: February 27, 2014 BILLING CONTACT Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36TH ST, 105 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TRANSACTION PAYMENT AMOUNT PAID TYPE METHOD LUA14-000241 PLAN-Preliminary Plat Fee Fee Payment Check#10363 $3,970.00 Technology Fee Fee Payment Check#10363 $150.00 SUB TOTAL $4,120.00 LUA14-000241 PLAN-Environmental Review Fee Payment Check#40003 $1,000.00 PLAN-Preliminary Plat Fee Fee Payment Check#40003 $30.00 SUB TOTAL $1,030.00 TOTAL $5,150.00 RECEIVE, F EB 2 7 20 14 T RENTON DIVISION Printed On:2/27/2014 Prepared By:Jill Ding Page 1 of 1 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 - Phone:425-430=7200-Fax:425=430=7231 — ------ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) Justin Lagers, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the 3rd day of February, 2014, 1 installed one public information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at 14038 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, WA 98059 for the following project: 156th Ave SE Assembledee Project Name Sally Nipert/G. Richard Ouimet Owner Name 2. 1 have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information sign(s) was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code and the City's "Public Informatiwn-SignsInstallation" handy cka e. Pi taller Signature SUBSCRIBED C I .,W RN to before me this 3rd day of February, 2014. Pi ", Ro Q'0 `'A510N (.)'4otARyA' ''�` * NOTARY PUBLIC in and f the State of Washington, - • `�% residing at ;A ,1 N / 9j,"� � �7�;.� �? My commission expires on [� '�7 17 Or WAs��•�. -3- C:\Users\Justin\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\FFHOQTX2\pubsign.doc 12/13 f . e, a a. ' v i a h ry • YA fLT* j P � AT ` k ��;��{ ►� '?� fie- � .'�t�y wy�' y r A ��} {{ �� �v � wiry "� �, Y. S •. ,� k 17' - „ 4 LaMooc6iinty t , w , , , e 3 ' m- jig _. Cynthia Moya From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 30,2014 9:36 AM To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com Cc: Jill Ding;Vanessa Dolbee;Cynthia Moya Subject: Re:Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Olbrechts, Thank you for this clarification!!! Roger Paulsen —Original Message— From: phi[ olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com>; Cynthia Moya<CMoya@Rentonwa.gov> Cc:jding<jding@rentonwa.gov>; VDolbee<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent:Wed, Jul 30, 2014 1:45 am Subject: RE:Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Paulson, Ms. Walton no longer works for Renton as of a week or two ago. I have included the deputy city clerk in this email, Cynthia Moya, so that she can direct you to the proper official. You are exactly right that the code citations are off in the notice of appeal. I can't figure out how that happened, as the requirements identified in the appeal statement are all accurate but the code citations are not. A corrected appeal statement is pasted below,which contains the same text as before but with corrected code references. As noted in the appeal statement, if you file a timely request for reconsideration,you will not need to file an appeal to the city council until the reconsideration request is resolved. Thank you for pointing out the errors. Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall–7th floor, (425)430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(&c:s.corn Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:07 AM To: bwalton(?brentonwa.gov Cc: jding@rentonwa.gov; olbrechtslawagmail.com; VDolbeeaRentonwa.Qov Subject: Re: Appeal Process Clarification Ms.Walton, 1 Absent a response to my questions"`!w w, I am assuming that code section RMt' 100(G)(9)applies, and that a Request for Reconsideration of the Haring Examiner's decision can be submitted. I am also assuming that a subsequent appeal of the hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council, if warranted, can be submitted after the Examiner has issued his response the Request for Reconsideration. Please let me know as soon as possible if either of my assumptions is not correct. ThanksT Roger --Original Message— From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(a)_cs.com> To: bwalton <bwalton(a)-rentonwa.gov> Cc:jding<iding(a)-rentonwa.gov>; olbrechtslaw<olbrechtslaw(a)gmail.com>; VDolbee <VDolbee(a)Rentonwa..qov> Sent: Mon, Jul 28, 2014 10:36 pm Subject: Appeal Process Clarification Ms.Walton, In my review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision for the proposed plat of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA-14-000241) dated July 18, 2014, the language on Page 30, (lines 13-19)appears to intend to convey important information relative to appeal and reconsideration rights under City of Renton Code. Specifically, it suggests that the Code applicable to appeals and reconsiderations can be found in sections 4-8-110(E)(8)and 4-8-100(G)(4), and that the provisions governing appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions to the City Council can be found in section 4-8-110(E)(9). I've reviewed those sections of the City of Renton Municipal Code using an on-line link on the City's webiste, and find that none are applicable to the topic they purport to be in the"Appeal Right and Valuation Notices"section of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. While I doubt this is deliberate, it makes it very difficult to participate in the City's process, where there are strict timelines for performance. Pursuant to the instructions on page 30 of the Hearing Examiner's decision, line 17, my questions to you, as City Clerk, are as follows: 1. Is there a process for requesting reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Decision? If so, where is that process codified so that I can properly make such a request in a complete and timely manner? 2. If there IS a reconsideration process, and I file a request, will I be entitled to an additional 14 day appeal period to the City Council even if the Examiner does not consider, or denies my request for reconsideration? 3. If the answer to#2 is "No", will I then need to file both a formal request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner AND a request for appeal to the City Council by the deadline for requesting a reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner? 4. Does the City have any required forms or instructions you can provide to help me understand either the process for requesting reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner, or an appeal to the City Council? If so, I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of those documents. I sincerely appreciate your patience with my questions, and ask that you reply as soon as possible, since it appears the deadline for filing my request and/or appeal is this Friday(8/1). As a normal citizen attempting to follow the City's laws, I find this all very confusing and dis-jointed. As Clerk, I hope you can work with the applicable City Departments, the Examiner and the City Council to make sure that when the City cites a code section, it actually does speak to the issue or circumstance at-hand. Please feel free to contact me if I can explain my questions or concerns. Sincerely, Roger Paulsen (425)228-1589 2 3 Cynthia Moya From: phi[olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 30, 2014 1:45 AM To: 'Roger Paulsen';Cynthia Moya Cc: Jill Ding;Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE:Appeal Process Clarification Mr. Paulson, Ms. Walton no longer works for Renton as of a week or two ago. I have included the deputy city clerk in this email, Cynthia Moya, so that she can direct you to the proper official. You are exactly right that the code citations are off in the notice of appeal. I can't figure out how that happened, as the requirements identified in the appeal statement are all accurate but the code citations are not. A corrected appeal statement is pasted below,which contains the same text as before but with corrected code references. As noted in the appeal statement, if you file a timely request for reconsideration,you will not need to file an appeal to the city council until the reconsideration request is resolved. Thank you for pointing out the errors. Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14)requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall—7t'floor, (425)430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:07 AM To: bwalton@rentonwa.gov Cc:jding@rentonwa.gov; olbrechtslaw@gmail.com; VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov Subject: Re: Appeal Process Clarification Ms.Walton, Absent a response to my questions, below, I am assuming that code section RMC 4-8-100(G)(9)applies, and that a Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision can be submitted. I am also assuming that a subsequent appeal of the hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council, if warranted, can be submitted after the Examiner has issued his response the Request for Reconsideration. Please let me know as soon as possible if either of my assumptions is not correct. Thanks!!! 1 *4000' Roger --Original Message-- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(c)cs.com> To: bwalton <bwalton(aD-rentonwa.gov> Cc:jding<jding(a)_rentonwa.gov>; olbrechtslaw<olbrechtslaw(c)_gmail.com>; VDolbee<VDolbee(a)-Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Mon, Jul 28, 2014 10:36 pm Subject:Appeal Process Clarification Ms.Walton, In my review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision for the proposed plat of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA-14-000241) dated July 18, 2014, the language on Page 30, (lines 13-19)appears to intend to convey important information relative to appeal and reconsideration rights under City of Renton Code. Specifically, it suggests that the Code applicable to appeals and reconsiderations can be found in sections 4-8-110(E)(8)and 4-8-100(G)(4), and that the provisions governing appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions to the City Council can be found in section 4-8-110(E)(9). I've reviewed those sections of the City of Renton Municipal Code using an on-line link on the City's webiste, and find that none are applicable to the topic they purport to be in the"Appeal Right and Valuation Notices"section of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. While I doubt this is deliberate, it makes it very difficult to participate in the City's process, where there are strict timelines for performance. Pursuant to the instructions on page 30 of the Hearing Examiner's decision, line 17, my questions to you, as City Clerk, are as follows: 1. Is there a process for requesting reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Decision? If so, where is that process codified so that I can properly make such a request in a complete and timely manner? 2. If there IS a reconsideration process, and I file a request, will I be entitled to an additional 14 day appeal period to the City Council even if the Examiner does not consider, or denies my request for reconsideration? 3. If the answer to#2 is"No", will I then need to file both a formal request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner AND a request for appeal to the City Council by the deadline for requesting a reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner? 4. Does the City have any required forms or instructions you can provide to help me understand either the process for requesting reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner, or an appeal to the City Council? If so, I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of those documents. I sincerely appreciate your patience with my questions, and ask that you reply as soon as possible, since it appears the deadline for filing my request and/or appeal is this Friday(8/1). As a normal citizen attempting to follow the City's laws, I find this all very confusing and disjointed. As Clerk, I hope you can work with the applicable City Departments, the Examiner and the City Council to make sure that when the City cites a code section, it actually does speak to the issue or circumstance at-hand. Please feel free to contact me if I can explain my questions or concerns. Sincerely, Roger Paulsen (425)228-1589 2 00 P City of�jj NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community Be Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals, DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 - tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue S£.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156''Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C,110,the-City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMITAPPUCA71ON DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC/9675 SE 36"'Street Suite 105, Mercer Island,WA 98040/EML:Justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studles: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)-Planning Division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hail,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for ARM 22 2D14 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED-Planning Division,1055 Sc.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057, Name/Fi `le No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14.000241,ECF,PP NAME WADE 1 U4y G(,+D-Y�5 MAILING ADDRESS:t)5 i Z 5e �^ PL4City/State/2ip: TELEPHONE NO.: 'I-CIL- -R o — S Q 5 _..r• City of,I Fes+ rF�r'�} 6 ,�•_ CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site Is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RLD)on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map, Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development, and other applicable cedes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by 5:00 PM an March 24,2014. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml: iding cdrentonwa.gov y ti "l `•�;•yl1��r� �, � . nos �_- awG,ai +1T F 1f PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: Denis Law {-�r ClOf Mayor `1 f 'Y 0 Ae - City Clerk -Bonnie I-Walton October 28, 2014 Roget Paulsen 6617 SE Sth:Place. - Renton, WA 98059 Re: Enclave at.Bridle-Ridge Preliminary Plat . LUA-14-000241,:PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen_ = At the regular Council meeting of October 27,2014,the Renton City Council adopted. the recommendation of the Planningand Development Committee to affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision with conditions: A.copy,of the approved Committee ..report is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact me at 425-430-6504. Sincerely; Jas n A. e Acting,City Clerk Enc:P&D'Committee Report cc: Mayor Denis Law . -.Council President Don Persson :. Julia Medzegian;City Counci.I Liaison Hearing Examiner Jill Ding,Senior Planner - Jennifer Henning,'Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee;Current Planning.Mariager. Steve Lee,Development Engineering Manager _ -Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante,Development Services Garmon Newson,Senior Assistant-City Attorney. _Larry Warren,City Attorney' •Justinlagers: PNW-Holdings,Applicant Parties of Record(16) 1055 Sputh Grady Way•-Renton,Washington 98057• (4Z5)430-6510/Fax(425)4-30-6516• rentonwa.gov; .' PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITy COUNGIL RECOMMENDATION. 7 October 27,-2014 .pate :Enclave' at Bri.dal Ridge Appeal LUA-14-00024] (October 23, 2014) The Planning and DevelopmPn#Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM.the Hearing Examiner's.FinaJ Decision on Reconsideration(Fir►al Decision).on August 13,2014,subject to the suggested modifications made-below. Facts: 0ht October 23,'2014;the Planning.and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, hea-rd the-close.d hearing arguments of the Appellants,'Roger-and Jason Paulsen,,and the applicant's/developer's - fepresentative, attorney Brent Carson. 'Staff, represented by Jill.Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation-which was followed byAppellant's argumetat. ; Findirias'of Fact-and Conclusions of LLaw: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the'Rarties stayedwithin the record. After careful.corisideratioh of the arguments; the hundreds of pages of documents,including the Final Decision, the PDC does'not find any substantial error that:wartants reversal of the Bearing Exa►miner's Finof Decision.' Asa result,the PDC adopts the.Hearing'Fxarriiner's Final Decision,,in.its entirety,subject tp the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the.parties,the PDC'understands that one of Appellants.'concerns relates to the volume of traffic.that utilizes 156t'Avenue''SE. It.appears that this volume maybe the result of pople e :seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants'concern is real,-and it is. _a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another.-Traffc_operating at LOS•F(the worst possible level), is not desi'r'ableandneeds to:-be corrected. Furtherhiore,-the understands that traffic ' along.T56t'=Aven;ue'SE is a problem now,will continue to,be a problem in the future,even without this de've.lopme'ht,a'nd that.the.addition of.up to 9 inore_trips during rush,hour will not make it better.. ' Notwithstanding this factand the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC floes not.believe that the 01utiohlo the existing problem.andthe.anticipated problem.is to Pre'vent:the development of Enclave at Bridle-Ridge.,An.effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156 'Avenue SE. ,As a result,the PDC recommends.the'follow.ing: That the City Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156 'Avenue BE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon.as possible,and no less than 3 years after the completion of; .-the project: The Hearing-Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not'violate Renton's transportation LOS js.undisputed and therefore.must be.accepted as a verity.Finoldecision, page 18;lines` - .4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would nit be considered a significant adverse:environmental impact:"'•Final Decision, page 18 fines 8-9.- In sum,'the PDC finds 6'at the Hearing Examiner did not errin approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures `as.it relates to traffic. ; Contrary to the Appellant's claim,the PDC.also _finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written. ; findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a.right=of-way dedication. However, to,address this alleged deficiency, the-Hearing Examiners Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for.clarity: . Renton's.Corr�prehensive Plan's'primary purpose"is to define and establish the.policy relating to the deveiopinent:of the community as:a whole.".RMC 4-1-060:A.1. One-aspect:of that policy •is that Rentoi-i's traffic requirements:also consider.the impact to the.entire city's transportation system and'not merely a specific intersection:Another aspect-of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is .. consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land_Use Map and the prope•rWs R-4 zoning designatiori. The-Enclave at Bridle Ridge' subdivision project:is consistent with Rentori's Comprehensive Plan as-it insures.acceptable: levels of access; public seriices and it.promotes the public interest:in satisfaction of.AMC 471- 060.A.5.b and'c. Additional.ljr,there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors-in the.Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected: These errors ar6.amended as follows:.. Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County"to `.'Renton''. The sentence will then read as 'The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly.issued an MDNS Is whether the project as eoposed has a-probable significant: environmental impact:" Page 24, line 3 the word "not"shall be removed.. The sentence will then read,as follows: `:`In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of teafiic:' impacts prior-to issuance of the MDNS:" J lh•sum, the Ap-pe(lants have ailed to,establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any"substantial error in factor lave exists,in the,record"justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that.require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council: -The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications-outlined above. Ed Prince, Chair. Not in.Attendance Terri Briere,Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garrrion Newsom ll ' C.E..Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision—AFFIRM 2 David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 5th PI. 6512 SE 5th PI. Renton,Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. Roger Paulsen Marsha Rollinger 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 6617 SE 5" Pl. 6618 SE 4th Pl: Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton,WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Peter& Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Gary&Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166th PI SE 6220 SE 2"d PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 . Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulsen Eloise Stachowiak 14004156th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98833 Renton, WA 98059 orsell Tom Carpenter Kathyy 142nd 15006 SE 139th Pl. M.A. Huniu 15451 SE 142 PI. RentonWA 98059 6608 SE Stn PI , Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Brent Karst VanNess Feldman, LLP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317 Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber(Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision)on August 13, 2014,subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014,the Planning and Development Committee (PDC),with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments,the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision,the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result,the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties,the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore,the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. SE is a problem now,will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access,the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result,the PDC recommends the following: October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum,the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim,the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency,the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5.b. and c. Additionally,there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County"to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum,the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any"substantial error in fact or law exists in the record"justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 319 MOVED BY PRINCE,SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority(RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30, 2014, 2:00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002 108th Ave. SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however,there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be King County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding,and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern— firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&0)Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr. Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David-Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr.Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT,Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr.Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. APPROVED By PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEECIL �'-� COUN RECOMMENDATION. y October 27,2014 Date ' � L 7 �( Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA-14-000241 (October 23,2014) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration(Final Decision)on August 18, 2014,subject to the suggested modifications-made below. Facts: On October 23,2014,the Planning.and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard theclosed hearing arguments of the Appellants; Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the* project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact,and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed-within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, the PDC does not'find any substantial error that Warrants reversal of the Hearing'Examiner's`Final Decision. Asa result, the PDC adopts the.Hearing'Examiner's Final Decision,,,in:its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is real,and it is a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another. Traffic operating at LOS,F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and'needs to be corrected. Furthermore,the PDC understands that traffic along,156th Avenue�SE is a.problem,now, will continue to,be a problem in the future, even without this development,,and that the addition of up to 9 more.trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem,is to prevent the development of Enclave at. Bridle Ridge:An,.effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. Asa result,the PDC recommends the following: That the City.Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue,SE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of the project: The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination,that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore,must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18,lines . 4-9: This means that any additional congestion caused by the.Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum,the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim,the PDC.also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a.right-of-way dedication. However, to,address this alleged deficiency, the-Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: . Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development.of the community as.a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1,. One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also,consider the impact to the entire city's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection:Another aspect of that policy is that the-Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land.Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The-Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with. Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. Additionally, there'appeared,to be a couple of Scrivener's errors-in the.Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County"to :`Renton". The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued anMDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant, environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word"not"shall be removed. The sentence will then-read as follows:."In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic. impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellants have.failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any"substantial error in factor law exists in the record"justifying'a reversal of the Hearing.Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications.outlined above. Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance . Terri Briere, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garmon Newsom 11 C.E.Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision—AFFIRM 2 P October 27, 2014 Renton Citv Council Minutes rr..i Paye 317 Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber(Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014,the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments,the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision,the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result,the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties,the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore,the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. SE is a problem now,will continue to be a problem in the future, even without this development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access,the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result,the PDC recommends the following: w October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes �..rr Paye 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum,the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim,the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However,to address this alleged deficiency,the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5.b. and c. Additionally,there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County"to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum,the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any"substantial error in fact or law exists in the record"justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. October 27, 2014 Renton Citv Council Minutes r...i Paee 319 MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority(RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30, 2014, 2:00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002 108th Ave. SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however,there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be King County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding, and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern— firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&O)Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr.Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David-Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr.Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT,Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr.Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY-COUNCIL.. RECOMMENDATION. . - October27,2014 Date :Enclave at Bridal Ridge.Appeal.LUA-14-000241 (October 23, 2014) The Planning'and Development.Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing. Examiner's:Final Decision on Reconsider_atiori(Final Decision)on August 13,=2014,subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: V On October 23,'2014 the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants; Roger and Jason Paulsen,,and the applicant's/developer's - representative,attorney Brent Carson. Staff, representedby Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the' project with a PowerPoint presentationwhich was followed by Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact,and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After - careful.consideration of the arguments; the.hundreds of pages of documents; including the Final Decision, the PDC does'not•find.any substantial error that warrants reversal of the hearing'Examiner's'Final Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing'Exarriiner's Final Decision,.imits entirety, subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC'understarids-that one of Appellants'concerns relates to - the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume maybe the result ofpeople seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants'concern is real,and it is a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another: Traffic operating at tOS,F (the worst _ possible level), isnot desirable.snd"needs to:be- corrected. Furthermore,,the PDC understands that traffic ' along 156th'Avenue'SE is a problem,now, will continue to,be a problem in the future,.everr without this development, and that the addition of.up to 9 moreArips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor,access,the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at. Bridle.Ridge.An."effective solution must address the flow and%or amount of trafficalong 156th Avenue SE. -,As a result,the P.DC recommends the following: That the City.,Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue-SE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of the project: The Hearing.Examirier noted that the concurrency determination,that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and,therefore, .must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18;lines 4-9: This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would n.ot,be considered a significant adverse:environmental impact."Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum,the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim,the PDC.aiso _finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written. : findings and found that this project was in the public interest by reference's to frontage improvements and a.right-of-way dedication. However, to,address this alleged deficiency,the.Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity:. Renton's.Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the-policy relating to the,development .of the community as.a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A:1. One-aspect;of that.policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also..consider.the impact to.the entire city's.transportation system and not merely a specific intersection:Another aspect of that.policy is that the-Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land-Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The.Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with,Renton''-s Comprehensive Plan as-it insures.acceptable levels of access,public services and it promotes the public interest.in satisfaction of RMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. - Additionally,there appeared,to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the=Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are.amendedas follows:- , Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word County"to "Renton". The sentence will then read as,"The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS-is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact:" Page 24, line 3 the word "not"shall be removed. The sentence will then-read as follows:-"In this case the.City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic. impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS In sum,the Appellants have failed to.establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any"substantial error in factor law exists in the record"justifying'a reversal of the Hearing,Examiner's Final Decision, The errors or areas that.require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration-of the City Council: The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the m idifications..outlined above. Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance .. Terri Briere,Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc:. Larry Warren Garnion Newsom 11 C.E.Chip Vincent Jill Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision—AFFIRM 2 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 27, 2014 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. M I N U T E S Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF DON PERSSON, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; RANDY CORMAN; GREG COUNCILMEMBERS TAYLOR;ARMONDO PAVONE; ED PRINCE. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER TERRI BRIERE. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE DENIS LAW, Mayor;JAY COVINGTON,Chief Administrative Officer;ZANETTA FONTES,Senior Assistant City Attorney;JASON SETH,Acting City Clerk; [WEN WANG,Administrative Services Administrator; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; CHIP VINCENT, Community and Economic Development Administrator;JAMIE THOMAS, Fiscal Services Director;ANGIE MATHIAS,Senior Planner; COMMANDER JON SCHULD, Police Department. Council President Persson requested a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting incident. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Law was read declaring November 2014 to be "DECA DECA Month & Hazen DECA Month and Hazen DECA Entrepreneurship Month" in the City of Renton and Entrepreneurship Month— encouraging everyone to join in this special observance. MOVED BY TAYLOR, November 2014 SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Gene Kolcynski, Lindbergh High School,thanked City officials for recognizing the achievements of the Renton School District DECA students. He added that Hazen High School's entrepreneurship program exemplifies what DECA students are doing in Renton's high schools. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in CED:Six-month Extension of accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to Medical Marijuana consider the six-month extension, as declared on September 15, 2014, of the Moratorium moratorium on the acceptance of business licenses and permits for medical marijuana businesses declared on November 4, 2013. Senior Planner Angie Mathias reported that the City is required by State law to hold a public hearing within 60 days of declaring the six-month extension of the moratorium. She explained that the purpose of the hearing is to provide the public with an opportunity to speak in favor or opposition of the moratorium extension. She also clarified that the moratorium is related to the submission, acceptance, processing or approval of applications or licenses by or for new business licenses or permits for new establishments in the sale, use,growing, manufacture, distribution or processing of medical marijuana only. Ms. Mathias reported that the City has already adopted regulations related to the zoning of recreational marijuana. She explained that the State Liquor Control Board regulates recreational marijuana, and controls the issuance of licenses for producers, processors, and retailers. She added that the recreational marijuana industry is highly regulated,and noted that the medical marijuana industry is not. October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317 Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard McOmber(Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014,subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014,the Planning and Development Committee (PDC),with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the Parties stayed within the record. After careful consideration of the arguments,the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision,the PDC does not find any substantial error that warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. As a result,the PDC adopts the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, in its entirety,subject to the modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties,the PDC understands that one of the Appellants' concerns relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Ave. SE. It appears that this volume may be the result of people seeking to avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Traffic operating at LOS F (the worst possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore,the PDC understands that traffic along 156th Ave. SE is a problem now,will continue to be a problem in the future,even without this development, and that the addition of up to nine more trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated poor access,the PDC does not believe that the solution to the existing problem and the anticipated problem is to prevent the development of Enclave at Bridle Ridge. An effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result,the PDC recommends the following: October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection for installation as soon as possible,and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18,1 ines 8-9. In sum,the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim,the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However,to address this alleged deficiency,the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5.b. and c. Additionally,there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County"to "Renton." The sentence will then read as"The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not"shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum,the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any"substantial error in fact or law exists in the record"justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. October 27,2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 319 MOVED BY PRINCE,SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Item noted was: The Regional Fire Authority(RFA) Planning Committee is holding a meeting on October 30,2014, 2:00 p.m., at Fire Station 13, 18002 108th Ave.SE. All interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; however,there will be no opportunity for public comment during the meeting. Topics for discussion will be King County Fire District 20's request to participate in the RFA planning process, RFA plan template, RFA funding, and establishment of a Community Advisory Committee. AUDIENCE COMMENT Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the Citizen Comment: Wawern— firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the SECO Development and B&O proposed Business and Occupation (B&0)Tax will discourage large companies Tax like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested in attracting foreign investors. Mayor Law remarked that Renton is the only city of its size that has not already adopted a B&O tax. He stated that Amazon owns and operates businesses in Seattle which has a much higher B&O tax than what Renton is proposing to adopt. He added that Renton is also interested in attracting foreign investors, and noted that the City's proposed tax embraces a high reporting threshold to protect small businesses and a cap to protect large businesses. Mr.Covington added that the main reason Council considered adopting the B&O tax was to provide the ability for the City to maintain essential services. He remarked that these core services help Renton be more attractive to businesses that are looking to invest in the area. He stated that unfortunately the City is unable to maintain these service levels without enacting the proposed tax. Citizen Comment: Zimmerman Dr. David-Paul Zimmerman (King County),administrator at Amazing Grace —Amazing Grace Lutheran Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering,and Duke. Concluding, Dr.Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Pa_e 320 Citizen Comment: Dissinger— Lynn Dissinger(Tukwila), from Domestic Abuse Women's Network(DAWN), Human Services Funding expressed appreciation to City officials for supporting the program for many Allocation years. She stated that DAWN is the only comprehensive domestic violence agency in south King County. She explained that the organization's mission is to lead and support efforts to end domestic violence by providing the critical services and education to survivors to make informed choices for their future, and to engage the community to raise awareness to take action. She added that DAWN provides legal advocacy, children and youth programs, mental health counseling, and safety planning and preventive programs to survivors. Citizen Comment: McOmber— Howard McOmber(Renton) requested support for the A.R.I.S.E. (Area of Homelessness Advocacy Renton Interfaith Shelter Endeavor) program. He stated that the Renton Ecumenical Association of Churches(REACH)supports the program and is asking anyone who has the means to pledge$10 per month to the program. He explained that if 150 people pledged$10 a month there would be enough money to support the program ad infinitum. He stated that people can go to the REACH webpage and sign up. Councilmember Taylor remarked that this is an excellent opportunity for people who oppose panhandlers to make a difference in someone's life and in the community. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council: Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/20/2014. Council concur. 10/20/2014 Court Case: Rubinchikov, Court case filed by Amanda Speed, represented by Michael J. Kelly, Attorney for Forfeiture Removal, CRT-14- Plaintiff,versus the City of Renton, et al, regarding alleged false arrest and 007 seeking damages from an incident that began on 2/3/2013. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. CAG: 13-149, Sunset Community Services Department recommended approval of a Job Order Neighborhood Park Fourplex Contract Work Order with Forma Construction in the amount of$192,673.05 Demolition, Forma for Sunset Neighborhood Park Fourplex demolition project. Council concur. Construction MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Vice-Chair Palmer presented a report recommending Finance Committee approval of Claim Vouchers 333186—333644,five wire transfers and one Finance: Vouchers payroll run with benefit withholding payments totaling$7,679,825.42 and payroll vouchers including 713 direct deposits and 61 payroll checks totaling $1,582,820.11. MOVED BY PALMER,SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Lease: 1st Floor of 200 Mill Finance Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence Building,Amazing Grace in the staff recommendation to approve a five-year lease with Amazing Grace Lutheran School Lutheran Church to operate the Amazing Grace Christian School on the first floor of the 200 Mill Building. Revenue generated over the duration of the lease will be$705,728.47. October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 321 The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the lease. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PRINCE,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION.* Councilmember Pavone recused himself from voting on the Amazing Grace Lutheran School lease Committee report. He explained that both of his children attend the school. Councilmember Taylor explained that his daughter had attended the school approximately five years ago. He asked the City Attorney to clarify whether or not he too should recuse himself. Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes replied that he did not have to recuse himself from voting on the report. *MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the ORDINANCES 11/3/2014 Council meeting for second and final reading: Budget: Authorize 2015 An ordinance was read authorizing the property tax levy for the year 2015. Property Tax Levy MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Establish 2015 An ordinance was read establishing the property tax levy for the year 2015 for Property Tax Levy general City operational purposes in the amount of$36,420,000. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: 2015/2016 Utility An ordinance was read amending Sections 8-2-2 and 8-2-3 of Chapter 2,Storm Rates and Surface Water Drainage,Sections 8-4-12, 8-4-24, 8-4-31 and 8-4-33 of Chapter 4,Water,and Section 8-5-15 of Chapter 5,Sewers, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, allowing for adjustments to current utility rates for 2015 and 2016, clarifying the water shutoff fee language, and clarifying the qualifications for reduced rates. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: 2015/2016 Solid An ordinance was read amending Section 8-1-10 of Chapter 1,Garbage, of Title Waste Rates VIII (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, relating to year 2015 and 2016 services and utility rates for all customer classes. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Adopt Business & An ordinance was read amending Title V(Finance and Business Regulations), of Occupation Tax City Code, imposing a Business and Occupation Tax and adopting a new Chapter 5-25, entitled "Business and Occupation Tax Code." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 322 Budget: Clarify Business An ordinance was read amending Section 5-5-3 of Chapter 5, Business Licenses, License Fees of Title V(Finance and Business Regulations),of City Code, by clarifying the methods of calculation of Business License Fees and restating the Section entitled "Exemption." MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget: Modify Senior Citizen An ordinance was read amending Subsection 5-4-2.0 of Chapter 4,Animal Threshold for Pet Licenses Licenses, of Title V(Finance and Business Regulations),of City Code, by reducing the age for City residents to qualify for discounted animal licenses available to low income seniors. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. Budget:Adopt 2015/2016 An ordinance was read adopting the Biennial Budget for the years 2015/2016, Biennial Budget in the amounts of$243,543,692 and$242,343,675, respectively. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE,COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. TIME: 7 1p.m. Jason Seth, C1Gt,Acting City Clerk Jason Seth, Recorder J October 27, 2014 Council Committee Meeting Calendar October 27, 2014 November-_3 2014 Monday CANCELED Utilities Committee,Chair Pavone CANCELED Public Safety Committee, Chair Corman CANCELED Community Services Committee, Chair Taylor 5:30 PM Planning&Development Committee,Chair Prince—Council Conference Room 1.Title IV(Development Regulations), Docket#10 6:00 PM Committee of the Whole, Chair Persson—Council Chambers 1. Inclusion Project Update 2. Presentation:Adopt the Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEC`Ty-coUNCIL RECOMMENDATION. 7 .0.8 October Z7,2014 Date / :Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA-14-000241 (October 23, 2014) The Planning'and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM. Hearing . Examiner's-Final Decision on Reconsideration(Final Decision)on August 13,2014,subject.to the suggested modifications made-below. Facts: On October 23, 20.14;the Planning.and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger-a.nd Jason Paulsen,,and the applicant's/developer's - representative; aftorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill.Ding, provided a basic overview of the'. project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by'Appellarifs argument. Findiries'of Fact and Conclusions of law: The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the'P.ar'ties stayed within the record. After careful.consideration of the arguments, the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final DQcision, the PDC does not find any substantial error that:warrants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's'Finol Decision. Asa result, the PDC adopts the.Hearing'Examinei's Final Decision,,in its entirety, subject to the : :modifications noted below. Concerning the positions of the parties,the PDC'understands that one of Appellants.' concerns relates to the volume-of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume may-be the.result of people :seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants'concer-n is real, and it is _a concern that the City Council shares in some form or,another. Traffic operating at LOS E (the worst possible level), isnot desirable,and'needs tobe corrected. Furthermore,-the,PDC understands that traffic. ' along.156th Avenue SE is a=problem,now,will continue to,be a problem in the future, even without this development,and that the addition cf.up to 9 more_trips during rush hour will not make it better. Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not belieye that the solution:to the existing problem.and the.anticipated problem.is to prevent.the development of Enclave at. Bridle.Ridge:An.effective solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. .,Asa result, the RDC recommends the following: That the Citjc Cquncit require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection for installation as soon as possible,and no less than 3 years after the completion of the project: The Hearing.Examiner noted that the concurrency determination:that the proposal will not'violate Renton's transportation LOS-is.Undisputed and.therefore.must be.accepted:as a verity:FinaiDecision, page 18;lines - .4-9: This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would.not be considered.a significant adverse:environmental impact:"Final Decision, page 18,.lines 8,9. In sum,the PDG finds that the =Hearing Examiner did not errinapproving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim,the PDC.also _finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written- findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a.right-:of-way dedication. However, to:address this alleged deficiency,the.Hearing Examiner's Final " Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: . Renton's Comprehensive Plan's'primarypurpnse."is to define and establish thepolicy relating to the development:of the community as.a whole."-.RMC 4-1-060.A:1. One-aspect.of that,policy is that Rentori's traffic requirements also consider.the impact to the entire-city's transportation system and not merely a specific i-ntersection:Another aspect of that policy is that the-Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land_Use Map and the properWs R-4 zoning designation. The_Enclave at Bridle Ridge' subdivision project:is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures.acceptable levels of access, public services and it,promotes the public interest in satisfaction of AMC 4-1- 060.A.5.b and c. Additionally,there-,appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's eerors-in the-Hearing Examiner's decision that need to-be corrected: These.errors are amended as follows:.. Page 21, line.21'should be amended to change the word "County"to `:'Renton". The sentence will then read as`Tehprimary, relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing;whether Renton staff correctly.issued an MDNS-is whether the project as.proposed has a probable significant, environmental impact:" Page 24, line 3 the word "not"shall be removed.. The sentence will then read-as follows:"In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic, impacts prior-to issuance ofthe MRNS:" Ih sum,the Appellants have:failed to,establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any"substantial error in factor law exists i n the,record"justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areasthat.require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council: -The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject:to the modifications-outlined above. -Ed Prince, Chair. Not in.Attendance . Terri Briere,Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garnion Newsomll ' C.E..Chip Vincent All Ding Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision—AFFIRM 2 Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary, Plat Planning & Development Appeal Hearing Jill Ding, Senior Planner October 23, 2014 City of, < Community and Economic Development Brief Description L'L-UL- i � Located on the west side of 156tH Ave SE just north of SE 142nd PI. g 8.8 acre site �- located within the RLD Comp Plan LTJ-' designation and ' — the R-4 zoning classification. R E 0 'rO` 1 11/24/2014 B r i 3 CF�C IfPtiorI 31 lots (two tracts) at a density of 4.45 du/ac - j Ranging in lot J ._. size from 8,050 to 12,566 sq. . � 1 _ e ft�. - Tract A is 32,174 sq. ft. - 4 and Tract B is 490 sq. ft. ; a �• RENTON r ic-4 Descr€ fiorl f. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was processed concurrently, removing 30,175 sq. ft. of parcel 142305-9057 from the subdivision. Access is proposed via a new "looped" public street off of 156th Ave SE with an extension to the southeast that terminates in a temporary cul-de- sac turnaround. It is anticipated the road would extend under a future development application. w The site is currently developed with an existing single family residence and detached garage proposed for removal. °- _ � a R 11 ENTNTONN �'/•�� 2 11/24/2014 Brief Description Cont. There are no critical areas identified onsite. • 303 significant trees have been identified on the project site, 35 trees along the east property line are proposed for retention. A 14 day Notice of Application period commenced on March 10, 2014 and ended on March 24, 2014. Two citizen comment letters were received during the comment period (Staff Report Exhibits 20 and 21). One additional comment letter was received after the comme S 4Qd ended ( Staff Report Exhibit 27). a R E— NO N. Brief Description Cont. On March 31, 2014, the ERC issued a DNS-M which included 1 mitigation measure requiring compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. A 14-day appeal period commenced on April 4, 2014 and ended on April 18, 2014. A Request for Reconsideration of the DNS-M was filed on April 17, 2014 citing public notice and traffic concerns, specifically the project's impact to SE 5th pl. In response additional traffic analysis was --conducted by the applicant and the City. ; RE11 NTON 3 11/24/2014 04rief D0 ri1.)t i c-,t t f. 3 The applicant's analysis concluded the project would not result in a significant adverse impact to the intersection of 156th Ave SE and SE 5th PI. The City's traffic analysis concluded that a signal is warranted at the 156th Ave SE/SE 142nd PI intersection. On May 19th, 2014 the ERC issued a revised DNS- M requiring payment of the project's fair share of a new traffic signal ($3,435). A new appeal period commenced on May 23rd `�1 ended on June 6th. An appeal was filed. �. RENTON All I ri On June 24, 2014 a public hearing was held for the SEPA Appeal and the Preliminary Plat. On July 18, 2014 the Hearing Examiner approved the Preliminary Plat and denied the SEPA Appeal. A Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed on July 30, 2014. 4 The Hearing Examiner denied the Request for Reconsideration on August 13, 2014. • An appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed on August 26, 2014. o, RENTON ♦'� :,Y. 4 11/24/2014 Preliminary Plat Analysis * The proposal is consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies. • The proposal is compliant with all relevant zoning regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with. -------------------- R E N T O N Availability of Pubic Services • Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. • It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Extensions of existing water and sewer main in the new roadway would be required in order to _ serve the plat. � g RENTON 5 11/24/2014 ALvailvibility of P l ic spa lsvi-e The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. E A stormwater wetpond is proposed within Tract A on the southwest corner of the property. 4 The project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstr R EW qq3 ecortimieocl ZIT,ti(>,Vt Staff recommends approval of the Enclave at Bridle I h Ridge Preliminary I - Plat, as depicted in y Staff Report Exhibit 3 subject to _•�A _ _� the 21 conditions of approval listed in the Hearing Examiner's - decision. R 11 ENTON 6 11/24/2014 s 0 , ,gam R E TN ----------- N 7 Denis Law Mayor City,of 1y y y Qf_: �. X L� Ol,. �7 R City Council I I October 14, 2014 APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Paulsen &Jason Paulsen (POA for Judith Paulsen) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038 156th Ave SE (File NO. LUA-14-000241) To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council's Planning& Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above- referenced item on the following date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:30 p.m. 7th Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning& Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However,the parties are expected to attend and be prepared.to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Sincerely, le� Ed Prince, Chair Planning& Development Committee Renton City Council Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov September 8, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 253 Appointment: Parks Mayor Law reappointed the following individuals to the Parks Commission for Commission terms expiring on 10/1/2018: Cynthia Burns and Michael O'Donin. Council concur. Appeal: Enclave @ Bridle City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Enclave Ridge,Paulsen (LUA-14- @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat(LUA-14-000241) by Roger Paulsen, 000241 accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CAG:14-088, Runway City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/17/2014 for CAG-14-088; Runway Blastwall Replacement, Gary Blastwall Replacement Project;three bids;engineer's estimate$979,501;and Merlino Construction submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the lowest Company responsive bidder,Gary Merlino Construction Company, in the amount of $1,252,565.24. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee for discussion of funding. Annexation:Trace Matthew, Community and Economic Development Department submitted King County 154th Ave.SE&SE 139th PI Boundary Review Board Closing Letter for the proposed Trace Matthew Annexation and recommended approval of the annexation. Council concur. (See page 256 for ordinance.) Community Services:Cost Community Services Department recommended approval of the Recreation Recovery& Pricing Guidelines Division's Cost Recovery and Pricing Guidelines. Refer to Community Services Committee. Lease:720 Building at Airport, Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment#3 to Rainier Flight Services LLC LAG-11-003,with Rainier Flight Services,in order to terminate the lease because the business has moved to another location at the airport. Refer to Transportation (Aviation)Committee. Transportation:Airport Master Transportation Systems Division requests authorization to execute a grant Plan, FAA Grant application and related documents with the Federal Aviation Administration in order to receive$753,935 in grant funds for the Airport Master Plan project. Council concur. .Transportation: Airport Master Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Plan, Mead & Hunt Inc Mead& Hunt, Inc. in the amount of$837,705 to complete the Airport Master Plan,and requested authorization to transfer$120,000 from the 820 Building Demolition CIP fund to.cover the budget gap. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation: Growing Transportation Systems Division requested authorization to participate in the Transit Communities Compact Growing Transit Communities Compact,a non-legally binding agreement with various government and non-government agencies,that supports implementation of VISION 2040 and local comprehensive plans. Refer to Transportation(Aviation)Committee. Utility: Emergency Sale of Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an Emergency Sale of Water Water,King County Water agreement with King County Water District No. 90 in order to provide water to District No.90 the district in the event of an emergency. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL �r Subject/Title: Meeting: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision by Roger REGULAR COUNCIL-08 Sep 2014 Paulsen regarding the Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (LUA-14-000241) Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Clerk's Appeal Notification Letter(8/27/2014) City Clerk Appeal to Council from Roger&Jason Paulsen (8/26/2014) Hearing Examiner's Order and Decision on Reconsideration (8/13/2014) Staff Contact: Request for Reconsideration from Roger&Jason Jason Seth, x6504 Paulsen (7/30/2014) Hearing Examiner's Decision (7/18/2014) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required:$ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated:$ Total Project Budget:$ City Share Total Project:--$ SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat was filed on August 26, 2014 by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen/POA for Judith Paulsen, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat. Denis Law City of : Mayor Ci U.�1' JJ'.•. A. II 6 ...City Clerk-Bonnie a.Walton- Au .gust alton"August 27i-2014 . ', APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Paulsen&Jason Paulsen(POA for Judith.Paulsen,) RE: Appeal ofHearii3g Examiner's decision dated July 18,2014 regarding the Enclave at - Bridle Ridge located at 1.403 8 156t"Ave SE.(File No,LUA-14-000241) :. To Parties of.Record :. .. . Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8,Renton CityCode of Ordinances;written appeal bf.the hearmg,- examiner's decision on Enclave_at Bridle Ridge land use application has been filed with-the.City" Clerk.. In accordance with Renton Municipal-.Code"Section 4-8-11 OF,the.City CIerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal: Other-parties of record nay submit lettersiimited to . support-of their positions.within.ten(10)days ofthe date of..mailing.of the notification of the. filing:of the appeal The deadline for submission of additional.letters is 5:00 pm;.Monday, September 8,-2014: - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the:written appeal andother pertinent documents.will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee: The Council Liaison will. notify all pardes•of record of the date-and.fime of the PI 'and Development Committee meeting, if you are not in.local telephone directories and wish to`attend the meeting,. please call the Council Liaison'at-425-430-6501 for information: The recommendation.-of the. Committee will be presented for-6 onsideration by.the full Council at a subsequent"Council. , -, meeting: - - . • - - � . . • : - : Enclosed you will find a copy-of the appeal and'a copy of the Renton.Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions orrecommendations.,Please note that the Ciiy Council will be considering the merits�of the-appeal.based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made Matadditional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held.by.the Hearing.Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by-the City Council.. For additional infomnation or.assistance,please feel free to call me at 425-430-6504.. - . - Sincerely. - . - .. .. • - _. . • on Set - cting City Clerk :Endos'ure's cc: Cofmcff Liaison 1055 Sauth Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057 (425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516-rentonwa.gov- i I City of Renton Municipal Code;Title iV, Chapter 8,Section 110—Appeals 4-8-110C4 i 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..5698,5-13-2013) 448-110F: 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 costa 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) S. Burden:The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6.Council Evaluation Criteria:The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7.Findings and Conclusions Required:If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application-submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070H1, as it exists or may be amended,and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord.5675, 12-3- 2012) S.Decision Documentation:The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9.Council Action Final:The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord.3658,9-13-1982;Ord.4389,1-25-1993;Ord.4660,3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) CITY OF RENTO! APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL k U G 2 6 20 i4 - OF HEARING EXA NER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION 5 RECEIVED ewtacf CfTY,�LE APPLICATION NAME ewc e-,fyf /IT 11,6Q. _ FrrZ NOLGIjI7'Ot� 7 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Heanng Ezar<nneZ�dated I V XIIA16 ,2C/y . 1. IDEI+TT�TCATION OF PARTY Tali lr� oratotrrr Plesa Na� lo APPEL �V � Name: 7 5f S'T// IG Address: 3l mi HOW Phone Nwd)�,er Z��'r �y Phone Number. " I fPl VICE? Email � f06icI�i1l�Sfit1 Pi f.S.(,plYl Email- S9�tJ �/UGS'E�tJP G'�+lG •(Aj11 2. SPECIFICATION OF Eltlt©RS(Attach additional sheets,if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:- 3- ased:3. SLWNaRY OF ACTION REOUESTED The City Council is requested to-tent the following relief (Artach explanation,if desired) . Reverse the decision or recommendation and pant the following relief. Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: rich A epmenfative Signature Type/Printed Name Daae NOTE Pl=se refs to Title IV,Cbaptrf E,of the Rr=n Municipal Code,and S=d=4-S-1I0F.for spcc aj p proce h=& C-Nd VAC;.xt t' cov GUY OF RENTON August 25, 2014 .54e.i4c r � ��ncfi6iJG 2.6 2014 u; ep iU'zuy Burn�rfr t:rrU y�j � Ci Of Renton RECEIVED ctwl,t^I�' �""t-'G� CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk P13 olbr"Ms, t!-Ex 1055 S.Grady Way � or,n9I cvi> Renton,WA 98057 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CiTY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CiTY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Standing As the record shows,we have attempted to utilize each of the City's provided appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council,and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via SE 5th Place adjacent to the proposed plat(See Exhibit A),we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress,or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at-large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1)and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and(b).The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First,we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of"appropriate provision"with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second,we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b)that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. - 1 Lastly,we fin d that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion,supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We.thank you for your consideration of this appeal request,and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal Arguments In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D)to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit C),the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Level of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for"appropriate provision" (RCW 58.17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 16, Lines 8-9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting"...Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18)The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that"Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project-specific traffic impacts,we disagree with his finding that Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact,the record shows clearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre-application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its clear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review(Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review(Exhibit F)after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that"The City-wide focus of the LOS"index"system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical"A,B,C"system used in most other jurisdictions." We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads: "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal,and that the City properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project In fact,the City's own policy governing site-specific traffic analyses(Exhibit M)requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered,they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a)and 58.17.110(2)(b)cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 156u'/142"d intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific,site-specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense.. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156th Ave.SE/SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level—LOS level "F"(Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips,and between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that"...it was observed that in the PM Peak hour,existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave.SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PL/156th Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit 1) d) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit l) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion.(Exhibit B) f) In response to concerns about congestion,the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave.SE/SE 142"d PL intersection,and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level—LOS level"C". (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection,the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9th on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) 3 i) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP#25) indicates that"on average,one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years",suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years(Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary,the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection,absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact,the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately,the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval,to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development,there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat,the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11-13). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13th Final Decision.on Reconsideration(Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18:In this section,the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. B. Page 3, Lines 15-18:The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat,it would bei in the position of"...compensating the applicant for_taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development,as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of a project-specific application establishes a de-facto moratorium, nor that it entities an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 Amendment. In fact,the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking"occurs. The property-specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17)the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency,535 US 302(2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de-facto moratorium and runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counter to the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL,INC.,et aL v.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcerdorad to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No.oo-1167.Argued January 7,26=—Decided April 23,2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development The interest in informed decisionmaking counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim measures as talangs regardless of the planners'good faith,the landowners'reasonable expectations,or the moratorium's actual impact on property values.The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether.' Further, a careful reading of Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the opposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. In further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate,please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL,INC.,et aL v.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No.oo-ii67.Argued January 7,2002—Decided April 23,2002 `For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use,we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings context to regulatory takings claims.Land-use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way—often in completely unanticipated ways.Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford 5 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning,including project-specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argument under the Fifth Amendment. c Page 3, Lines 15-18:The Hearing Examiner,explaining why the denial of this project is not an option,concludes"It is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact,we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCV%/58.17 was adopted, and has been amended over time,to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.110(1a&b)and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent of the state legislature,they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme,the Hearing Examiner's basis for approving this subdivision would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. D. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section,the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again,this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above,and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year understate law, and is reflected in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection,we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely. upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law,the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. 6 E. Page 4, Lines 25—26:In this section the Hearing Examiner states that"Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay,there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under.the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to -ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required by their growth plans,its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact,this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth.Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use planning of municipalities,shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.70A.020(12)which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Act: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Conclusion Given the record before you,and as supported by our arguments above,we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110,or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development-related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave.SE/SE 142nd PL intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 Since en -on Al Paulsen,P A for /Judith Al Paulsen 6617 SC 5th Place 31 Alazama Pines Lane Renton,NXIA 98059 Alazama,X}JA 98833 Exhibits from the public record (included by reference): Exhibit A Neighborhood Detail Map from Paulsen Comment Letter(24 Jun 2014) Exhibit B Original Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat(18 Jul 2014) Exhibit C Request for Reconsideration of Hearing E%nminees Decision(30 Jul 2014) F—dubit D Final Decision on Reconsideration(13 Aug 2014) Exhibit E Response to Request for Reconsideration of SEPA Determination (16 Apr 2014) Elubit 1: Revised SEPA Detern-iination (19 IN-lay 2014) Exhibit G Report to the Hearing Examiner(24 jun 2014) Exhibit H City of Renton 2014-2019 SLK-YearTransportation Improvement Program Exhibit I Traffic Impact Analysis—2"'Addendum(20 Jun 2014) Exhibit J Traffic Concurrence-"lest for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (18 Apr 2014) Exhibit K Alemo from C.Barncs to R.Alar(5 May 2014) Exhibit L SEPA Timshold Determination(31 Alar 2014) Exhibit Ai City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development 8 • I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) 10 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ) Preliminary Plat ) FINAL DECISION ON 11 ) RECONSIDERATION Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal ) 12 LUA14-000241 ) 13 ) 14 15 SUAVAARY 16 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single- family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139h Place and SE 143rd 17 Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the 18 preliminary plat The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. This decision includes a response to a Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger and Judy 19 Paulsen on July 30, 2014. Other than correcting some minor grammatical and typographical en-ors 20 and adding some clarifications, the original July 18, 2014 remains the same except for the added section entitled"Reconsideration Response",which follows this"Summary,section. 21 The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion,but the 22 contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service (`TOS") standards adopted by the 23 City Council- LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted 24 LOS. 25 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the 26 City's transportation network, Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the PRELB11 NARY PLAT- 1 i I only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of(1) the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated,amount of 21 population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation 3 infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create(e.g.if a project contributes to 20% 4 of the traffic for a needed traffic improvement,the developer can only be made to pay for 20%of the improvement); and(4)avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing 5 an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the 6 applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, 7 unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. 8 In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of the project opponents, 9 this money has to be expended in five years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in five years,but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS 10 standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record do not reveal I 1 any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is determinative on the issue of assessing 12 congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) of this decision. 13 14 RECONSIDERATION REQUEST 15 As Previously noted, Roger and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014. The request is denied and this decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this 16 "Reconsideration Request"section. 17 Mr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideration. His concerns have already been 18 addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only be evident to an experienced planner or land use attorney. The general public has every right to be fully apprised in as clear terms 19 as Possible why cities and counties are often stuck with approving new development in areas that suffer from traffic congestion_ Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request provides an opportunity to 20 provide further clarity on the issue. 21 Mr.Paulsen's first point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17.110(2)prohibits the approval 22 of a subdivision unless a city or county makes a finding that "appropriate" provision is made for ...streets, roads, alleys, other public ways..." This finding was made in three places in the Enclave 23 decision. Finding of Fact No. 4 generally determines that the proposal is served by "adequate" infrastructure. The subsections of Finding of Fact No. 4 elaborate how this determination was made 24 for specific types of infrastructure. Finding of Fact No.4(E) elaborates how this finding was made for roads. Conclusion of Law No. 7 concludes that the proposal provides for adequate public facilities in 25 response to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), which requires that subdivisions "[m]ake adequate provision for .... 26 streets, alleys,other public ways..." PRELIMINARY PLAT-2 r. I I It could be argued that a finding of "ad � g equate public facilities is not the same as a finding of `'appropriate'public facilities as required by RCW 58.17.110(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate such 2 parsimonious word la P play. "Adequate' within the City's regulatory standards for subdivision review 3 clearly encompasses the"appropriate"criterion of RCW 58.17.110(2). The intent of the City Council is paramount in interpreting the regulations adopted by it It can be presumed that the City Council 4 intends to have its regulations interpreted in a manner that is consistent with state law. The RMC only requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW 5 58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(1)(1). Consequently,to the extent possible,the subdivision criteria of 6 the RMC should be interpreted as encompassing RCW 58.17.110 requirements in order to ensure that a subdivision that is required to be approved under the RMC is also valid under state law. It is fairly 7 easy to apply thisinterpretation to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), since the language pertaining to roads in that provision is almost a direct quote from RCW 58.17.110(2). The City Council clearly intended RMC 4- 7-080(B)(4)to encompass the road findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2). Conclusion of Law No. 7 of the Enclave decision finds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met; so the required finding of 9 RCW 58.17.110(2)has also been made. 10 The remaining part of Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156 11 Ave SEISE 142nd PI intersection and the limitations of the mitigation recommended by City staff The original Enclave decision expressly acknowledged these problems and explained that the preliminary 12 plat application still had to be approved because the proposal met adopted City level of service standards.- The decision noted that fiscal and legal constraints prevent the City from imposing any 13 additional mitigation or deny the project on the basis of traffic congestion. Additional explanation will 14 be provided in this section in response to Mr.Paulsen's reconsideration request 15 In short, Mr. Paulsen wants .a finding that the proposal will not be served by "appropriate" streets because the 156 Ave SENSE 142nd PI intersection operates at LOS F. As shall be explained, this puts 16 the City in the position of either having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably doesn't have or denying the subdivision request and compensating the applicant for taking its property 17 without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment It is unlikely that the state legislature 18 intended cities and counties to be put in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110. A far more reasonable approach and the approach that would likely be adopted by the courts is to construe a road 19 as "appropriate" for purposes of RCW 58.17.100(2) if that road meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As partially discussed in the original final decision of this case, an adopted City LOS 20 standard represents the road system that the City can afford to require. Requiring more than the adopted LOS likely exceeds the financial capabilities of the City,which cannot be ignored because the 21 City is required to fill in the funding gaps that it cannot require to be filled by developers. In this case, 22 the road system meets the City's LOS,which is why roads were determined to be adequate. 23 The reason why the consequences of the interpretation advocated by Mr. Paulsen are so dire is because of the strict rulings of state and federal courts in the application of the takings clause of the Fifth 24 Amendment, i.e. government cannot. take property without just compensation. There are two 25 1 The references to"adequate"in this decision will also be modified to include"appropriate"to remove any doubt 26 on the issue. PRELMNARY PLAT-3 I I significant limitations imposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make " or growth". The first limitation is proportionality. The courts consider it to be an growth pay f 2 unconstitutional takings if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that 3 exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g.,.Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn.App. 505,516-17(1998). For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection,the applicant 4 can only be made to pay for 10% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd PI 5 intersection. 6 So with only a proportionate share contribution from the applicant to pay for the intersection, the City only has two options on how to proceed with the Enclave application if it cannot find the intersection "appropriate" at its current LOS, as advocated by Mr. Paulsen:. (1)the City can pay for the remaining 8 costs of the intersection improvements itself, or(2)it can deny the preliminary plat application. 9 As to the first option,the City could conceivably drop all of its long term transportation planning and 10 simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid denying a preliminary plat application. Of course, such haphazard and random fiscal planning would 11 likely not result in a very efficient expenditure of public funds. The LOS standards required to be adopted by the Growth Management Act ("GMA") were designed to avoid this randomized form of 12 fiscal planning. The GMA requires cities to adopt an LOS and then put together a 6 year specific and 20 year general budget that identifies where the City will get the funds to finance the LOS it has 13 adopted. By requiring cities and counties to pencil out the numbers for financing an LOS standard, the 14 GMA essentially places cities and counties in the position of only adopting LOS standards they can afford. That is why an LOS standard serves as a realistic and effective standard for measuring whether 15 a road is"appropriate"to serve a proposed subdivision. 16 The second course of action, denial,implicates the second obstacle placed upon cities and counties by the takings clause. The US Supreme Court considers it to be an unconstitutional takings to impose 17 development moratoria of unreasonable length. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg? 18 Planning Agency, 535 US 302(2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or two will be difficult to justify. As noted in Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request, the City's funding 19 priorities for the 156 Ave SENSE 142nd PI intersection suggest that needed improvements won't be constructed for 18 years. Consequently, if the Enclave application is denied because of the 156 Ave 20 SENSE 142nd PI intersection,the City is essentially placing an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to that intersection. The applicant would be in a very good 21 position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium 22 In understanding the use of LOS to gage the adequacy of roads for subdivision review, there is on 23 additional point that helps put the Renton LOS into the proper context. Although the Renton LOS standard is somewhat unique in that it doesn't adopt the more traditional"ABCDEF"system of review, 24 the Renton system isn't at all unique in having an LOS system that designates some congested areas as adequate or appropriate. Cities such as Seattle that have the letter system adopt an LOS of F for 25 portions of their transportation system Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to 26 only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough finds available to improve an intersection or street PRELDAINARY PLAT-4 i 1 segment above a failing level of service. So even if Renton had adopted a letter � g p system for its LOS, Renton could still assign an LOS of F to the intersections in the Enclave area if it determined that its ) 2 limited transportation funds were more effectively spent elsewhere in the city. 3 Hopefully the explanation above provides some additional clarity as to why an adopted LOS standard 4 is the best tool for assessing whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a development for purposes o subdivision review. Enforcing the type of standard contemplated by I&. Paulsen would place the City 5 in the impossible position of having to commit funds it doesn't have to upgrading all failing 6 intersections for new development beyond the applicants.'proportionate share,or paying the applicants millions of dollars in taking claims. The.LOS standard is the culmination of some very difficult and 7 detailed policy choices made by the City Council on where to spend limited public funds to improve its transportation system. It is the only2 practical and reasonable way to address congestion in a manner g that recognizes that there is a limit to how much money is available to address the problem 9 TESTIMONY 10 11 SEPA Appellant Testimony 12 Mr:Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the 13 city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has 14 continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was 15 misleading and unclear. Ffis neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. 16 1 Applicant Testimony 18. Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the 19 traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. 20 21 Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TrafEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, 22 2 One other potential option that hasn't been addressed due to space limitations is to reduce the density of the 23 proposed subdivision. The R4 designation does not have a minimum density requirement However, the GMA requires cities to accommodate assigned 20 year population projections'and a city's zoning designations are 24 designed to accommodate these numbers. Further,the GMA requires residential development within cities to occur at `urban" densities which at a minimum is usually four dwelling units per acre. Routinely requiring reduced 25 densities to reduce traffic impacts would arguably violate these GMA principals. Further, in this case the intersection at issue is already operating at LOS F so that from the standpoint of"appropriate"roads it makes no 26 substantial difference if the subdivision has a density of one unit per acre as opposed to four units per acre. PRELIlVIINARY PLAT-5 I i 1 attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has 2 defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those 3 that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria;however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx 4 to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project The original 5 study looked at the pm peak-hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new 6 project TraflEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak 7 hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area,the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. g This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29,2014(Exhibit 1,attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th 9 Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service-C, the north-side access street will operate at level C,the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will 10 , operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and I1 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new 12 conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level-of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly 13 reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 14 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed_ The south side access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft which is north of the 15 stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated,this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections,the project 16 will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. 17 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am i 8 peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulsen. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst 19 operating conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. 20 Mr. Paulsen stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am 21 peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. 22 Under cross examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers 23 both queue time and opposing traffic. 24 Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project,and this increase does not occur for this project It is very 25 rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. 26 City Testimony PRELM NARY PLAT-6 i 1 - In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City 2 Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record ' 3 and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulsen was able to understand the 4 process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulsen does not have j standing to raise this issue because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative 5 DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. 6 The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment 7 period was the only opportunity for comment Adequate notice was provided of the process. i 8 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period(Exhibit 2,attachment 21). 9 10 Rohmi Nair,Renton Civil Engineer, stated,in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines,the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." 11 However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site,it was clear the pm 12 peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil'Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For 13 projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard 14 to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak 15 hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In 16 some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd 17 intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if 18 traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted There are nine possible criteria that warrant a 19 signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the 20 signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal 21 installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June,2014 22 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd In this new analysis,the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not 23 back up.to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and 24 the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project She does not know 25 the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on 26 existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, PRELIMINARY PLAT-7 - i i i 1 specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close-by. 2 3 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen,Ms.Nair testified that,in regard to the language of " 11 should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be 4 required- 5 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received after the close of the comment period_ The city responded to this comment and did not 6 deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The 7 SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signaL However,the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to g be installed as part of the project 9 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document 10 because it was outside of her Department. 11 Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the 12 city's guidelines she is talking about the document `Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development" This document is Exhibit 2,attachment 29,ex.C. The city uses this document when 13 reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more 14 trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a 15 guideline and allows Public Woiks and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet 16 the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any 17 analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 18 Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and 19 noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The 20 response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review hearing. 21 22 Applicant Response 23 Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that 24 traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built The project contributes very few trips to the 25 problem areas. 26 Appellant Response PRELIlIvfflNARY PLAT-8 i 1 Mr. Paulsen stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page,there is no change in title so the 2 assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If 3 comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests.that a person waives their 4 right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue,Mr.Paulsen's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the 5 inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th,there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. 6 7 Mr.Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one 8 period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. 9 LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application 10 Staff Testimony 11 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the 12 west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low=density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and 13 two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size 14 from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft Tract A is for stormwatcr, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the 15 subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded_ Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th 16 Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a 17 single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed There are no 18 critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, 19 and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was 20 issued on March 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant . 21 conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review foundthat the project would not have 22 significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting 23 that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning 24 regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as 25 protected,thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required_ 35 trees will be retained and the rest 26 will be replaced Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project The school district is able to accommodate the-additional students as well. All students will be bussed The applicant PRELD IINARY PLAT-9 I 1 submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around 2 stormwater ponds;however, in this case,the strips are only l Oft and increasing the size would result 3 in the loss of a lot Staff recommends the l Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion,staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval- 4 Ia regard to the curved road,Ms.Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are 5 policy,not code. 6 Applicant Testimony 7 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal 8 Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to 9 traffic,the project does not create the need for the traffic signaL The independent studies found that 10 current conditions wan-ant a signal. I 1 Public Testimony 12 Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it 13 implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that 14 will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny 15 development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing 16 concurrency. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true 17 impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional 18 transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards 19 smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city 20 should not allow more encumbrance on this route;instead,it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to 21 the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He 22 submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 23 Roger Paulsen testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 24 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that,the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6- 25 year Transportation Plan into the record(Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city 26 builds one new traffic signal every two years,and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal PRELD&NARY PLAT- 10 1 The May 19th-decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signaL A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a i 2 request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision,but his request was denied(Exhibit 11). He 3 entered the letter denying his second request as Exlu-bit 12. 4 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 5 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the 6 morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will 7 not solve the problem,and the city needs to consider other road improvements. g Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in 9 regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 10 2013 states that 156th Avenue is,straight through the access points which is true; however, the i intersection with 142nd isnot straight The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, 11 you cannot see the access street The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage 12 provided in the study. The-analysis also claims there-is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet.shows that the intersection of 142nd has a 13 stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Usingthe figures gores from the traffic 14 analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately I I9ft which is less than the standard of 1251 The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as 15 needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial lright-of-waysis4-lanesat9lft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order 16 to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a 17 busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for 18 improvement in 6 years,the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to 19 deal with the impacts of new development 20 In regard to stormwater,Ms.High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural 21 damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have ibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be 22 respons created by the project In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is 23 unclear what will happen with the project The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development To lose 300 significant trees is an 24 enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the 25 area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks 26 should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1 I i I I the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made 2 1 them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, 3I route 11 is slated to be out and this will have an impact on the neighborhood,on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as 4 Exhibit 13. 5 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will. be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 6 impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this 7 particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-465 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this g light in the morning,thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She 9 also noted that not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There 10 will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. 11 These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause Heavenly for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of 12 Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo,she-found that bamboo is not-only invasive.. but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. 13 14 .Staff Rebuttal 15 Ms.Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the 16 landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to l Oft. In regard to 1 the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff 18 I report Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants lisL The city 19 would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but 20 is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency 21 analysis. When a citywide policy is met,the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will 22 talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 23 Applicant Rebuttal 24 Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 25 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant 26 believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. PRELHVIINARY PLAT- 12 1 Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has .adopted 2 transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and 3 collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation 4 analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 5 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulsen. Mr.Carson 6 believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will 7 actually improve instead of create adverse impacts.With regard to plot conditions,Mr.Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He g noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. 9 10 Staff Response 11 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that forpeak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed 12 by the institute of transportation engineers; and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the 13 transportation planning section_ Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's 14 documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. 15 16 EXHIBITS 17 Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/attachments a-h 18 Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia 19 Exhibit 4. Traf(Ex Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20,2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June,2014 20 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan,Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments 21 Exhibit 8 Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr.Paulsen 22 Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulsen second request for reconsideration 23 Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulsen's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet 24 Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map 25 Exhibit 16 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulsen to Jill Ding 26 Exhibit 17 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulsen comments PRELIMINARY PLAT- 13 I Exhibit 19 , 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 7/1/14 email to Till Ding from Roger Paulsen 2 3 FINDINGS OF FACT 4 Procedural: 5 1. Applicant PNW Holdings,LLC. 6 2. Hearin. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was 7 held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. 8 Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1, 2014 to respond and the 9 appellant July 2, 104 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27,2014 for the applicant 10 to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 11 3• Proiect Description The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156t`Avenue SE between SE 1391 1 Placeand SE 143rd Street An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") 13 issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat 14 The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all 15 lots would be provided along a new looped public road(Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avenue 16 SE. A dead end access is also provided,terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a 17 later date, under a future application for development The preliminary plat also includes.a stormwater tract and an open space tract The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling 18 units per acre. 19 The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report 20 for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, 21 and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 22 23 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure.Tublic Services. The project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, specifically including all the infrastructure 24 and services identified below. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the 25 City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient Specific infrastructure✓seavices are addressed as follows: 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 14 1 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A 2 water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.There is an 8-inch sewer main in 1561`Avenue SE. 3 4 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition 5 that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are 6 applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit This fee is paid at time of building permit 7 issuance. 8 C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage 9 plan(Exhibit 5)and drainage report(Exhibit 13)has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City 10 of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to 1 I develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage 12 ._... plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat 13 review. 14 The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas 15 maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. 16 1Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration 17 Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream 18 conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed 19 rates for the forested condition extending from 50%of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the 20 southwest comer of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water_ 21 quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be 22 required for the project Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to 23 help mitigate the new runoff created by this development The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. 24 Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech 25 engineer,and lining may also be required. 26 PRELUvE NARY PLAT- 15 - i f I D. Parks/Open Svace. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to 2 building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for 3 residential development in the R-4 district The impact fees provide for adequate parks 4 and open space. 5 E_ Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets, roads, alleys and public ways. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. 6 It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested- 7 However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what 8 serves as "adequate" or "appropriate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review 9 and as an adverse impact for environmental(SEPA)review is the LOS standard_ Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly 10 arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of 11 the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibilityto accommodate growth; available public monies for 12 _...... infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that 13 developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For 14 these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels 15 makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as .well as a specific project review basis. 16 17 Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter,Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to 18 appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS 19 requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. 20 LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, 21 Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that"...prohibit development 22 approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation 23 facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are 24 referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities 25 and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well- 26 functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment PRELB41 NARY PLAT- 16 1 An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If 2 a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D,the developer basically has three choices: (1)make traffic improvements 3 that prevent violation of the LOS; (2)redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so 4 LOS is not violated;or(3)face denial of the permit application. 5 The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows I 6 for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example,in a city that adopts f an LOS of C for its intersections,no development can be approved anywhere in that city 7 that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A,B or C to an LOS 8 of D, E or F. The City Council,based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this 9 standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance identified in thep receding paragraph. 10 j 11 Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is i no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton.has 12 developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one 13 single-occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. M-26. The 14 Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high 15 occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is.determined from the comprehensive plan, but it 16 appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in 17 one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. 18 19 The City-wide focus of the LOS"index"' system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other 20 1jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring 21 device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A,B, C"LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and 22 deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this 23 may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its 24 transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project 25 level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area,in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose . 26 a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no PRELP&NARY PLAT- 17 i I 1 development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development 2 moratorium, or(B)the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation,which is also unconstitutional. 3 4 The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of 5 congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has 6 disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to 7 contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle 8 the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the 9 proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. 10 It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" 11 concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it 12 causes "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below 13 the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted 14 standards, the provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will 15 cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them_ If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there 16 can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet 17 minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards3 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal 18 doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex 2. All 19 LOS levels stay the same. 20 Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts 21 at project level review, thereis still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A,B, 22 C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can 23 be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 15e Ave. SENSE 24 142nd Street intersection. However,it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon 25 these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that 26 3 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board lii¢hway fmacity Manual to calculate IAS. PRELADNARY PLAT- 18 i 1 mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt See RCW 82.02.020. This 2 means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned 3 to the developer. 4 In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections,the applicants used a 3%yearly 5 rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents,who presented a list 6 of numerous projects in Ex-13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. . The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor 7 was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex: 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% 8 growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the. City. See Ex. 19. 9 Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site 10 distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department Project 11 opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is 12 found more compelling. 13 One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement 14 required as mitigation for the project area,the signalization of the 156*Ave. SE/.SE 142nd 15 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to 16 support this position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex_ 4, 17 establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study 18 addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced 19 no objections to its methodology or conclusion.Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary,the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that 20 the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the 21 intersection. 22 F. Parldn Sufficient area exists, on each lot,.to accommodate required off street parking 23 for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 24 G. Schools.It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional 25 students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Muddle School and Hazen High School Any new students from the proposed 26 development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 PRELINII.NARY PLAT- 19 i 1 mile from the project site at 1560` Avenue SE & SE 5' Place. The proposed project 2 includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156h Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156"'Avenue SE north 3 of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However,there appears to be 4 adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions(Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 5 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to 6 allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would 7 be required to cross 156 ' Avenue SE at SE 5b Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156b Avenue SE and board the bus. 8 There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the 9 conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. 10 A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to 11 mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at 12 $6,392.00 per single family residence. 13 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate 14 1 public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are 15 no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. 16 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the 17 trees shall be retained in a residential development When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The 18 replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. 19 The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been 20 determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report(Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that 21 have been identified as protected trees.Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 22 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention 23 requirements. 24 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 25 26 6. SEPA Appeal A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration with the City on PRELIMINARY PLAT-20 i 1 April 16,2014. Ex.29. This request was denied by the City on May 19,2014. Ex.30. However,as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate 2 share of a signal for the 156h Ave. SEISE 142nd Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then filed the 3 subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1)the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing since it could be read as authorizing comment 4 on the MDNS at the permit hearing, and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel56 h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulsen 5 argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points 6 to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat 7 access points. 8 Conclusions of Law 9 10 1. Authori RMC 4-7-020(0) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the 11 Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 12 2. Zoninc/Comprehensive Plan Desi tions. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 13 dwelling units per net acre(R4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential 14 Low Density(RLD). 15 SEPA APPEAL 16 I. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts;or(2)the SEPA responsible official 17 has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. 18 Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. 19 A. Probable Sisnificant Adverse Environmental Impacts. 20 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See 21 WAC 1 197-11-330 . If such impacts are creat ( �) p ed, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS 22 to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold 23 determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to 24 substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6(3)(a)(viii). 25 B. Adecruate Environmental Review 26 PRELM NARY PLAT-21 I The second reason an MDATS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 2 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 3 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4 An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a 5 showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State 6 Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community 7 Assn v. City of Kirkland,9 Wn.App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental 8 impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental 9 impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn.App.6(2001). In Moss,for example,the court recited the prima facie rule and 10 then applied it as follows: 11 The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The 12 environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA of asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered .13 extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and 14 imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately 15 analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating 16 that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 17 109 Wn. App.at 23-24. 18 WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information 19 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane 20 County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a 21 prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to 22 evaluate the impacts of a proposal- 23 roposal23 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, 24 but Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. 25 Mr. Paulsen in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. 26 PRELMNARY PLAT-22 t i 1 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- ' 2 Significance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that [cJomment periods for the project and proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period." The 3 second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in 4 writing....by S:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments..." 5 Mr. Paulsen asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment 6 period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the 7 hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing.refers to "comments on the 8 above application",not the MDNS. Further,the fust page of the Notice also notes that"jtJhere will 9 be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Signiflcance- Mitigated (DNS-*." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on 10 commenting on the MDNS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. 11 The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a 12 new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulsen. .not .have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for 13 standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to 14 issuance of the decision under appeaL Mr.Paulsen does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public 15 hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulsen submitted numerous comments on the 16 MDNS on March 22,2014,prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31,2014. See Ex.A to Ex. 1. 17 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulsen 18 asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately 19 assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access points to the proposed preliminary plat It is concluded that the SEPA review was 20 adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse 21 environmental impacts. 22 On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon 23 information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been 24 applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra,no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with 25 site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The 26 environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed PRELDvf NARY PLAT-23 ----------------- i 1 legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site 2 and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. 3 In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12,was prepared analyzing 4 impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, 5 even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's 6 engineering department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues 7 that were assessed by City engineering staff. 8 All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a"prima facie, showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. 9 It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal 10 will create probable significant adverse impacts. .The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted(hence the requirement that the City only make a"prima 11 facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to 12 establish that it reviewed.every.issue that could conceivably.lead to significant adverse...impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of 13 course,if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it 14 could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4,prepared after issuance of the 15 MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulsen 16 Presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit 17 further environmental review. 18 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse 19 environmental impacts,the record i&clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the 20 determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an 21 engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishes that queues caused by signalization of the 156 ` Ave. SENSE 142'd Street intersection will not interfere with the access 22 points to the proposed subdivision. Mr.Paulsen provided no evidence to the contrary. 23 PRELMINARY PLAT . 24 6. Review Criteria Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 25 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 26 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: PRELIAUNARY PLAT-24 1 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2 2.Access:Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3 3. Physical Characteristics:Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 4 because of}lood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may 5 be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage:Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 6 supplies and sanitary wastes. 7 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by 8 reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this 9 decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A- As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is 10 1 adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. 11 As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public facilities as required by RMC 48-080(B). 12 .. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 13 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 14 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined 15 in Finding I(1)of the staffreport,which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 16 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 17 or street(according to City specifications)to an existing street or highway. 18 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex-3,the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE,a public 19 road_ 20 RMC 4-7-120(3): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 21 City- 22 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report'or anywhere else in the administrative record- However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would 23 be to an extension of SE 8* Street, which is accommodated by a stub road Consequently, the 24 criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 25 RMC 4-7-120(0): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed[sic/trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail 26 purposes. PRELD IINARY PLAT-25 I 1 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 2 traiL 3 RMC 4-7-130(0: A plat,short plat,subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 4 L Land Unsuitable for Subdivision:Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 5 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such 6 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 7 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 8 a.Flooding/Inundation:If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is 9 subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 10 1such subdivision. 11 b. Steep Slopes.A plat,short plat,subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a 12 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%)or greater as measured per AMC 4-3- 050JIa, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 13 approved. 14 15 3.Land Clearing and Tree Retention:Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 16 Clearing Regulations.' 17 4. Streams: 18 a. Preservation:Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, 19 and wetland areas. 20 b.Method:If a stream passes through any of the subject property; a plan shall be presented which 21 indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. 22 c. Culverting. The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going 23 under streets. 24 d. Clean Water:Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris 25 and pollutants. 26 PRELM NARY PLAT-26 i I 1 112. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not 2 contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4 -130 as determined in Finding of 3 Fact No. 5. I 4 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 5 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 6 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The 7 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 8 13. City ordinances require the payment ofpark impact fees prior to building permit issuance. 4 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing 10 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street 11 system that does not emend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as 12 _ . .._. ... . defined and designated by&-D---epartment. 13 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex.3,the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S.is currently the 14 only road connection possible for the project 15 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 16 15. As conditioned. 17 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 18 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 19 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S.is the only connection possible for the project 20 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 21 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet(125)are not desirable,but may be 22 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only afterprovision of all necessary safety 23 measures. 24 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets,which includes compliance with applicable street standards. . 25 RMC 4-7-150(E): 26 PRELEMINARY PLAT-27 i 1 1. Grid•A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2 3 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 4 of roads and pathways.Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design 5 Element, Objective CD Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 6 3.Exceptions: 7 a. The gridpattern m be adjusted to a 'flexible id"b reducing the number of linkages or the gr P a1' 1 grid" Y g g 8 alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: 9 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints;and/or 10 ii.Substantial improvements are existing. 11 4. Connections.Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link 12 existing portions of the grid system shall-be made.At a minimum,stub streets shall be require within subdivisions to allowfuture connectivity. 13 14 5.Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the 15 RC,R-1, and R-4 zones.Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alleys) is not feasible... 16 6.Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 17 18 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets. Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger streetpattern is physically 19 Possible. 20 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is 21 not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road 22 is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met 23 RMC 4-7-I50(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, i 24 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 25 PlanningBuilding/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 26 .19. As proposed. PRELMNARY PLAT-28 is I RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be 2 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line.Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be 3 required in certain instances to facilitate future development. i 4 20. As conditioned.As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report,the stub road extension extends for a 5 depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. i 6 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical,side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 7 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex.3,the side lines are in conformance with the requirement 8 quoted above. 9 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road.Access may be by private 10 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 11 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. 12 RMC 4=7=170(C): Die size;s ape; and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width I3 requirements of the applicable zoning classi tion and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 14 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 15 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 16 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone,which includes area,width and density. 17 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points(i.e., the points where the 18 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line)shall not be less than eighty percent(80%)of 19 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet(20)and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac(radial lots), which 20 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(359.. 21 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex.3,the requirement is satisfied. 22 RMC 4-7-170(E):-All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, 23 shall have minimum radius offzfteen feet(15). 24 25. As conditioned. 25 26 PRELNE NARY PLAT-29 _ _.. i I 1 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, 2 watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 1 adding attractiveness and value to the property. 3 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. 4 There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted 51 above. 6 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department,sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no 7 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 8 eight feet(8)into each lot f sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 9 26. As conditioned. 10 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all 11 surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural waterflow and shall be of 12 sufficient length-to permit-full=width.roadway-and required slopes:The-drainage-system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water)Standards. The drainage . 13 ,stem shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include 14 detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water qualityfeatures shall also be designed to 15 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City 16 drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which 17 are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil 18 plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above_ 19 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 20 Department requirements. 21 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. 22 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground Any 23 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 24 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 25 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 26 PRELUVENARY PLAT-30 i' 1 29. As conditioned. I 2 1RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TY conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic 3 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley 4 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of 51 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 andlor land owner. The subdivider 6 shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to 7 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. 8 30. As conditioned. 9 RMC 4-7-210: 10 11 A.MON WHNTS.- i2 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each.and-every.conirolling.corner.of the subdivision.Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department.All surveys 13 shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. 14 B.SURVEY.- 15 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 16 C. STREET SIGNS. 17 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necesswy in the subdivision. 18 19 31. As conditioned 20 DECISION 21 The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described.in this decision is 22 consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above,subject to the following conditions: 23 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal 24 25 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have 26 minimum radius of fifteen feet(15). PRELIMINARY PLAT-31 1 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are 2 available,or provided with the subdivision development. 3 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the 4 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, 5 including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such ' installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material- 6 aterial6 Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the 7 Department of Public Works. 8 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by 9 Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or 10 alley improvements when such service connections are extended-to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit,pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore 11required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land 12 owner._The.applicant shallbe.responsible.-only_for.conduit.to-serve his..development-Canduit---. ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall 13 provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to 14 the City that it is properly installed. 15 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 16 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156"`Ave crossing for school children is 17 safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as 18 necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 19 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 20 150(G)if this is not already proposed. 21 10.The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated,dated May 19,2014. 22 11.The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of 23 the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 24 12.A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning 25 Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a I0-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract(Tract A). 26 PRELRVIINARY PLAT-32 - i 1 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to ! 2 recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of j Occupancy for the new single family residences. 3 14.An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the 4 trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement 5 should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection,however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the 6 stand of trees proposed to be retained Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. g 15.A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained,as determined by the City Arborist. 9 16.A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review 10 and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 11 17.The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat ---12 - ._ map-shall-be submitted-to-the-Current Planning Project-1Vlanager pri6i to recording oMe 13 final plat. 14 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer,and lining may also be required_ 15 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the 16 wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow 17 for export of native soil and import of structural fill. lg 20.The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities 19 for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be 20 submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City 21 Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 22 23 24 25 26 PRELEVE NARY PLAT-33 i 1 21.Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposaL 2 3 DATED this 13th day of August,2014. 4 5 Fba A t3trrthts` 6 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 7 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 8 9 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's 10 decision to be filed within fourteen(14)calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 11 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen___(1.4).-. X--ap-peal......period_.. shall- ...commence_-.upon---the_.....issuance-_-.of_---th 12 reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from 13 the City CIerk's Office,Renton City Hall-7h floor,(425)430-6510. 14 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-34 CrrOr REN ON July,30,2014 . i I City of Renton JUL 3 0 2014 City Clerk RECEIVED �-• 1055 S. Grady Way Cm CLERK'S OFFICE Renton,WA 98057 i City of Renton Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way j Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINERS DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(9) i Dear Mr. Examiner Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18,2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA14-000241). Standi Roger was a Party of Record prior to the close of the heating,he participated in the heating,and we jointly submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date,and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in light of the following- 1. ollowing1. Streets:We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified,and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately,we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17,and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affirmative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2)clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is made for services,including streets. Despite raising this issue in out earlier testimony,nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 acknowledged in your findings or decision.Further,RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard,because,as your record shows,NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity,and which this subdivision will impact Following are facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City,acknowledges that 156` Ave. SE/SE 142 PL intersection currently operates at a failing level—LOS level"F" b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection. c) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection d) The City acknowledges that it may need to impose left turn restrictions on the access road from the proposed development e) The City's concurrency test,which the proposed plat did pass,is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail(96,998 annual vehicle trips). f) The Examines acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow,and even contribute to,localized congestion. g) In response to concerns about congestion,the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156'Ave.SE/ SE 142 PL intersection,and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level—LOS level"C". h) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's adverse impact on the intersection,the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. ti) The City,has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9&on their Traffic Signal Priority List j) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (ITP#25)indicates that"on average,one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years k) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary,the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave.SE/SE 142nd PL intersection,absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact,the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement The developer did not object to this requirement Unfortunately,the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development,and there is nothing in the record,or your approval,to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development,there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our State Legislature in RCW 58.17.110. Relief Requested We respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner re-exammi e the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request,and take appropriate action to either deny,the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110,or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development-related traffic will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. Sinccrely, 11 aulsen son:�i Paulscn POA for Judy Al Paulscn . 6617SE 5"Place 31 Manama Panes Line Renton,NXIA 98059 Mazama,WA 98833 f I I 1 I i ...... ......... ---- - ----- Of on,or RENMON JUL 2 4 2014 RECEFVSD MY CLERICS OFFICE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge 10 Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION 11 Prelin�Plat and SEPA Appeal 12 "00241 13 14 SUMMARY 15 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family 16 residential lots on the east side of 156h Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143a Street An 17 appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance,("MDNS')issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat The 18 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. 19 The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City 20 Council- LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic 21 congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. 22 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's 23 transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of(1) the state's Growth 24 management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth, (2) 25 limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infirastructure, (3)adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for 26 the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELIMINARY PLAT-1 ------- ----- ........ --- ------ 1 improvement,the developer can only be made to pay for 20%of the improvement);and(4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits I development Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the 3 transportation funding priorities set by the City Council,unless,some proportionate share improvements 4 can be required of the applicant 5 In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well,but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money 6 has to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in six years,but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard,that is the 7 most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other 8 proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation,the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion 9 issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No.4(E) at page 12 of this decision. 10 11 TESTIMONY ............. 12 SEPA Appellant Testimony 13 Mr. Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development His only access to the RogerZP y 14 1 city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the 15 traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project Additionally, 16 he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments 17 regarding the project because ofthe city's failures at providing information. 18 Applicant Testimony 19 W. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. 20 The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic,the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not 21 negatively impact traffic. 22 Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraflEx- His firm prepared the 23 traffic analysis for the project The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The fast analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed 24 level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be 25 subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx to look at the two 26 site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter interseetion PRELMNARY PLAT-2 ------------- ........... I is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project The original study looked at the pm peak hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd 2 intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. TraffEx prepared an 3 addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area,the SE 51h Place and 156th Avenue intersection- Once again,the 4 levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables I and 2 of the addendum dated April 29,2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally,the pm peak hour is worse 5 than the am peak hour. After proj ect completion, the SE 5th.Place intersection will contume to operate at level of service C,the north-side access street will operate at level C,the south side access street will 6 operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of 7 approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed,thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20,2014 8 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m- and p.m. peak hours. The southbound 9 queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am,and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations 10 are all subject to how the signal is timed. The southside access road to the enclave road is 11 approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through �flie"iffRi6d'bit—arsecEo-Ek-ffie--project will add 7-- 12 hour. 13 Under cross-examination by Mr.Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak 14 analysis after receiving a letter from Mr.Paulson- In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating 15 conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the Pm peak hour. 16 Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that 17 the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak I analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. 18 Under cross examination by Mr.Paulson,Mr.Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both 19 1 queue time and opposing traffic. 20 Under redirect by Mr. Carson, 3& Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent 21 increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. 22 23 City Testimony 24 In regard to the procedural issues raised,Mr.Garmon Newsom,Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were 25 dented the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr.Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems 26 likely others would have as well- Additionally, Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELMNARY PLAT-3 ..... ....... . ......... 1 because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period 2 to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city 3 was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. 4 Till Ding; Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during 5 the SEPA comment period(Exhibit 2,attachment 21). .6 Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." 7 However, when staff reviewed the project,it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which 8 is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally,when reviewing the site,it was clear the pin peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pin there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III 9 Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips,she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil 10 Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal,there 11 are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pin peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold places'is not lugh�ias�onher-experFenc i some ac es (e as w 0 12 impacts The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the 13 area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd intersection,the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February,2014. 14 The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal,and two were met The two satisfied were the incoming volumes 15 and peak hour counts. The inter-section was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic 16 improvements' The need for the Signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February,2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward,the city would 17 still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June,2014(Exhibit 5)for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis,the city analyzed what level 18 of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently,the level of service for am is E. For pin,it is F. 19 Level of service F means there is lots of delay.With a traffic signal,the am level of service would be C 20 and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project She does not know the 21 likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development Renton bases its studies on a 2' 22 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 p=ent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall 23 1 being built close by. 24 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, M& Nair testified that in regard to the language of 25 "should,"if a site,will not have a significant impact,then neither an am or pm study would be required. 26 Under cross-examination by Mr.Paulson,Ms.Ding noted that one public comment was received PRELIN4INARY PLAT-4 . ............ ...... I after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation 2 included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However,the 3 mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the Project- 4 roject.4 Under cross-examination by Mr.Paulson,Ms.Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing 5 the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document bemuse it was outside of her Department 6 Under cross-examination by W. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's 7 guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New 8 Development" This document is-.Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more 9 1 trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a live percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline 10 and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review 11 is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold- If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant 7Eieff a Uffiee-p-m—=t—grFo-wth-actor nits analyses 12 13 Under redirect by Mr.Newsom,Ms.Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted 14 concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the 15 comment process. Ned, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the 16 review hearing. 17 Applicant Response 18 3&. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue,there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will 19 be improved once the traffic signal is built The project contributes very few tips to the problem areas. 20 Appellant Response 21 TS&. Paulson stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no 22 reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that"If comments 23 cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and 24 present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA detmnination.by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic 25 issue, Mr.Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th,there was nothing on the record to 26 ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELEVIINARY PLAT-5 .......... ----------- ...... W N4r. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an 2 optional SEPA review proem which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. 3 The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. 4 LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application 5 Staff Testimony 6 fill Ding,Renton Senior Planner,testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west 7 1 side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two 8 tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sqft to 12,566sqft. Tract A is for stormwater,and tract B is a 490sqft open space area. There was 9 a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sqft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new 10 subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional [extension to the southeast that tenrimates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south.. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a 12 gar-age. These stru6tE&i--vnTb-e--d�o3i6d: 17Se-ie--are-n-6-6iificar areas'6ni—the site. There are 303303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day 13 notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A 14 DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31 st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the 15 request, the city and applicant conducted additional*traffic studies. The applicant's review found that 16 the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was wan-anted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM 17 1 on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and 18 1 the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as 19 protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required 35 trees will be retained and the rest will 20 be replaced- Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project.project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed- The applicant submitted a 21 preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally,the applicant submitted a landscape plan- 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds;however,in 22 this case, the strips are only I Oft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot Staff recommends the 1 Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, 23 staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. 24 In regard to the curved road, M& Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are 25 policy,not code. 26 Applicant Testimony PRELD&NARY PLAT-6 I 1 . Maher Joudi stated that,in regard to the curvature of the roadway,the Renton Municipal Code 2 rewires certain tangent lengths,but does not require straight alignments The applicant can achieve the 3 necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal The independent studies found that current conditions 4 warrant a signal 5 Public Testimony 6 Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the 7 transportation system in the area He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will 8 intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection,this area would fail . concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because 9 it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. In a letter when King County 10 was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency 11 irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastmucture. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for _._.._-.--w-�en�elo meats must meet meter review standaazds is too lir —_ ---- ------. _.._._, 12 P Sr g'�h-because it is geazed towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave,thus Renton's standards 13 are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route,instead,it needs a balance 14 between moving traffic through the condor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be 15 addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 16 Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a 17 comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not 18 meet state transportation requirements(Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6-year Transportation Plan into the record(Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every 19 two years,and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th 20 created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal- The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and 21 made available to the public. 14e submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied(Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. 22 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd 23 Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 24 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses There is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. 25 She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem,and the city needs to consider other road improvements. 26 PRELEVIINARY PLAT-7 i I Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and 'Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to 2 planning and land use She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states I that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 3 142nd is not straight The sight lines are terrible. If you,are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the 4 access street The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The 5 analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections,however,an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern 6 boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis,the distance from the crosswalk 7 and proposed access site is approximately I I 9ft which is less than the standard of 125fL The entire corridor is in the 1-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as 8 a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The 9 proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use 10 the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making 11 improvements. The Comprehensive Plan falls to deal with the impacts of new development ... ........... 1.­2 In regard to stormwater, M& High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance 13 system- Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded dram fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system- It is unclear who will have 14 responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project In regard to landscaping,the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear 15 what will happen with the prof ect. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project Trees are 16 part of the character of Renton and its development To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced- The trees need to be protected from 17 accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for 18 -newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning stafE The city has failed to provide the arborist report,the tree retention plan,the landscaping 19 plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are 20 required,but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided- In regard to transportation,route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact 21 on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. 22 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, 23 there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 24 impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important m this particular instance.If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for 1-405 then this next intersection is also 25 a bypass route.A traffic light will be going in and bemuse people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light She estimated that over 2000 26 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELIMINARY PLAT-8 1 not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection.There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. 2 People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she 3 believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape Plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling 4 information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. 5 Staff Rebuttal i 6 7 Ms.Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping 8 around the storm water pond, the 15$ requirement is not actually in code, it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 108. In regard to the number of 9 reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the.process The required reports 10 are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to 11 removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3.downstream stormwater,it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To el esti ons regarding traffic im the cities concurren h— is a citywide ane 12 g P cY Po .cy - lysis.Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staffreport is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met,the project 13 is seen as concun'ent Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 14 15 Applicant Rebuttal 16 Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms.Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that 17 the proj ect should provide for existing public needs. 18 Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation 19 concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide,basis and collect traffic 20 impact fees on a citywide basis.This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through 21 legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis.With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with 22 SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this 23 during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse 24 impacts. With regard to plot conditions,I& Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even 25 though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent 26 Staff Response PRELIKII tARY PLAT-9 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, 2 Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the 3 institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determnia,­aon. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the 4 tl transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. H'igh's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to 5 make their conclusions. 6 EXIIIBITS 7 8 Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/attachments a-h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/attachments 1-33 9 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 Trafffix Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20,2014 10 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June,2014 11 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-201.9 6-year Transportation linprovement Plan,Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments __12Exhibit 8 Paulson Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr.Paulson 13 Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulson second request for reconsideration 14 Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulson7 s second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet 15 Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant 1 Exhibit 15 Utility Map 16 Exhibit 16 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment 17 Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments 18 Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger.Paulson 19 20 FINDINGS OF.FACT 21 Procedural: 22 1- AMlicant PNW Holdings,LLC. 23 2. H A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held 24 on June 24,2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant,Mr.Paulsen,was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant 25 daring the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1,2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 26 PRELIAGNARY PLAT-10 .......... I to reply. The record was also left open through June 27,2014 for the applicant to provide comment on 2 Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3 3. Project Description The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 88 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the cast side of 156'h Avenue SE between SE 139h Place 4 and SE 143d Street An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (IVIDNSI') issued' 5 under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA!')was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat- 6 The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet Access to all lots 7 would be provided along a new looped public road(Road A and Road B) off of 156'Avenue SE.A 8 dead end access is also provided,terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line.It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, 9 under a future application for development The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. 10 The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet A geotechnical report for 11 the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsuffice, conditions and 12 grounci-w-ate—r-."--lbe—�6te—is-=—ently—ocmpi-e'd-t�y--'it—.,uno-e y resid-en-c—e,­a&affie-d-g ge-,Inff associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be 13 demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 144. Adequacy of Enfi-astructurd'Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 15 mfiwtructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient specific infrastructure/services are 16 addressed as follows: 17 A- Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District#90. A water 18 availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156'`Avenue SE. 19 20 B. Police and Fire Protection- Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient 21 resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.Fire impact fees are applicable 22 at the rate of$47928 per single family unit This fee is paid at time of'building permit issuance. 23 24 C. Drainaue. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report(Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. 25 The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of 26 Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELDANARY PLAT-11 an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work 2 staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review, 3 The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas 4 maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of-these plans and 5 reports that the project could impact Kmg County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration 6 Standard, Forested Condition. TheProi ect is subject to basic water quality treatment and 7 Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions.A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed rates 8 for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The 9 1 engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest comer of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and 10 retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton 11 Amendments to the KCSWDNL A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the A-ppropriate-indiNidual-lot-flowcontrol-BNP-swiU-berequired tc)-heIR-mitigate-the---- - 12 new runoff created by this development The final drainage plan and drainage report must be 13 submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may 14 also be required. 15 D_ Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to 16 building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for 17 residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and 18. open space. 19 E. Streets. Congestion was a source of major concern ofpersons who attended the hearing. It 20 is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested- However, 21 what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis,the threshold for what serves as"adequate' 22 traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental 23 (SEPA) review is the LOS standard_ Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be 24 legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely 25 tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodategrowth;available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional 26 mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT-12 i 1 a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these 2 factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a 3 specific project review basis. 4 Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring 5 system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS requirements 6 and how it more typically works is necessary. 7 LOS standards for transportation facilities are required bythe Growth Management Act, 8 Chapter 36.70A("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards 9 for transportation facilities along with ordinances that"...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to 10 decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation 11 plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency _12 --ardinan in furtherance o �� ces'1)— fthzs-r-egrur host-crties-and-wines-adnpt-i-OS-far- ----------a specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF 13 scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as 14 minimum LOS for city or county intersections If a proposed development is projected to 15 decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1)make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS;(2)redesign 16 the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the 17 permit application. 18 The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for 19 a very localized assessment of congestion impacts.For example,in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections,no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would 20 lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A,B or C to and LOS of D,E or 21 F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then 22 imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency 23 ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. 24 Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no 25 A,B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead,Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single-occupant 26 vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELMNARY PLAT-13 Renton Comprehensive plan, Transportation Element p. M-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i-e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high occupant and transit 2 vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the 3 LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City,so long as 4 travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. 5 The City-wide focus of the LOS `'index" system makes it a more questionable measuring 6 tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other 7 jurisdictions. However, in the.absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the".A,B,C" 8 LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate 9 choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion- Although the 10 City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation 11 funding and planning priorities,those same issues directly affect project level review. In the -------absence�-of--Gty-planmng-or--funchng-&r-ectives--to-lower-sev-er-e-congestion-ma-pai-ftc-ular--- 12 area,in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard 15 for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or(B)the developer would be 14 required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. 16 The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's 17 concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion- City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the 18 proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex- 26. No one has disputed 19 this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City 20 concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by 21 the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact 22 23 It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most 24 jurisdictions. As quoted previously,the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes 25 "_the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally 26 by most jurisdictions— if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELP0.1NARY PLAT-14 ----------- 1 provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection 2 or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E,there can be no violation 3 of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an"A,B, C"LOS system using professionally recognized 4 standards to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of 5 the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staffreport,Ex-2. All LOS levels stay the same. 6 Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at 7 project level review,there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study,LOS "A,B,C" standards can 8 be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be,applied in an 9 objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156'Ave. SE/SE 142'Street intersection. 10However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share 11 contributions is very limited because state law requires that mitigation funds be expended —wi&in--&e-years--of-ree-eipt--See-R-C-�8" .)20.--T-his-means4ht-� e-r- g--------. 12 balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers 13 within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. 14 In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly 15 rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents,who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the-vicinity. The 16 applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was 17 more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex- 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, 18 which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised 19 about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and 20 approved by the City engineering department Project opponents presented no expert 21 testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. 22 23 One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156'Ave. SE/SE 1'42nd 24 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. 25 Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. 26 I The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calculate LOS. PRELRVIINARY PLAT-15 i 1 The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering 2 calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review 3 by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's 4 1conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any 5 queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. 6 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot,to accommodate required off street parking for a 7 minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 8 G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional 9 students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed 10 development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately.06 mile 11 from the project site at 156`h Avenue SE &SE 5`s Place. The proposed project includes the - - - instal-laiion-o€-frontage-- r-ovements-along-th"-56�l-Averme-SE-fr7entage;-i clnding— - ---= 12 sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156"Avenue SE north of the project 13 site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions(Exhibit 25).In addition,the 14 City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057(which is 15 being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future 16 subdivision application_ The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156 ' 17 Avenue SE at SE 56Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156`h Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns 18 raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further 19 staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. 20 A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate 21 the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at$6,392.00 per 22 single family residence. . 23 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal- Adequate public 24 facilities and drainage control are provided a&determined in Finding of Fact No.4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an 25 issue. 26 PRELUhUNARY PLAT- 16 ... 1 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation_ RMC 44-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development.When the required number of protected trees cannot 2 be retained,new trees,with a two-inch(21')caliper or greater,must be planted The replacement rate is 3 twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees,lawn,and landscaping associated with the existing single 4 family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report(Staff Report Exhibit 15),and 46 would be located 5 in.the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees.Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project 6 site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which 7 complies with the City ofRenton's Tree Retention requirements. 8 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 9 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the 10 proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 11 16,2014. Ex-29. This request was denied by the City on May 19,2014. Ex.3 0. However,as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a -- -----= 12 signal for the 15b Ave. SE/SE 142 Street intersection Mr Paulson then fil the sub}ect SEPA appeal on May 19,2014. Ex. 1.The appeal raised two issues: (1)the notice for the comment period on 13 the SEPA MDNS was confi,cing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of 14 thel56f Ave. SENSE 1424 Street intersection improvements. Mr.Paulson argued that-back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In 15 response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups 16 caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. 17 Conclusions of Law 18 19 IL Authori RMC 4-7-020(C)and 4-7-050(D)(5)provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner 20 authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals 21 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations The P�3'�subject property zoned Residential 4 dwelling J P is g 22 units per net acre(R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density 23 (RLD). 24 SEPA APPEAL 25 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two .reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts;or(2)the SEPA responsible official has 26 PRELD IINARY PLAT-17 i not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each 2 grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. 3 A- Probable Simificant Adverse Environmental Imp 4 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS 1 is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact See WAC 197-11- 5 1 330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impact- In the alternative, an EIS would be 6 required for the project In assessing the validity of a threshold determination,the determination made by 7 the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). 8 1 B. Adequate Environmental Re-view 9 The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 10 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably 11 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 12 An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a 13 showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie 14 showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA-"' Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State I Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn- App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community 15 Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn- App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several 16 occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental 17 impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn- App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example,the court recited the prima facie rule and 18 then applied it as follows: 19 The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The 20 environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered 21 extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, 22 1 and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project biforefinally approving it. 23 Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating 24 that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting 25 an EIS. 26 109 Wn.App.at 23-24. PRELIMINARY PLAT-18 1 WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be -be based upon information 2 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn.App. 555(2013). The 3 standard of review on adequacy,therefore,is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie 4 showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 5 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6,one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that 6 the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing,but Mr. 7 Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr.. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no 8 assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. 9 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- 10 Significance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "[c]ommentperiods for the project and proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page 11 of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing....by 12 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments... 13 Mr.Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period 14 on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the 15 application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confit sing in this regard- However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to"comments on the above application",not the 16 MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "Where will be no comment period 17 JbZIo-Kdng the issuance of the Threshold Determination ofXon-SignificanceMitigated(DNS M." At the very least; this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek 18 clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. 19 The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification,but whether it merits a new 20 threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulson does not have standing to 21 pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision 22 under appeal. h&.Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat 23 In point of fact Mr.Paulson submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22,2014,prior to 24 the issuance of the MDNS on March 31,2014. See Ex-A to Ex. 1. 25 5. Intersection As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No.6,Mr.Paulson asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in 26 the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELIMINARY PLAT-19 -- --------- I points to the proposed preliminary plat It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental 2 1 impacts. 3 On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon 4 information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied 5 in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions,and until the recently issued Spokane County case,supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site 6 specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative 7 amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site 8 was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination- 9 In this ca-se the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it adequately reviewed traffic impacts I prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex- 12, was prepared analyzing impacts 10 to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though I the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis 11 under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering 4departmen�The-advisor"otts-tcr-the�- � N-S-;-E&-H,—iden6fy-six-t-mTortation-issues--t-hat-wer-e- 12 assessed by City engineering staff. 13 All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" 14 showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It I should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will 15 create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted(hence the requirement that the City only make a"prima facie" 16 1 showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish 17 that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was"reasonably sufficient"to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a 18 single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that 19 level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson 20 presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the 21 SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit farther environmental review. 22 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental 23 impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts.. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the .24 SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex- 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by.a 25 26 PRELDvJENARY PLAT-20 1 qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by sigra ation of the 156"Ave. SE/SE 142nd 2 Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. 14r. Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT 4 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 5 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 6 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 7 I Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 8 2.Access:Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 9 3. Physical Characteristics:Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 10 because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may 11 be required as a condition ofapprova4 and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. ........... 12 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alloys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 13 14 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code,Finding 1(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in fill, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well.As 15 1 depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex-3,each proposed lot will directly access a public Road,Road I A- As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any 16 impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No.4, 17 the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.' 18 RMC 4-7-080(l)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 19 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 20 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 1(1)of the staff report,which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 21 'RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be 22 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 23 or street(according to City spec cations)to an existing street or highway. 24 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex-3,the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE,a public road. 25 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 26 City PRELUVIINARY PLAT-21 1 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the 2 administrative record. However,the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8'h Street,which is accommodated by a stub road- Consequently,the criterion above 3 is construed as satisfied by the proposaL 4 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed[sic]trail, 5 provisions shall be made for reservation of the tight-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 6 11. There is nothing in the record.to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 7 traiL 8 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat,subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance 9 with the following provisions: 10 LLand Unsuitable for Subdivision:Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 11 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such ........... 12 Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 13 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 14 a.Koodingll-nundation:If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must.have the approval of the State 15 according to chapter 86.16RCWbefore the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 16 such subdivision. 17 1 b. Steep Slopes:A plat,short plat,subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%)or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 18 050J1 a,without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 19 approved. 20 ... 21 3.Land Clearing and Tree Retention:Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 22 Clearing Regulations. 23 4.Streams: 24 1 a.Preservation:Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. 25 26 PRELRAINARY PLAT-.22 I b.Method.-If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which 2 indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overjlow area, and an attempt to minimie the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. 3 c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going 4 under streets. i I 5 d. Clean Water:Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris 6 and pollutants. 7 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute 8 to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding ofFact No.5. 9 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 10 Ifamily residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 11 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the of ectK—Df eyelnp meet up-an the Pziy n�' rznd--mcreadon servic leve v 77ip 12 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City.of Renton Parks Mitigation 13 Resolution. 14 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to budding permit issuance. 15 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street 16 ,stem that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Ojfzcial shall find that such exception shall 17 1 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as 18 defined and designated by the Department. 19 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex-3,the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S.is currently the only road connection possible for the project. 20 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 21 15. As conditioned- 22 onditioned22 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways,major or . 23 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 24 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave.S.is the only connection possible for the project. 25 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 26 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PRELEVIINARY PLAT-23 I alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty fivefect(125)are not desirable, but may be 2 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only afierprovision of all necessary safety measures. 3 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved 4 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 pre-dominant street pattern 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 of roads and pathways.Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design 10 Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. ----------- -1 1_3..&�cep 12 a. TTie grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid by reducing the number of linkages or the 13 alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: 14 L Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints, and/or 15 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 16 4. Connections:Prior to adoption of complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link 17 shall be required existing portions of the grid system shall be made.At a minimum,stub streets 18 within subdivisions to allowfuture connectivity. 19 15.Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for 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 of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall 21 evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible... 22 6.Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 23g Official where due 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing 24 to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 25 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposaL Alley access-is not 26 required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Demty land use designation- The internal roads are pRELB4INARY PLAT-24 I looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as 2 encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part 3 of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and 4 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 5 PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Administrator or his/her designee. 6 19. As proposed. 7 'RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot 8 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of afull-Ridth boundary street shall be 9 required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 10 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex- 3 to the Staff Report; the stub road extension extends for a 11 depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-170(A): 12 or_radz`aT_ to curved street lines. 13 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex.3,the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted 14 above 15 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road.Access may be by private 16 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 17 22. As previously determined,each lot has access to a public street 18 RMC 4-7-170.(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 19 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 20 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent wfth the then-current applicable maximum density 21 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22 23. As previously determined,the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, 23 which includes area,width and density. 24 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 25 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestern lots, which shall have a minimum width of 26 PRELD41NARY PLAT-25 ------------ .... . . I twenty feet(20)and(2) lots on a street Curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac(radial lots), which 2 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35). 3 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex-3,the requirement is satisfied- 4 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicatedpuhlic rights-of-way, except alloys, shall have minimum radius offtfteenfeet(15). 5 25. As conditioned. 6 7 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets.Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 8 adding attractiveness and value to the property. 9 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There 10 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. 11 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department _._Land-the­�-ming-Couno4leak-h-De-par-Pne-nl,--SG-nita-rj-s--we-rs-sJialI-be--pr-o-vid-ed-bj-1h,--dewleper-,at-no 12 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 13 eightfeet (8)into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, orprovided with the subdivision development. 14 15 126. As conditioned. 16 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all 1 surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural waterflow and shall he of 1.7 1 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be 18 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030,Drainage(Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas.Residential plats shall also include 19 detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed 20 to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 21' 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are 22 incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan 23 review,ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 24 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 25 Department requirements. 26 PRELMNARY PLAT-26 . ... ...... ...... 1 28, Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. 2 RMC 4-7-200(1)): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground.Any 3 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 4 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 5 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department 6 29. As conditioned. 7 8 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line 9 by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for 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 to 11 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 12 shat- e responsible- only for co!Rtu-i semis serve his &velb—pmenz. onduz ends s a e e oi final ground elevation and capped. The cable YY company shall provide maps and specifications to 113 3 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 14 14 30. As conditioned. 15 RMC 4-7-210: 16 A. MONUMENTS_ 17 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of 18 the subdivision.Interior monuments shall be located as detomined by the Department.All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. 19 20 B.SURVEY 21 URVEY- 21 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 22 C.STREET SIGNS.• 23 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 24 31. As conditioned. 25 26 PRELD&INARY PLAT-27 i 1 DECISION 2 The proposed preliminary plat as.depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is 3 consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 4 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Nfitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. 5 6 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet(15). . 8 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are 9 available, or provided with the subdivision development. 10 5 All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities 11 installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the ------ lantiug-of-trees—Those-utiht es-to�e-loci-beneath-paved-sur€aces-shat-be-installed 12 including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such 13 installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the 14 Department of Public Works. 15 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are 16 installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by 17 Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The 18 cost of trenching, conduit,pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore 19 required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner.The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit 20 ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to 21 the City that it is properly installed. 22 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat 23 approval- 24 pproval24 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156 ' Ave crossing for school children is 25 safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Stag'shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 26 PRELIlvIINARY PLAT-28 i i I 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary tum around as required by RMC 4-7- 2 I50(G)if this is not already proposed. i 3 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated,dated May 19,2014. 4 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal $ of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 6 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted.to and approved by the Current 7 Planning Project Manager prior to construction.permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped,visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract(Tract A). 8 9 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to 10 Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 11 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect 12 e trees av a e or retentron as etermm y e i o en n o e easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for 13 protection,however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based 14 on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat 15 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application 16 identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist 17 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for 18 review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 19 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the 20 final plat 21 18. Secondaryreview may be required for the pond with both structural en gineer and geotech 22 engineer,and lining may also be required 23 .19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during 24 the wetter winter or spring month,a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 25 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance 26 agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and PRELIIAINARY PLAT-29 responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development A draft of the 2 document(s) shall be submitted to Current Plan Project Manager,for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the 3 final plat 4 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. 5 6 DATED this 18th day of My,2014. 7 8 9 - 10 City of Renton'Jim,m--g'Examiner 11 12 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 13 RMC 4-8-110(E)(9)provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to 14 the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9)requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision 15 to be filed within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal 16 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information 17 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office,Renton City Hall—7th floor,(425)430-6510. 18 19 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 20 .21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-30 `r.r v, O, CITY OF RENTON J11�16& SEP 08 2014 m� � n -Uln CAR RECEIVED Govt mmHy Atliamce i4 keack buctilgage CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O.Box 2936 Renton,WA 98056 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Renton City Council City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 September 8, 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat- LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Council Members, I am attaching a copy of the comments we submitted during the Hearing for the subject project's Hearing for your easy reference. In general, we support Roger Paulson's appeal statement. He has done an outstanding job of capturing the traffic impacts that our entire community will endure from approval of this project as currently proposed. It is very painful to have to write these comments. Ultimately, there is little new to say that you haven't heard from our community for a decade. The PAA again will suffer for lack of planning for infrastructure and cohesive planning and design. We will continue to suffer from least-common-denominator syndrome. Enclave is merely one of several new developments in this corridor. More and more traffic will flow in this undersized and inadequate arterial of regional significance as an officially recognized 1405 Bypass Route. The developments in this corridor aren't even being required to dedicate the width of ROW to meet the Road standards for the for the class of arterial that is designated for 156th Ave SE, so there will never be sufficient space to retrofit the road to carry the actual impact. Renton's Transportation Concurrency Program, as applied in project makes it clear that, effectively, there is no mitigation for traffic impacts for subdivisions in the City of Renton. The only projects that would ever trigger mitigation under this program must 1)generate tens of thousands of trips during the afternoon peek commute, and 2)create gridlock throughout the entire city.limits. That is not a plan. But since Renton has an unchallenged Transportation Concurrency Program, there is no mechanism under which a SEPA appeal may be successfully brought. It's a particularly pernicious Catch-22 that guarantees that projects must be approved regardless of actual unmitigated lived conditions that communities are inflicted with. The community was briefly heartened that, after much public input, Renton Staff determined that the nearest(and most problematic) intersection of 156th Ave SE and SE 142nd PI was inadequate and placed the intersection in the #9 priority position on the Traffic Signal Priority List. But then we noticed that the Traffic Signal Priority List itself indicates that historically, only one intersection is improved every 2 years. Thus, we have no hope for improvements to address the impacts of this project(or the several others in the pipeline)for 18 years. Having staff propose, and the Hearing Examiner approve proportionate monetary contribution to this intersection improvement under the listing on the Traffic Signal Priority List is meaningless, given that developer mitigation funding must be returned after 6 years if the funds are not used for the mitigation purposes within 6 years. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 Once more, our community begs your careful consideration of the impacts you impose upon us. Despite years of calm and careful participation in official processes, despite uncounted requests for adequate planning and infrastructure investment to adequately provide for the inevitable development and new neighbors joining our community, here we are again. At the end of the last building cycle in 2008, we begged, pled and urged that adequate planning be implemented during the interim period in the usual boom and bust of the development business cycle. am personally devastated that my 5 year volunteer commitment on the Planning Commission failed to achieve much more than a requirement of minimal palette of exterior paint colors. Now we have developments of every color of mud! But the actual functional impacts that negatively affect the shared experience of the many thousands of our neighbors continues unabated. What a literal shame that there appears to be nothing that can or will be done. Please consider our pleas! Please return the Enclave project to staff with instructions to reconfigure the plat to minimize the traffic impacts in the 156th Ave SE corridor. Thank you, Gwendolyn Gwendolyn High CARE President CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 • ♦ s iLo nn CA C'ommuKiiy Allimce is keack buci 9. UAgage P.O.Box 2936 Renton,WA 98056 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examine City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 June 24, 2014 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat-LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Olbrechts, This copy of my notes is provided for easy reference in the record. We offer a few attached exhibits as well to which I will refer in my remarks. Thank you, Gwendolyn High CARE President Gwendolyn High will represent CARE in this matter. She is co-founder and President of CARE and has led CARE's previous participation in these comparable Land Use Actions in the community: Evendell Preliminary Plat and Rezone(KC DDES file No. L01P0016 and L01TY401) Liberty Grove Preliminary Plat and Rezone(KC DDES file No. L03P0006/1-03TY403) Liberty Grove Contiguous Preliminary Plat and Rezone(KC DDES file No. L03P0005/L03TY401) Nichols Place Preliminary Plat(KC DDES file No. L03P0015) Highlands Park Preliminary Plat(Renton LUA-05-124, PP, ECF) Threadgill Preliminary Plat(KC DDES file No. L05P0026) Heritage Preliminary Plat(KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Cavalla (KC DDES file No. L06P0001 and Renton LUA08-097) Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat(KC DDES file No. L04P0034 and Renton LUA08-093) Heritage(KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Saddlebrook(Renton LUA12-077) CARE has represented the needs and concerns of the East Plateau residents since 2001, as a group of concerned and likeminded neighbors. We incorporated and were recognized as a 501c4 nonprofit in 2003. We have an email list of over 400 households. CARE households own properties and reside in the community surrounding the proposed project. There is considerable potential for this community and the environment to be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is permitted without adequate conditions to mitigate increased traffic, light and stormwater. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 CARE's participation in this matter is in the public interest. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible land use decisions in this community consistent with state and local laws and regulations. We bring historical experience and familiarity with the existing conditions of our community as well as the detailed understanding of the potential negative impacts that must be adequately mitigated. Our intent is to facilitate the appropriately thorough consideration of the facts that bear on this proposal. This document is not a formal legal argument, but documents the concerns of the community and our requests for adequate mitigations to properly accommodate the impacts from the construction and eventual occupation of the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision (Enclave). GENERAL ERRORS: Staffs Report to the Hearing Examiner page 3: E 1.b. Sewer. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE" Contradicted on p.12 of same report. "E.1.c. Sun`ace/Storm Water. There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 156th Avenue SE to the north of the project." Pipe is to the south of the project and an open ditch is to the north. TRANSPORTATION: TraffEx TIA page 3: "156th Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions." This is a true statement, but it is insufficient to fully describe the situation. SE 142nd PL is not straight at this location and has terrible sight distance. When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 156th Ave SE, any vehicle waiting to turn either right or left from SE 142 PL onto 156th AVE SE will not be able to see. This will be particularly dangerous when vehicles is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project. The driver will be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of the stop sign and the southbound car, and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street. In a scenario with a southbound vehicle turning left into the project, the driver will be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation. If the tractor trailer truck that lives at parcel#5336700015 is parked where is usually is—the driver will see that truck and very little else. Please see the accompanying SightLinelllustration.pdf. TraffEx TIA page 4: A 3%per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period(for a total of 691o) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3%per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years." There is no citation to support these assumptions, we therefore ask that the following questions be answered and considered in evaluating the reliability of these unsupported assertions. • Where did this data come from and by what standard is it justified? • How have the pipeline projects being built and occupied now been accounted in the analysis?? • How have past and proposed cuts in transit service accounted in the analysis? • How have the effects of the improving economy, and the resulting increase in people commuting to work accounted in the analysis? • Did TraffEx regularly measure the traffic rates over"the last several years" in order to be have this data available for this TIA? ROAD STANDARDS: Report to Hearing Examiner page 10 under Streets section: "As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet" TraffEx TIA page 4 and on to 5: CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 "The south site access is located approximately 250ft north of the 156th Ave. SEISE 142nd Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard." The southbound stop sign and crosswalk for this intersection is located about at the center point of parcel# 5336700015 which is approximately 70 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Figure 2 of the TIA shows that the stormwater tract is proposed to be 95.24 feet wide and Lot 19 is proposed to be 94.59 feet. This yields a measure of 189.86 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site as the proposed location for the south access to 156th Ave SE. 189.86-70 yields a measure of 119.86 feet which fails to meet the intersection distance standard of 125 feet. Please see the accompanying 156thAveSElntersectionLocation.pdf. Therefore, we request that the street access as proposed be rejected. The original Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit_B_-_Traffic_Impact_Analysis.pdf) states (bottom of page 2)that 156th Ave. SE is a"minor arterial". Based on the traffic volumes Renton reported as a result of the citizen recommendation to investigate the need for signalization earlier this year(and which Roger Paulsen graphed)the road segment including this intersection should be classified as at least a minor arterial (12K Average Daily Trips). The table in the code indicates a need for 4 lanes and 91' of pavement to properly accommodate such such levels of use. If the project is permitted as proposed, there is no indication that sufficient right of way will be required to accommodate the eventually required upgrades-particularly considering this is officially designated as a bypass corridor in need of arterial improvements in the attached WADOT 1405 Corridor Plan (1405MasterPlan_052808.pdf). Report to Hearing Examiner Page 9 under Streets: "The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements." Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Public Services: No comment recorded from Fire Department re: cul-de-sac. There is no evidence in the Exhibits made available to the public that the cul-de-sac meets the specified standards. Therefore, we request that the street plan as proposed be rejected. Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Schools: `Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately.06 mile from the project site at 156th Avenue SE& SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide safe walking conditions(exhibit 25)... Continuing on Page 11: The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5m Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus. New sidewalk from this project will only extend less than halfway to SE 5th PL. The crosswalk sign is obscured by vegetation. Kids will walk along this arterial, in the dark and rain, in the shoulder ROW, and cross before the bus arrives in order to be there waiting when the bus arrives. Without a lighting plan the public has no way to evaluate what lighting improvements will be made. There should be some improvements to the crosswalk, such as the flashing lights in the pavement on the nearby Duvall Ave SE which is also and arterial on the same 1405 Corridor bypass route, to ensure students' safety under normal conditions during most of the school year. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: Carlos e-mail.pdf From:Nancy Thompson <Nthompson@rentonwa.gov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject:Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast To: "cmbayne@gmail.com"<cmbayne@gmaii.com> Cc: Chris Barnes<CBarnes@rentonwa.gov>, Ron Mar<Rmar(o-)-rentonwa.aov> CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic volumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. From the MEMORANDUM of 4/18/2014 from Neil Watts(PRR-14-085-Memo.doc): "Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat." 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program page 5-25 (TIP sheet.pdf): `listorically, on average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed every 2 years. It is our understanding that funds from the developer for the project's impact must be used for that purpose within 6 years or returned to the developer. Since the available evidence indicates the signalization cannot be expected within that time limitation, we must expect the mitigation funds to be forfeit and an even longer wait than the 18 years as a result of this loss of funds. This project should not be approved until a plan for the required intersection improvements are programmed—planned and funded. From 4/15/14 email from Steve Lee responding to Roger's Records Request(Public Records Req uest_1_Reply.pdf): "The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau(and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1- 405(which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SEto access Cemetery Road." These statements contradict everything we have ever heard since 2001. We have been assured by WA DOT, King County, and the City of Renton that there is no option to provide additional north-south access to the East Plateau from the Cedar River Valley. Additionally, while widening of 1405 might add capacity, we are not aware of any even preliminary plans for such activity. If such work has been done, please provide copies. If it does not exist, then this is irrelevant speculation and of no use in evaluation the impacts of this project or the appropriate mitigations/improvements for this corridor. What is not speculation is all the other development activity in the area. • The Enclave project at the 3 Way stop, Hearing on Tuesday, will add 31 houses. • Alpine Estates (Alpine Nursery) is in pre-app for 29 lots (which requires two access/exit roads. It lies between 160th Ave SE and 161st Ave SE). • The 4.5 acres on the west side of 156th at SE 6th (SE 139th Place) is in annexation (the plan is for 14 lots with a through street between 154th Ave SE to 156th Ave SE.) They tried to include the 5 acres on the west side of 154th in their annexation also, but could not get the required 60% signatures. • The Burnstead Co. is putting 14 homes, Maplewood Park East, on the parcel at 6101 NE 2ND ST(SE 132nd and 152nd Ave S). • The parcel at Nile(148th Ave SE) and NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd) is slated for 7 lots. • There is also an 8 lot parcel in pre-app on the east side of 160th Ave SE at SE 140th St. • There is 2 lot short plat at 156th Ave SE and SE136th St. • There are 46 homes planned for the Copperwood project which is slightly southwest of Maplewood Heights Elementary. The listed address for the project is 5001 SE 2nd Pl. The project sign is on SE 2nd PI just west of where it intersects 144th Ave SE • And there are 4 plats being actively developed at 210 Duvall Ave SE CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 31 +29 + 14 + 14 + 7 + 8 + 2 +46 +4=155 The Highway manual standard is to calculate 9.9 vehicle trips per day per house so: 155 x 9.9 = 1534.5 new trips per day. Most will travel some portion of the 156th Ave SE corridor, but each project will be considered independently. The cumulative impact will continue to accrue, and the infrastructure deficit will remain for decades. Virtually all of this traffic will traverse the corridor from the intersection of 154th Ave SE & SE142 PI (the first intersection at the top of the hill—Tom Carpenter has more detailed information, and there is an email from a neighbor at the end of this document)through the 156th Ave SE and SE 142nd PI all the way through the intersection of 156th Ave SE and SE 128th St. The proposed new connections to SE 156th Ave SE from this project are at the heart of this vital regional corridor. The travelshed is already over-burdened. We are in the midst of a new development surge. This quality of life in this community and safety of thousands of daily commuters in this corridor new, and it is the City of Renton's responsibility to provide infrastructure to meet the needs of the development it permits. STORMWATER/DRAINAG E: Report to Hearing Examiner page 11 under Public Services at the bottom of the page: "The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of the maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development" Despite the garbled sentence structure, it seems clear the intent is for the HOA to be responsible for maintenance of,the pond and stormwater system. It was our understanding that the code had changed and Renton was taking ownership of all new subdivision stormwater facilities now. ERC Report page 5: "According to the TIR(Exhibit 9)the upstream areas are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible." Even though this community is on a plateau and not in any flood plane, there are historical drainage complaints everywhere(Drainage Complaints). Even this project site itself has experienced flooding due to a plugged culvert as recently as 1997. The site is directly north of the major groundwater induced landslide in 2006 that blew out the side of the cliff above the Cedar River and filled several houses with mud and debris. The vast majority of development on this plateau occurred in the 1960s, well before the first King County Drainage Manual (the basis of Renton's stormwater regulations)were adopted in 1964. It will take many more decades to slowly address the systemic lack conveyance and water quality. The system that exists is poorly maintained and chronically undersized. Our homes exist is a state of fragile equilibrium. Every new development pushes the system CARE has the longest and most consistent participation in land use applications and project implementation in this area. In every single project we have participated in (see list above)we have won Level III drainage mitigations. Nonetheless, these measures have consistently proved insufficient. We have had to participate repeatedly when these mitigations have failed and neighbors downstream of those projects have suffered serious damages to their homes and properties (list drainage complaints and list properties affected by the different projects). Due to our highly compacted Alderwood soils, surface flows are intense to begin with. Since the major wave of development in the 1960s, existing homeowners have implemented site-specific mitigations to deal with this situation, but every time a new project is cleared, new measures have to be installed. Level III drainage mitigations should be required here, too. LANDSCAPING/TREE RETENTION: Report to Hearing Examiner page 6: Proposal to plant Heavenly Bamboo, which is an invasive species with berries poisonous to native birds and should not be used in a plat landscaping plan. http://www.ore-gonlive.com/hillsboro/index ssf/2013/12/heavenly bamboo the red berrie html (Heavenly bamboo .htm) CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 RCP Policy CDA 7 (page 7 of Report to Hearing Examiner) "Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density." But on page 8 of the Report to Hearing Examiner, staff say that installation of the required 15 foot landscaping buffer around the storm drainage pond could not be done because it would cause the loss of at least one lot, even though the project is proposed at 4.45 lots per acre when it is zoned at R-4. In the next paragraph, staff removes the specific requirement of trees in the on-site landscape strips along all frontages. Not only is there no justification for this, and it violates RCP Policy CDA 5. In repeated surveys of our community, the trees are the consistently reported as the defining characteristic of our community. We are already losing over 300 significant trees in this project. We ask that this exemption be disapproved for this project. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: To the condition requiring a tree protection easement under section J.5, please add a requirement for prominent and permanent signage announcing the protection of the trees in order to prevent accidental homeowner or HOA removal. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 MISSING DATA: This Hearing is the last opportunity for the public to participate and to ensure that adequate administratively and legally enforceable mitigations are required of and implemented with this project. Staff has allowed several documents essential for the surrounding impacted community to evaluate the effects of the proposed project to be prepared and submitted after this Hearing is concluded. This makes it impossible for meaningful community input on the following: 1. Report to Hearing Examiner page 8: City of Renton Arborists report promised 2. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Landscaping Plan 3. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Retention Plan 4. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Protection Easement 5. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Street lighting plan 6. Report to Hearing Examiner page 13: HOA maintenance agreement If items 1-4 are not required until application for construction permits, the trees will have already have been removed during the development/site preparation phase of the project and the issues becomes moot. The trees in our community have been consistently and enthusiastically identified in every single one of the land use actions CARE has participated in since 2001. Without item 5, the public cannot evaluate the adequacy of the protections for school children walking to the bus stop on 156th Ave SE or the potential impact to the privacy and enjoyment of their properties. Community members on SE 4th Place had a months' long challenge of emails and meetings with the City and Puget Sound Energy when new lighting meeting the new standards was installed just 2 streets away. The new lighting was a huge disruption, and we need to ensure the new development does not make sleep at night impossible. A statement from an affected neighbor is included at the end of this document. Renton has a responsibility under RCP Policy CD-15 to ensure that this project is"reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architechtural stypes, and/or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation,"etc. We understand that new development will be more dense and the housing styles will be different. Further, we appreciate to beginnings of plans for the tree easements. However, we have repeatedly heard lovely aspirational allusions to responsive development during past preliminary plat Hearings, only to see radically different realities built in our neighborhoods. Cavalla was supposed to save and replant giant specimen rhodies and japanese maples. That didn't happen. There was supposed to be no road in the 162"d Ave SE ROW, but the bulldozers plowed right through—stream and all. The only things we have a hope of actually seeing must be conditions by reference in the Hearing Examiner's report for this project. Given the intense concern about and established history of drainage issues resulting from development projects in the area, the community needs the opportunity to review the"maintenance and responsibility"for the "stormwater facilities"that the HOA will voluntarily take on to ensure adequate measures are in place to prevent off-site damage. We cannot do that without item 6. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:47:46-0700 Subject: Re: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda From: <deleted> To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com You can also add that nobody goes the speed limit up/down our hill. Ever. Well, unless it's crawling that is. -One neighbor requested "a light"outside of their home (date unknown and I believe the request was directly to PSE) -Nobody, including the requester, was notified before PSE installed 4 extra large cobra head led street lights (large roadway type)on our tiny cul-de-sac(7 houses deep)on 7/17/13 -Residents had light pollution/trespass everywhere; in backyards, bedrooms, etc. -City was notified with a list of the issues they caused on 7/22/13 - Didn't hear back from the city on the initial email sent until 7/26/13 (after emailing them again) - Petition emailed (with pies)on 7/30/13 with one signature missing due to him being gone on vacation -Completed petition hand delivered 8/5/13 along with a chat with Mr. Barnes at City Hall -The issues weren't resolved until 9/17/13 Summary; For two months, the residents on SE 4th Place had to deal with overly bright LED lights that were completely inappropriate to the neighborhood. This disrupted people's sleep, made yard use unpleasant and in some cases was a safety hazard(blinded while backing out of garages). Neighborhoods should have a choice/say in the types of lighting used and a study of existing neighborhood houses should be considered. Lighting should also be appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood with minimal light pollution to disrupt the natural world. Marsha Rollinger From: <deleted> To: high lands—neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:08:14-0700 Gwendolyn: I live at<deleted> 152 PL SE and regularly come up from the Maple Valley Highway to access my home. That involves a left turn at 154th Ave SE and SE 142 PL. It is a challenging enough intersection with limited sight visibility, no left turn lane, and long waits during commute hours. Under existing conditions, the traffic can back up already from the 3 way stop. Frustrated drivers finally decide to go for the left after long waits for breaks in traffic. Unfortunately, I've seen too many oncoming cars slam on their brakes because the left turner didn't really have a big enough break to pass through easily. The Enclave development will increase congestion at our left turn and make more drivers make a left turn into a too- small traffic opening. As the development increases in the East Highlands around Maplewood Heights Elementary, we are seeing an increasing number of people who are making that left turn to access their homes. The increased traffic from the Enclave and its odd street layout will complicate the 3 way stop traffic, increase the number of cars, and back that traffic problem back to our already dicey left turn. I realize that the Enclave development will go through even though I question the wisdom of having its two streets funnel out so close to the 3-way stop. Seems like it is almost making it into a 5-way intersection. But I doubt the County has the appetite to force the builder to change his site plan. For us left turners, a left turn lane would provide some welcome mitigation and straightening out the curve -even just a little-would give more visibility and help safety tremendously. Not sure you can do anything with this but thanks for trying. Kathy Johnson CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 �.✓ *Rao,, From: <deleted> To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: 1000+ new trips, Wild Babies, and Meeting Monday Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:39:25-0700 Gwendolyn, The 111 bus line which goes out to Lake Kathleen is scheduled to be truncated in September to not go east of 156th but rather to leave Maplewood and go directly up 156th st. This would only happen during the morning and afternoon commute hours as there is no service other times. That will be another major disruptive factor to the 156th st corridor. In addition to the bus traffic along 156th, there will be the bus commuters who will drive and try to park along the bus route to connect to the new stops. This will impact the residents along this path plus adding the congestion. An example of this type of"staging"for the bus line is in Kennydale where the entire area is parked up along the 111 route as it heads to the Park and Ride. It adds a lot of congestion at the worst time of the day for it. Not to mention making a number of us no longer have a commuter bus to downtown on weekdays. It also will affect the kids at Liberty who need the bus to get to the Running Start program at Bellevue College whereby they take college classes for both high school and college credits during their high school years. One of my points was that with the bus stopping all along 156th.....traffic would be disrupted greatly at the worst time of day at a point where many trips are being added. The parking mess is true all along the Kennydale section of the 111 with people driving to park at bus stops instead of the P&R. John Nanney <deleted> Alyssa Nanney <deleted> CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 NOW VanNess 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 CITY OF RENTON Seattle,WA 98104-1728 FeldmanLLP 206-623-9372 SEP 0 8 2014 vnf.com RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 8, 2014 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY AND EMAIL City Council City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Applicant's Response to Paulsen Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Dated July 18, 2014 Regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (File No. LUA-14-00024 1) Honorable Councilmembers: I submit this letter on behalf of PNW Holdings, LLC, the Applicant for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge ("Enclave" or the"Project"), a 31-lot single family residential subdivision. I urge you to deny the Paulsen Appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of this Project. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Your staff conducted a thorough review of this Project. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC) determined that the Project would have no significant environmental impacts and issued a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated(DNS-M). Exhibit 2, Attachment 17.1 The City staff recommended approval of the plat subject to several conditions. Ex. 2,p. 13. Mr. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration of the DNS-M. Ex. 2, Attachment 29. The ERC,upon reconsideration, reissued the DNS-M, adding one additional condition requiring the Applicant to contribute its fair share to a future traffic signal at the intersection of 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place. Ex. 2, Attachment 30. Mr. Paulsen appealed the reissued DNS-M to the Hearing Examiner. Ex. 11. The Hearing Examiner, after a full public hearing, and after giving Mr. Paulsen the opportunity to provide additional written testimony, denied the Paulsen SEPA Appeal and approved the Project. Hearing Examiner Final Decision, July 18, 2014. On July 30, 2014 Mr. Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration. On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner reaffirmed his decision to deny the Paulsen SEPA Appeal and to approve the Project. 1 References to"Exhibits"or"Ex."refer to one of the Exhibits listed on page 13 pf the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration dated August 13,2014(the"Decision"). Exhibit 2,the Staff Report,contains several attachments labeled as"Exhibits"in the Staff Report,but referred to as"Attachments" in the Decision and in this letter. 56812-4 Renton City Council - 2 - September 8, 2014 On August 27, 2014 Paulsen appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision to the City Council (the "Paulsen Appeal"). For the reasons set forth below, we ask the City Council to deny the Paulsen Appeal and to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision in this matter. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PAULSEN APPEAL The Paulsen Appeal should be denied and the Hearing Examiner's decision, approving the Project with conditions, should be affirmed for the following reasons: 1. The Project fully complies with all adopted City standards for subdivision approval set forth in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-7. These standards include: • RMC 4-7-080.B.4. The Project, as approved, includes "adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, [and] other public ways . . . " • RMC 4-7-120.A. The Project, as approved, includes a new street "connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway." • RMC 4-7-120.13. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "conform to . . . adopted plans for streets in the City." • RMC 4-7-150.A. The Project, as approved contains streets that"extend and create connections between existing streets . . ." • RMC 4-7-150.C. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials [have been] held to a minimum." • RMC 4-7-150.D. The Project, as approved, contains an alignment of all streets that have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. • RMC 4-7-150.E. The Project, as approved, includes linkages, including streets and sidewalks within and between neighborhoods. • RMC 4-7-150.F. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "All abutting rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Public Works Administrator." See Decision, pages 25-30. 2. The Project has been conditioned to meet all city street standards including, but not limited to, the following: 56812-4 Renton City Council - 3 - September 8, 2014 • The new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right-of-way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. • As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. The Project's access onto 156th Ave. SE is 250 feet north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. Ex. 12, page 4. If, in future, there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave. SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. • To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave. SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway, per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. • Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. See Exhibit 2, page 10. 3. The Project fully complies with the City's Level of Service (LOS) Standards, as adopted in the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and as codified in RMC 4-6-070. Decision, page 16; Ex. 2, Attachment 26. The City's adopted LOS standard is based on a city-wide time of travel model. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Policy T- 13, pages XI-15 through XI-17. The City does not regulate intersection LOS. Decision, page 17. 4. The intersection of 156th Ave. SE/SE 142"d Place, which is the focus of the Paulsen Appeal, currently operates at an intersection LOS F. Ex. 12, p. 6. Until a traffic signal is installed, the intersection will continue to operate at LOS F, with or without the Project. Id. While a LOS F indicates a congested intersection, no City standards preclude approval of a subdivision that adds trips to a LOS F intersection. Decision, page 17. 5. The Project adds only 9 trips to the 1,375 trips passing through the intersection at 156th Ave. SE/SE 142"d Place. Ex. 12, page 4. This 0.65% increase in trips is well below the 5% volume increase that even triggers an analysis of intersection traffic impacts under the City's Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Ex. 2, Attachment 29, ex. C. These 9 Project related trips will have no perceptible impact, causing less than 4 seconds of additional delay. Ex. 12, Page 6. 6. Although the intersection Level of Service at 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place is LOS F, this intersection is not a high accident location. Since 2009 there has only been one accident 56812-4 Renton City Council - 4 - September 8, 2014 at this intersection. Ex. 2, Attachment 30. There is no evidence of any hazardous condition from this Project adding 9 trips to this intersection. 7. To mitigate its traffic impacts, the Project will pay the City a Traffic Impact Fee at the time of building permit application. The current traffic impact fee is $1,430.72 per new lot. Ex. 2, Attachment 18. 8. Additionally, the Project will contribute its "proportionate share"to the cost of a future traffic signal at the 156`h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. Ex. 30, 9. Federal and state constitutional limitations preclude any City from imposing conditions on a development when there is no nexus or reasonable relationship between impacts from the development and the proposed condition and where the proposed condition is not roughly proportional to impacts caused by the development.2 Here, where the 156`h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place intersection is already at LOS F, where the project will only add 9 trips to an intersection with 1,375 trips, and where the Project causes no impacts to safety, the City cannot require the Project to install a traffic signal at this intersection. The Hearing Examiner properly conditioned the Project to pay its proportionate share of the cost of a traffic signal at this intersection. 10. The public interest is served by this subdivision. The Project will provide additional housing in full compliance with the designation of the property as Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the zoning of the property as R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre). The Project is consistent with the policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted to promote the public interest (See RMC 4-1-060.5.c). Although the Paulsen Appeal seeks Project denial because an express "public interest" finding was not made by the Hearing Examiner per RCW 58.17.110(2)(b), this finding is clearly inferred by the Project's full compliance with the City's detailed procedures for subdivision, set forth in RMC 4-7-080, which were expressly established "to comply with the provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW." Nonetheless, we ask the City Council, based upon the existing record, to supplement the Hearing Examiner's findings and add a specific finding that the Project as designed and conditioned serves the public use and interest. APPLICANT'S DETAILED RESPONSE TO PAULSEN APPEAL The Paulsen Appeal focuses on concerns about the operation of the intersection at 156`h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place. While these concerns may be heart-felt, the Paulsen Appeal must be denied because the Project fully complies with all applicable City requirements and because the arguments raised by Paulsen are without merit, both factually and legally. The Project Complies with Renton's Subdivision Code and, as a result, satisfies State Subdivision Requirements in Chapter 58.17 RCW 2 See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391, 114 S.Ct.2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304(1994);Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141,97 L,Ed.2d 677(1987);Benchmark Land Company v. Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999)Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505,516-17(1998). 56812-4 Renton City Council - 5 - September 8, 2014 One of the fundamental misunderstandings in the Paulsen Appeal is the relationship between the state subdivision statute, Chapter 58.17 RCW, and Renton's subdivision code. Paulsen seeks denial of the Project because of an alleged failure to demonstrate compliance with specific provisions in RCW 58.17.110. Renton, however, has adopted its own provisions for the review of subdivisions in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-7. These code provisions were adopted specifically to comply with the state subdivision statute: E. State Enabling Legislation As It Applies to This Chapter This Chapter is in conformance with chapter 58.17 RCW regulating platting, subdivision, adjusting lot lines, and the dedication of land .... . RMC 4-7-010.E. Compliance with state subdivision law is also restated in the opening paragraph of RMC 4-7-080: A. Purpose.- The urpose:The procedures regulating subdivisions, including .segregations of ten (10) or more lots, are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots, avoiding placing undue burdens on the subdivider and to comply with provisions of chapter 58.17. The Applicant for Enclave followed each of the applicable provisions of the City's subdivision regulations in RMC Chapter 4-7. The Staff, in considering this application, reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with each of the applicable provisions of city code. See Ex. 2. Likewise, when the Hearing Examiner reviewed the Project, he applied the criteria adopted by the City Council for the review of subdivisions. See Decision, page 24-31. The Paulsen Appeal appears to be challenging the adequacy of the City Code, not the adequacy of the Enclave subdivision in complying with City Code. Paulsens' challenge is misplaced and untimely. Moreover, the specific sections of state law cited by Paulsen have been incorporated into City Code, applied to the Project, and appropriate findings and conclusions made, demonstrating that the Project meets these provisions. The Paulsen Appeal cites RCW 58.17.110(2) as one statutory subsection that has allegedly been forgotten by the City. However, Paulsen fails to recognize that Renton's adopted code includes these substantive requirements. RCW 58.17.110(2) reads: (2)A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a)Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops,potable water supplies, sanitary wastes,parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including 5681?-4 Renton City Council - 6 - September 8, 2014 sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and(b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. The Renton subdivision code at RMC 4-7-010 B states: The purpose of this Chapter is to provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City, and for administrative procedures for adjustments of lot lines in the City, ensuring that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City shall be promoted and protected, that orderly growth, development, and the conservation,protection and proper use of land shall be ensured; that proper provisions for all public facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that the site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set forth in the City Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan shall be insured. Additionally, the Renton subdivision code at RMC 4-7-08.13 reads: A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2.Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics, A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage:Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. By reviewing the Project under these subdivision code provisions, and finding that the Enclave plat satisfied each of these requirements, the Hearing Examiner confirmed that the requirements of state subdivision law have been met. The Proiect Fully Complies with Renton's Adopted Level of Service Standard,which is based on City-Wide time of travel, not Intersection Congestion Paulsen misunderstands the City's adopted Level of Service Standard and its relationship to the review and approval of this plat. The Growth Management Act (GMA) at RCW 36.70A.070(6) mandates that all cities required to plan must adopt a Comprehensive Plan that includes a Transportation Element. The Transportation Element must identify Levels of Service Standards that the City will apply to all locally owned arterials to judge performance of the City's transportation system. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B). After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, cities must adopt and 56812-4 Renton City Council - 7 - September 8, 2014 enforce ordinances that prohibit development approval if the development causes the Level of Service to decline below the Level of Service Standard adopted in the Transportation Element of the comprehensive plan, unless improvements are planned or financially guaranteed to meet those Level of Service standards. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). In establishing Level of Service standards within the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element, cities must address their transportation facilities and service needs, identify specific actions for bringing their facilities into compliance with adopted level of service standards and assess their financial needs to accomplish that objective and identify a financing planning strategy. In full compliance with GMA, Renton adopted its Comprehensive Plan, including the mandated Transportation Element. With regard to a Level of Service Standard, the City decided not to adopt an intersection-based standard. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan established a Level of Service policy that emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. It is based on travel time standards. (An excerpt of this section of the Comprehensive Plan is attached to this letter as Appendix A). The Level of Service Standard adopted in the Comprehensive Plan rejected the typical intersection Level of Service approach that the Paulsen Appeal suggests should have be applied. Instead, the adopted Level of Standard is based on travel time and is measured by a traffic model implemented by City staff. See Appendix A. Under the City's adopted Level of Service Standard, every development that creates additional demand on the City's transportation facilities must be reviewed under the City's Traffic Model to determine if the City's transportation system has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and maintain the travel time objectives established by that Standard. RMC 4-6-070. In this case, the Project applied for and was found to pass the City's adopted Traffic Concurrency Level of Service standards. Ex. 2, Attachment 26. Renton does not have an intersection Level of Service standard. There is no provision in the City's subdivision standards or in any other regulation that prohibits a subdivision or any other development from generating trips that flow through an intersection that has an intersection LOS F. While the Paulsen appeal may bemoan this fact, the Hearing Examiner properly applied the adopted Level of Service Standard and all other applicable subdivision standards and correctly approved the Enclave subdivision because it satisfied these adopted standards. The Enclave Project meets all of the applicable provisions in RMC 4-7, which establish the minimum street standards for plats. These include: • RMC 4-7-080.13.4, The Project, as approved, includes "adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, [and] other public ways . . . " • RMC 4-7-120.A. The Project, as approved, includes a new street "connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway." • RMC 4-7-120.13. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "conform to . . . adopted plans for streets in the City." 56812-4 Renton City Council - 8 - September 8, 2014 • RMC 4-7-150.A. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "extend and create connections between existing streets ..." • RMC 4-7-150.C. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials [have been] held to a minimum." • RMC 4-7-150.D. The Project, as approved, contains an alignment of all streets that have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. • RMC 4-7-150.E. The Project, as approved, includes linkages, including streets and sidewalks within and between neighborhoods. • RMC 4-7-150.F. The Project, as approved, has been designed so that "All abutting rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Public Works Administrator." See Decision, pages 25-30. The Enclave Project has been conditioned to address specific code compliance including the following: • The new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. • As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. The Project's access onto 156th Ave. SE is 250 feet north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. If in future there are significant concerns rearding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 1561 Ave. SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. • To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave. SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. • Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. See Exhibit 2, page 10. 56812-4 Renton City Council - 9 - September 8, 2014 The Unrefuted Traffic Analyses Prepared for the Project Confirmed that the Enclave Plat Will Have Minimal Impacts. City staff has adopted a document entitled "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development"that it applies during SEPA review to assess the significance of traffic impacts from development. These Policy Guidelines ask developers to review project impacts on all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of a proposed development. Ex. 2, Attachment 29, ex. C. With regard to the Enclave Project, the Applicant retained an expert traffic engineering firm, TraffEX, to evaluate project impacts. TraffEX found that no roadways or intersections would experience a 5%peak hour traffic increase caused by the Project. Ex. 2, Attachment 10. Thus, under the Policy Guidelines, no intersection review was necessary. Nonetheless, the Applicant voluntarily provided traffic analyses to demonstrate that the Project would have minimal impacts. TraffEX produced three separate Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports. The first TIA (Ex. 2, Attachment 10) demonstrated that the Project would not change the Level of Service at any intersection. At the intersection of 156t" Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place, the TIA found that the intersection currently operates at an intersection LOS F and will continue to operate at an intersection LOS F in the future with or without the project. The TIA further demonstrated that the Project would add only 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through that intersection. Because this is only 0.65% of the total trips, substantially less that the Policy Guidelines' 5%threshold. TraffEx concluded that the Project would have no significant impact. For southbound traffic (the worst travel movement), vehicles are expected to experience 133.2 seconds of delay without the Project and 137.1 seconds with the Project, a nearly imperceptible 3.9 second change. The first TIA also verified that the Project's roadway intersection was 250 feet from the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place intersection, in full compliance with the City's minimum 125 feet separation standard. In response to questions, TraffEx produced an Addendum to the TIA in April 2014. Ex. 1, Attachment D. The Addendum added an AM Peak Hour evaluation and a queuing analysis. In the AM condition, the intersection of 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place was found to operate at LOS F with or without the Project, with the Project adding only 1.1 seconds of delay. At the intersection of SE 5" PI/156th Ave. SE, the next intersection to the north of the Project, the calculated level of service with or without the Project was LOS C. In April 2014, based on Mr. Paulsen's requested reconsideration of the City's DNS-M, the City evaluated whether the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place intersection met traffic signal warrants. Based on that assessment, the City reissued the DNS-M, imposing on the Project an additional condition to pay a"fair share" contribution toward a future traffic signal, based upon the relative number of trips from the Project to this intersection. Ex. 2, Attachment 30. In response to this condition, TraffEX produced a Second Addenda to its TIA evaluating the effect of a traffic signal. Ex. 4. TraffEX found that the signal, when installed, would improve the intersection level of service from F to B in both the AM and PM peak hours and would significantly reduce the southbound queue on SE 156th Street. No adverse impacts from the traffic signal were identified. 56812-4 Renton City Council �..r - 10 - September 8, 2014 The three TIA's were subject to review by the City's Engineering Department who voiced no objections to their methodology or conclusions. Decision, page 19. Neither Mr. Paulsen nor any member of the public provided any engineering analyses or other traffic studies to address the adequacy of roads, traffic impacts or compliance with City road standards. Id. As such, the conclusions from the Applicant's traffic studies were properly taken, as verified, and supported the determination that the Project met the City's adopted street standards. Id. These traffic studies confirmed that the Project will have a minimal impact on traffic operations and that the Project has been designed for compliance with adopted City traffic standards. There is simply no basis for Paulsen to claim that the Project fails to meet adopted City standards. The Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact Support the Conclusion that there are Adequate Provisions for Streets to Serve the Proiect Paulsen's' argument that the Findings of Fact do not support the finding of adequate streets is ludicrous. Finding of Fact 4 expressly found that "the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services ...". Decision, page 14. Concerning streets, subsection E in Finding of Fact 4 presents four pages of detailed explanation on the adequacy of streets based on the City's adopted code provisions. Decision, pages 16-19. Of particular note are the Hearing Examiner's findings with regard to the City's city-wide Level of Service Standard. Id. The Hearing Examiner went to considerable length to address Renton's unique Level of Service standards and how these standards are applied in reviewing proposed developments in Renton. He specifically contrasts Renton's city-wide Level of Service standards with those in other jurisdictions that may allow for a localized assessment of Level of Service at specific intersections. "[T]he [Renton] City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion." Id., page 17. The Examiner also notes that City staff conducted an analysis and concluded that the proposal meets the City's adopted Level of Service standard. Because no one disputed this determination, the Examiner found no evidence to contradict it. Id. page 19. Because the Project meets the City's Level of Service standard, the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the Project. The Hearing Examiner's Findings Demonstrate that the Public Interest is Serviced by Approval of the Enclave Plat The Paulsen Appeal suggests that the Hearing Examiner's decision must be reversed because the decision is missing reference to RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) and a specific finding that the public interest would be served by the Project. This argument is without merit and should be rejected by the City Council. As noted earlier, the City's subdivision code was adopted by the City Council to comply with the state subdivision law Chapter 58.17 RCW. The Hearing Examiner found the Enclave Project to be in full compliance with the provisions of the City's subdivision code. As such, the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW have been met. 56812-4 Renton City Council - 11 - September 8, 2014 ''rrlrr `�.✓r Moreover, the Hearing Examiner's Decision demonstrates that the public interest is served by approval of the plat. The Examiner found that the Project is in compliance with the zoning code (Finding I(2) of the staff report was adopted by reference (see Decision, page 25)), in conformance with the general purposes and adopted standards of the Comprehensive Plan (Finding I(1) of the staff report was adopted by reference (Id)), and in compliance with the specific provisions of the City's subdivision regulations. Id. pages 25-31. To suggest that the City Council must reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision because the specific words "in the public interest" are missing from the decision is absurd. Nonetheless, we request that the City Council, based upon the record, supplement the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and include the following additional Finding of Fact: The public use and interest will be served by the platting of this subdivision. The subdivision will provide housing opportunities to the City consistent with the Project site's designation of Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's underlying R-4 (Residential 4 swelling units per acre) zoning designation. Moreover, the Project is consistent with the policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, which were adopted, in part, to promote the public interest (See RMC 4-1-060.5.c). The Project is compatible with existing surrounding uses, which are also single-family residences and designated R-4 on the City's zoning maps and King County maps. The Hearing Examiner Decision is Based on the Factual Record and Applicable Law, Not Opinion. The City Council can easily reject the argument in the Paulsen Appeal that claims the Hearing Examiner's Decision is based on opinion not fact. The Hearing Examiner went to great length to summarize all of the testimony and voluminous exhibits that support his decision. His decision presents multiple Findings of Fact and incorporates many of the Findings of Fact identified in the staff report. The Hearing Examiner should be commended for trying to explain to Mr. Paulsen, in response to Mr. Paulson's Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's initial decision, the background behind the City Council's choice in adopting a city-wide Level of Service standard and the legal limitations established thereby. While much of this discussion may have been unnecessary, it was obviously presented to help Mr. Paulsen understand the policy choice made by the City Council in its adopted Level of Service standard and the consequences of that decision. Unfortunately, Mr. Paulsen confuses the Hearing Examiner's helpful attempt at explanation as being pure opinion. That was clearly not the Hearing Examiner's intent. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner was careful to fully support his Decision with strong factual findings based upon a detailed factual record. 56812-4 Renton City Council - 12 - September 8, 2014 .r NWOO The Hearing Examiner Correctly Noted that Constitutional Limitations Preclude the Citv from Conditioning the Project on Installation of the Traffic Signal The Paulsen Appeal questions the Hearing Examiner's legal response to Paulsen's suggestion that the City require the Enclave Project to pay for the entire traffic signal, rather than only its "proportionate share." The Hearing Examiner got this right—Paulsen does not. Rulings by the United States Supreme Court and the Washington Courts make it clear that cities are legally constrained in imposing conditions on a development where such conditions result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. When government imposes an exaction on a land development, the government must show an "essential nexus" between a"legitimate state interest," and the condition imposed. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987). Further, to satisfy the Fifth Amendment, the government must establish that its proposed condition is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public problem. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994). See also Benchmark Land Company v. Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999) (City failed to establish essential nexus between its requiring developer to make half-street improvement and alleged traffic problems); Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998) (City failed to demonstrate rough proportionality between problems created by short plat and the required road improvements). In addition to these cases, two state laws constrain a city's imposition of mitigation conditions. First, under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), mitigation measures can only be imposed to mitigate specific adverse impacts and those mitigation conditions must be "reasonable." RCW 43.21c.060. The reasonableness of mitigation conditions has also been addressed by the legislature in RCW 82.02.020, which prohibits cities from imposing any condition on a plat that is not"reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development." The Washington courts have ruled that the same nexus and rough proportionality requirements under federal constitutional case law apply to mitigation measures under RCW 82.02.020. City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17 (2011). The Hearing Examiner correctly noted in his response to Paulsen's reconsideration request, that the City was constrained by this body of law to impose only a"fair share" contribution by the Enclave development for a future traffic signal. The Hearing Examiner also correctly noted that precluding development until a signal was installed could amount to an illegal moratorium. The Examiner correctly cites to Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'I Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal takings law does apply when a government action deprives an owner of all economically valuable use and that a moratorium lasting more than one year could be adjudged an unconstitutional taking of property. Based on this legal precedent, the Hearing Examiner properly observed that denial of the Enclave plat until a traffic signal is installed is not only unsupportable by the facts, but could subject the City to the serious consequences of a takings lawsuit. This statement shows no bias, as suggested by Mr. Paulsen, but rather the Hearing Examiner's proper understanding of the law. 56812-4 Renton City Council - 13 - September 8, 2014 Now ^*✓ The Hearing Examiner's decision, which approves the plat and affirms a fair share contribution by the Project to a traffic signal, is supported by the record and all applicable law. CONCLUSION The Enclave Project meets all of the City's subdivision requirements and fully complies with the City's adopted Level of Service Standard. The City staff thoroughly reviewed this application and recommended its approval. The Environmental Review Committee found no significant environmental impacts and imposed conditions to mitigate impacts reasonably related to the Project. The Hearing Examiner carefully considered all testimony and the voluminous record and produced a thorough Decision supported by detailed Findings of Fact. For the reasons presented above, the Paulsen Appeal should be denied and the Hearing Examiner's Decision affirmed. Very truly yours, VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP Brent Carson BC:jes Enclosures cc: Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk Client Appellant 56812-4 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Amended 09/19/11 Excerp' from Renton Comprehensive Plan and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability. Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined using letter designations --A, B, C, D, E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. Renton's LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non- motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally-linked, locally-oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit elements of the LOS standard are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi- modal goals of Renton and the region. Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections, and it provides a multi-modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi-modal travel. The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following: XI-15 Amended 09/19/11 • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and HOV travel times for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intra-Renton travel time to regional system, and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (index) using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system, including State-owned facilities; and • Selecting a plan that maintains the established LOS standard. Other elements of the LOS implementation process include: • Monitoring the area to re-validate transportation plans; • Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; and • Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). Level Of Service Standard A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30- minute travel distance for SOV, HOV, and Transit as follows: 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* * Rounded As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle (SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle (HOV-carpool, vanpool) could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002) is then weighted by doubling it (to 6.8 miles)to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger-carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard, presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995, was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-2010)transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and examining the raw data, the 2002 LOS index was found to be 42. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: i) reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints (e.g. passage of Initiative 695); ii) limited implementation of XI-16 Amended 09/19/11 Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990—2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. With the 2002 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard 15* miles 17* miles 10* miles 42 * Rounded This standard will require that the travel time of SOV (15) + HOV(17) + 2 T(10) or the sum of these three modes (42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years. The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub-Elements that are designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development. To test against the LOS standard, the 2022 planned Arterial, HOV, and Transit improvements identified later in this Transportation Element are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traffic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV, HOV, and Transit* modes along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments of known distance) including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42. *Other factors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access time. Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton's LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995. LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) (i.e. 1-5, 1-405, SR 167) have been adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). For urban areas the adopted LOS standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways (non- HSS) in the Central Puget Sound region (i.e. SR-900, SR-169,SR-515) were adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 30, 2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges from LOS E/mitigated (pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E)to the traditional LOS D. (Further information on LOS standards for HSS and non-HSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton's modeling estimates of Renton's projected growth, and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities. These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton's city-wide travel-time based LOS standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Renton's Transportation Element has identified xi-v Amended 09/19/11 °*r° "rd, SOV, HOV, and transit-oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway system. Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi-modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7. The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit Plan and HOV improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of Service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2022. XI-1s Sandi Weir From: Julia Medzegian Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 201412:28 PM To: Sandi Weir Subject: FW: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Attachments: 154th-156th Arterial Corridor 2014-08-31 RCC Written.pdf,ATT00001.htm From: Marcie Palmer Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:26 PM To: Julia Medzegian Subject: Fwd: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From:Tom<TDCarp@comcast.net> Date:September 6, 2014 at 9:08:43 AM PDT To:<mpalmer@rentonwa.Rov> Subject: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Marcie, I'm not sure whether the Planning and Development Committee or the Transportation/Aviation Committee will get the appeal. The good news is your on both so you get be the contact. I'm a party of record,and the attached adds no new data to the official record,other than describing my support regarding the Appellant's submittal. I'd appreciate it if you'd make sure this got into the official channel for the appeal. Thanks Tom Carpenter 1 5 September 2014 Renton City Council re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Ruling and Reconsideration regarding the Enclave at Bridal Ridge development preliminary plat LUA14-000241 The Renton Hearing Examiner ruling on the Enclave at Bridal Ridge preliminary plat was appealed for reconsideration. The reconsideration decision is being appealed to the Renton City Council. I'm a Party of Record for the Enclave at Bridal Ridge development preliminary plat Hearing Examiner decisions and rulings. This letter summarizes my original submittals. These are the unmodified items submitted originally to the Hearing Examiner's first preliminary plat meeting that were accepted as part of the official record. Date Type Description 24-Feb-14 Letter Tom Carpenter to Renton Hearing Examiner; The proposed Enclave development along 156th Ave SE 18-Dec-13 Letter Jennifer Henning(Renton)to Josh Peters (King County); Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 10-Dec-12 Resolution City of Renton,Washington Resolution No.4165; Request to King County for an Interlocal Agreement regarding Renton Potential Annexation Areas. Flyer WA State Department of Transportation Interstate 405 Corridor Program Congestion Relief& Bus Rapid Transit Projects 22-May-14 Letter Chip Vincent(Renton)to Roger Paulsen; Enclave at Bridal Ridge Preliminary Plat/LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Map King County(Failing)Travel Shed 12 with Transportation Needs 23-Jun-14 Map Transportation Road Corridors 18-May-14 Map 154th PI SE/156th Ave SE Arterial 3-Jun-14 Map 154th PI/156th Ave Corridor Arterial The submittals focused on: • The holistic corridor context(i.e. crossing jurisdictional boundaries) of the Enclave development, and • The intent of the City of Renton's relationship with King County for Transportation Concurrency and joint planning relevant to the Enclave development area. The Holistic Corridor Context • The Enclave development is within feet of unincorporated King County, and is adjacent to an arterial that crosses in and out of King County and Renton jurisdictions multiple times over it 1.8 mile length. • The corridor's entire length is within, or immediately adjacent to, Renton or one of its PAAs. • The corridor is part of the Interstate 405 Congestion Relief& Bus Rapid Transit Projects, and is an alternate route for 1405 from SR167 to the Factoria interchange. • All the unincorporated urban area, and the neighboring rural King County areas are in an area failing King County Transportation Concurrency. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139 ' Place, Renton, WA 98059 1 • The three-way intersection in question for the appeal, 1) intersects two Renton road segments and one King County road segment, 2) is within the Renton jurisdiction, 3) is functioning, in at least one direction, at Level of Service "F", and 4) is immediately adjacent to an unincorporated area failing King County Transportation Concurrency. • King County Transportation Needs Report identifies issues along the corridor, and on roads the arterial corridor connects to on the East Renton Plateau. • The Enclave development would not have been issued a Transportation Certificate if the property were still in King County. • Renton does not appear to have any policies or codes that are based on recognition of the holistic arterial corridor context. Renton's Intent for Joint Planning and Transportation Concurrency • Through Resolution and input to the King County Transportation Plan update, Renton has made its intentions clear regarding joint planning for PAAs, and for Transportation Concurrency coordination. • "Should consider areas within and outside its jurisdictional boundaries when applying the concurrency test" • "Requests that King County establish Level of Service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary" • "This will provide the ability to understand and evaluate the true impact and movement of vehicles on our road infrastructure. This will in turn give clear information on which impact fees and mitigation can be based." • Requests King County work with Renton staff to develop an interlocal agreement regarding Renton's PAAs. • Testimony and comments to the King County Hearing Examiner • Comprehensive planning and pre-zoning • Transportation, including concurrency, level of service, and high incident accident areas • Transfer Development Rights • Renton appears to have made no meaningful progress with King County on either the ILA or concurrency. I stand in general support for the appellant I support the appellant's stand on adequate mitigation for the 3-way intersection. I supporf the appellant's stand on the question of Renton's ability to provide the mitigation within the 6-years required by RCW. I do not support any assumption that the appropriate mitigation for the 3-way intersection is a stop light. That proposal was developed without the benefit of a holistic plan for the arterial corridor, and based only on the guidelines used by the Renton Transportation Utility department. Given the 1.8 mile arterial corridor is part of the 1405 Program, and functions as a significant traffic connector(the only north route off SR-167 between Cedar Grove Road and 1405), a holistic-based analysis could determine a stop light was not the appropriate mitigation. What's needed is a comprehensive plan (e.g. connector, safety, local access, multi-modal), with no firm mitigation decisions or further development permitting allowed until that plan is developed and approved. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139"' Place, Renton, WA 98059 2 August 27, 2014 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 27th day of August, 2014, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Roger Paulsen of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (File No. LUA-14-000241). N l [;;�, Jas A. Seth, ing City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 27th day of August, 2014. THIA R ���ii ssIo,ye+, 0.� fo OT 9 < Cy R. M0a � - m s cn = • - Hs S Notary Public ifi and for the State of ��''.,, e4�sL\° 2 Washington, residing in Renton ��i� � G�� My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 11,111 ��WASH\N`N.-`- Denis Law Go( 0 Mayor ,� City Clerk -Bonnie d.Walton August 27, 2014 APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Paulsen&Jason Paulsen(POA for Judith Paulsen) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038 156tr'Ave SE(File No. LUA-14-000241) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances,written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on Enclave at Bridle Ridge land use application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten(10)days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional,letters is 5:00 pm, Monday, September 8, 2014. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-650.1 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent`Council meeting. Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425-430-6504. Sincerely, tee k ity Clerk Enclosures cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way• Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-6510 L Fax(425)430-6516• rent onwa.gov "*Moe City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110—Appeals 4-8-110C4 Filing of Appeal and Fee:The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-11OF: 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) S. Burden:The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria:The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an applicationsubmitted 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) CITY OF,REttTO� l t � PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNChwe AUG 2 6 2014 OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION NAME 64/c C/rVL CITY E( `bC FILENOL ' The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated--Qh c/ 17"1/& I. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY ` ad r.2 Jrao rrw !w'IG S APP NameEc'• l�• f/LSFx� Name: S� Addre s: �7 SF ✓Til✓ �G Address: 3li�IAW ,P/ .s �• �a R"400 444 M53 Phone Number- Phone Number: .'c27 -ffr- r1co Email: 6' iC �1LlGS,FItI�° CS.(,plf�! Email: X /I sojo avGSteltle I. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets,if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: �tr',IcuF 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) .Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: C Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: -*MVC6.J Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other-: ��6rt / A�IGS� d G�?►�� 4pjepresentative S bgnature _ TypelPrinted Name Date NOTE: PIease refer to Title IV,Chapter S,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-11 OF.for specific appeal procedures. CC, i�� (,(j4*7-,,..44L, CJS Cltir VIA'Qllvt✓, 6 _ Gi T Y OF RENTOr� ,7 u•►u r*,V-4,43,cep August 25, 2014 Wim. � Vc-lb:'e—, a-ev ,5 we. , rrep AUG 2 f 2014 Z,,'' i " City of Renton ; jvLivan , CZIp RECEIVED Cit Clerk CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Y Phot Glt�frcf+t'S� f�EX 1055 S. Grady Way Tfu 01CED Renton, WA 98057 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Standin;; As the record shows, we have attempted to utilize each of the City's provided appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council, and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via SE 5th Place adjacent to the proposed plat (See Exhibit A),we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at-large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and (b).The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of"'appropriate provision"with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. 1 Lastly, we fin d that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal Argurnents In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D) to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit C),the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Level of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for "appropriate provision" (RCW 58.17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 16, Lines 8-9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting "...Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18)The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that"Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project-specific traffic,impacts, we disagree with his finding that Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact,the record shows clearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre-application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its clear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review (Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review (Exhibit F) after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that "The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A,B,C" system used in most other jurisdictions." We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads: "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact,the City's own policy governing site-specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 156th/142nd intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site-specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level-- LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that "...it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PL./ 156th Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit 1) d) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit J) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. (Exhibit B) f) In response to concerns about congestion,the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level-LOS level "C". (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection,the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9th on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) 3 i) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP# 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact,the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately,the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement.is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval,to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development,there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat,the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11-13). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13th Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18: In this section, the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. B. Page 3, Lines 15-18:The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat, it would be in the position of"...compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development, as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of a project-specific application establishes a de-facto moratorium, nor that it entitles an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 Amendment. In fact,the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property-specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17)the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'1 Planning Agency,535 US 302(2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de-facto moratorium and runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counter to the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL,INC.,et aL v.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No.oo-i:67.Argued January 7,2002--Decided April 23,2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development.The interest in informed decisionmaking counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim measures as takings regardless of the planners'good faith,the landowners'reasonable expectations, or the moratorium's actual impact on property values.The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether." Further, a careful reading of Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'/Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the opposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. In further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate, please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL,INC.,et aL v.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No.oo-1167.Argued January 7,2002--Decided April 23,2002 "For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use,we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings context to regulatory takings claims.Land-use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way--often in completely unanticipated ways.Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford." 5 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning, including project-specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argument under the Fifth Amendment. c. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner, explaining why the denial of this project is not an option, concludes "It is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact, we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCW 58.17 was adopted, and has been amended over time,to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.110(1a&b) and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent of the state legislature,they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme, the Hearing Examiner's basis for approving this subdivision would.suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. D. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section,the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law,the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. 6 E. Page 4, Lines 25—26: In this section the Hearing Examiner states that"Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay,there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required by their growth plans, its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact,this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that;it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use planning of municipalities, shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.70A.020(12) which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Act: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Conclusion Given the record before you, and as supported by our arguments above,we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development-related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 Since�clzt, :1 sen -on TNI Paulsen,P A for Judith 1\4 Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place 31 IvIazama Pines Lane Renton, XKN 98059 Mazama,WA 98833 Exhibits from the public record (included by reference): Exhibit A Neighborhood Detail 11Iap from Paulsen Comment Letter(24 Jun 2014) Exhibit B Original Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (18 Jul 2014) Exhibit C Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Decision (30 Jul 2014) Exhibit D Final Decision on Reconsideration (13 Aug 2014) Exhibit E Response to Request for Reconsideration of SEPA Determination (16 Apr 2014) Exhibit F Revised SEIIA Dctein ination (19 May 2014) Exhibit G Report to die Hearing Examiner(24 Jun 2014) Exhibit H Cite of Renton 2014-2019 Si_x-Year Transportation Improvement Program Exhibit I Traffic linpact Analysis—2"'Addendum (20 Jun 2014) Exhibit J Traffic Concurrency°'fest for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (18 Apr 2014) Exhibit K Memo from C. Barnes to R.Nfar(5 May 2014) Exhibit L SEPA Threshold Deternunation (31 Mar 2014) Exhibit RI City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development 8 David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 5"PI. 6512 SE 5" PI. Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. Roger Paulsen Marsha Rollinger 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 6617 SE 5th PI. 6618 SE 4th PI. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Peter& Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 P.O. Box 2936 Renton,WA 98056 Gary&Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166 th PI SE 6220 SE 2nd PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulsen Eloise Stachowiak 14004156 th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98833 Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell Tom Carpenter nd 15006 SE 139th pl. M.A. Huniu 15451 SE 142 PI. 6608 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 PHW Attorneys: Brent Karst: brc@vnf.com mol@vnf.com CITY OF^ rcENTOP,1 _'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCI u U G 26 2014 OF HEARING EXA MINER'S DECISION/RECOM ,fENDATION RECEIVED C CITV�YKJ�F I E APPLICATIONNAME C�G t/rJ/E /IT jQIOG�J GdG'C' FII.E NO �� The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner,dated C[ 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY �� P.W' XVJOIT/f Pw!/GSbt) APPE Name: fic/45R) Name: c�/tl 41,S Address: 7 SF S'T/1✓ ISG Address: 31 NVAIN d AZA)CS ZA1- 3 Phone N ber. yL '���'r 3� Phone Number. 5(2f- 7 Qr— V62 Email: Email: oy& .U�2t ?. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets,if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief. (Attach explanation, if desired) .Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief.- Modify elief:Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: A �epresentative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title N,Chapter S,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-5-11 OF.for specific appeal procedures. Cltii lfiv►e�e+1.�, c _ CITY OF RENTON :�GnrUt1�ult�, ,Ce'D August 25, 2014 1��tticss� Velbee-, &eD w ,5.tc„e.I-ecl C= AUG 26 2 014 i,j-Y P City of Renton ryU► -1Gip RECEIVE[ CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk Qh;'{ ll�rc�i►t�; 1055 S. Grady Way ffiU a, D Renton, WA 98057 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Standing As the record shows, we have attempted to utilize each of the City's provided appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council, and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via SE 5th Place adjacent to the proposed plat (See Exhibit A), we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at-large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and (b). The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of"appropriate provision"with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b)that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. 1 Lastly, we fin d that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal Argurnents In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D)to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit C),the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Level of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for "appropriate provision" (RCW 58.17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 16, Lines 8-9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting "...Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18)The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that "Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project-specific traffic impacts, we disagree with his finding that Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact,the record shows clearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre-application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its clear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review (Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review (Exhibit F) after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that "The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A,B,C" system used in most other jurisdictions." We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads: "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact,the City's own policy governing site-specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 156th/142nd intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site-specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level--- LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that "...it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PL./ 156th Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit 1) d) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit J) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. (Exhibit B) f) In response to concerns about congestion,the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level—LOS level "C". (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection,the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9th on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) 3 i) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP#25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact,the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development,there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat,the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11- 13). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13th Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18: In this section,the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. B. Page 3, Lines 15-18:The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat, it would be in the position of"...compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development, as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of a project-specific application establishes a de-facto moratorium, nor that it entitles an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 Amendment. In fact,the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property-specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17)the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 US 302(2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de-facto moratorium and runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counter to the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL,INC.,et ah v.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No.oo-i167.Argued January 7,2002--Decided April 23,2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development.The interest in informed decisionmaking counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim measures as takings regardless of the planners'good faith,the landowners'reasonable expectations,or the moratorium's actual impact on property values.The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether." Further, a careful reading of Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'(Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the opposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. In further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate, please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL,INC.,et al.v.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No.oo-1167.Argued January 7,2002--Decided April 23,2002 "For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use,we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings context to regulatory takings claims.Land-use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way--often in completely unanticipated ways.Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford." 5 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning, including project-specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argument under the Fifth Amendment. c. Page 3, Lines 15-18:The Hearing Examiner, explaining why the denial of this project is not an option, concludes "It is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact, we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCW 58.17 was adopted, and has been amended over time, to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.110(1a&b) and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent of the state legislature, they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme, the Hearing Examiner's basis for approving this subdivision would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. D. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section, the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law, the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. 6 E. Page 4, Lines 25—26: In this section the Hearing Examiner states that "Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required by their growth plans, its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact, this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use planning of municipalities, shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.70A.020(12) which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Act: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Conclusion Given the record before you, and as supported by our arguments above,we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development-related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 Sincerjy, :.1lsen -on NI PaUIsen,P _1 for Z/judith 1\1 Paulsen 6617 SL 5th Place 31 Mazama Pines Lane Renton, SVA 98059 1�lazama,WA 98833 Exhibits from the public record (included by reference): Exhibit A Neighborhood Detail \rap from Paulsen Con-unent Letter (24 Jun 2014) Exhibit B Original Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminmi, Plat (18 Jul 2014) Exhibit C Request for Reconsidcration of Hearing Exatniner's Decision (30 )ul 2014) Exhibit D Final Decision on Reconsidcration (13 Aug 2014) Exhibit 1- Response to Request for Reconsideration of SERA Determination (1 G Apr 2014) Exhibit F Revised S *PA Determination (19 '1a\�2014) Exhibit G Report to the Hearing Isxaniiner (24 Jun 2014) Exhibit H City of Renton 2014-2019 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Exhibit I Traffic Impact Analysis—2"" Addendum (20 fun 2014) Exhibit j Traffic Concurrence'fest for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (18 Apr 2014) Exhibit K Memo From C. Barnes to R. liar(5 Nlay 2014) Exhibit L SEPA Threshold Deternunation (31 Alar 2014) Exhibit M Cit}, of Renton Police Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development 8 M N v� rz Ly Q n 0 i � w r w c N UQ � .y00 ,� o UU � aC4 C5 � 'L+ 'U c�n cn U Eu w z ¢ City Clerk's Office Distribution List ~ A ; Appeal to Council, Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA-14-000241 Date:8/27/2014 1 City Attorney Larry Warren 1 City Council * Julia Medzegian 7 Community and Economic Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Development Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Mgr Jill Ding, Planner Steve Lee, Development Engineering Mgr Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division 1 Fire Marshall 1 Fire & Emergency Services Mark Peterson 9 Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties of Record (see attached list) 1 Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman 1 PW/Transportation Services Doug Jacobson 1 PW/Utilities &Tech Services Lys Hornsby 1 i LUA-14-000241 • *City Clerk's Letter& POR List only \� i i �f .\ �� \ 1 \ Denis Law Cl Of �Y Mayor 0 r0AKTNT � City Clerk -Bonnie LWalton August 14, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC _ 9675 SE 26th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Final.Decision on Reconsideration for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14;000241 Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration dated August 13, 2014, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information :please feel free to contact me or Jill Ding, the Senior Planner at (425)430-6598: pnegly, V. ity Clerk Enc.: HEX Final Decision on Reconsideration cc: Hearing Examiner Jill.Ding,Senior Planner - Jennifer Henning,Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee,,Current Planning Manager Steve Lee,Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell,Building Official Sabrina Mirante,Development Services Garmon Newson,Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren,City Attorney - Ed Prince,City Councilmember Julia Mediegian,City Council Liaison Parties of Record(17) " 1,055 South Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-6510/'Fax(425)4 30-6516 rentonwa:gov Ea Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend alongline to i ® I Use AveeTemplate 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop- p EdgeTM AVERY@ 51600 1 David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 5th PI. 6512 SE 5th PI. Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. Roger Paulson Marsha Rollinger 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 6617 SE 5th PI. 6618 SE 4th PI. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Peter& Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Gary&Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166th PI SE 6220 SE 2nd PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 14004156th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell Tom Carpenter nd 15006 SE 139th pl. M.A. Huniu 15451 SE 142 PI. 6608 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 PHW Attorneys: Brent Karst: brc@vnf.com mol@vnf.com 9tiquettes faciles a peler ; A Repliez h la hachure afin de; www.avery.com ; Ufiilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160® charrgement reviler le rebord Pop-UpT'" 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 wV Iftwoo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ) 10 Preliminary Plat ) FINAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION 11 ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal ) 12 LUA14-000241 ) 13 ) 14 SUMMARY 15 16 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single- family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143rd 17 Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the 18 preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. This decision includes a response to a Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger and Judy 19 Paulsen on July 30, 2014. Other than correcting some minor grammatical and typographical errors 20 and adding some clarifications, the original July 18, 2014 remains the same except for the added section entitled"Reconsideration Response",which follows this"Summary"section. 21 The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion,but the 22 contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic 23 congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted 24 LOS. 25 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the 26 City's transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1 I only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of(1) the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of 2 population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation 3 infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create(e.g. if a project contributes to 20% 4 of the traffic for a needed traffic improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and(4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing 5 an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the 6 applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, 7 unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. 8 In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of the project opponents, 9 this money has to be expended in five years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that 10 those monies will not be expended in five years,but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record do not reveal 11 any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is determinative on the issue of assessing 12 congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) of this decision. 13 14 RECONSIDERATION REQUEST 15 As previously noted, Roger and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014. The request is denied and this decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this 16 "Reconsideration Request" section. 17 Mr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideration. His concerns have already been 18 addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only be evident to an experienced planner or land use attorney. The general public has every right to be fully apprised in as clear terms 19 as possible why cities and counties are often stuck with approving new development in areas that suffer from traffic congestion. Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request provides an opportunity to 20 provide further clarity on the issue. 21 Mr. Paulsen's first point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17.110(2)prohibits the approval 22 of a subdivision unless a city or county makes a finding that "appropriate" provision is made for "...streets, roads, alleys, other public ways..." This finding was made in three places in the Enclave 23 decision. Finding of Fact No. 4 generally determines that the proposal is served by "adequate" infrastructure. The subsections of Finding of Fact No. 4 elaborate how this determination was made 24 for specific types of infrastructure. Finding of Fact No. 4(E) elaborates how this fording was made for roads. Conclusion of Law No. 7 concludes that the proposal provides for adequate public facilities in 25 response to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), which requires that subdivisions "[m]ake adequate provision for .... 26 streets, alleys, other public ways..." PRELIMINARY PLAT-2 I It could be argued that a finding of "adequate" public facilities is not the same as a fording of "appropriate" public facilities as required by RCW 58.17.110(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate such 2 parsimonious word play. "Adequate" within the City's regulatory standards for subdivision review 3 clearly encompasses the "appropriate" criterion of RCW 58.17.110(2). The intent of the City Council is paramount in interpreting the regulations adopted by it. It can be presumed that the City Council 4 intends to have its regulations interpreted in a manner that is consistent with state law. The RMC only requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW 5 58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(l)(1). Consequently,to the extent possible,the subdivision criteria of the RMC should be interpreted as encompassing RCW 58.17.110 requirements in order to ensure that a 6 subdivision that is required to be approved under the RMC is also valid under state law. It is fairly 7 easy to apply this interpretation to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), since the language pertaining to roads in that provision is almost a direct quote from RCW 58.17.110(2). The City Council clearly intended RMC 4- 8 7-080(B)(4) to encompass the road findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2). Conclusion of Law No. 7 of the Enclave decision fmds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met, so the required finding of 9 RCW 58.17.110(2)has also been made'. 10 The remaining part of Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156 11 Ave SE/SE 142nd PI intersection and the limitations of the mitigation recommended by City staff. The original Enclave decision expressly acknowledged these problems and explained that the preliminary 12 plat application still had to be approved because the proposal met adopted City level of service standards. The decision noted that fiscal and legal constraints prevent the City from imposing any 13 additional mitigation or deny the project on the basis of traffic congestion. Additional explanation will 14 be provided in this section in response to Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request. 15 In short, Mr. Paulsen wants a finding that the proposal will not be served by "appropriate" streets because the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd PI intersection operates at LOS F. As shall be explained, this puts 16 the City in the position of either having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably doesn't have or denying the subdivision request and compensating the applicant for taking its property 17 without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is unlikely that the state legislature 18 intended cities and counties to be put in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110. A far more reasonable approach and the approach that would likely be adopted by the courts is to construe a road 19 as "appropriate" for purposes of RCW 58.17.100(2) if that road meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As partially discussed in the original final decision of this case, an adopted City LOS 20 standard represents the road system that the City can afford to require. Requiring more than the adopted LOS likely exceeds the financial capabilities of the City, which cannot be ignored because the 21 City is required to fill in the funding gaps that it cannot require to be filled by developers. In this case, 22 the road system meets the City's LOS,which is why roads were determined to be adequate. 23 The reason why the consequences of the interpretation advocated by Mr. Paulsen are so dire is because of the strict rulings of state and federal courts in the application of the takings clause of the Fifth 24 Amendment, i.e. government cannot take property without just compensation. There are two 25 1 The references to"adequate"in this decision will also be modified to include"appropriate"to remove any doubt 26 on the issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 3 New, 1 significant limitations imposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make "growth pay for growth". The first limitation is proportionality. The courts consider it to be an 2 unconstitutional takings if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that 3 exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17(1998). For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant 4 can only be made to pay for 10% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd PI 5 intersection. 6 So with only a proportionate share contribution from the applicant to pay for the intersection, the City 7 only has two options on how to proceed with the Enclave application if it cannot find the intersection "appropriate" at its current LOS, as advocated by Mr. Paulsen: (1) the City can pay for the remaining 8 costs of the intersection improvements itself, or(2) it can deny the preliminary plat application. 9 As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its long term transportation planning and 10 simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid denying a preliminary plat application. Of course, such haphazard and random fiscal planning would 11 likely not result in a very efficient expenditure of public funds. The LOS standards required to be adopted by the Growth Management Act ("GMA") were designed to avoid this randomized form of 12 fiscal planning. The GMA requires cities to adopt an LOS and then put together a 6 year specific and 20 year general budget that identifies where the City will get the funds to finance the LOS it has 13 adopted. By requiring cities and counties to pencil out the numbers for financing an LOS standard, the 14 GMA essentially places cities and counties in the position of only adopting LOS standards they can afford. That is why an LOS standard serves as a realistic and effective standard for measuring whether 15 a road is"appropriate"to serve a proposed subdivision. 16 The second course of action, denial, implicates the second obstacle placed upon cities and counties by the takings clause. The US Supreme Court considers it to be an unconstitutional takings to impose 17 development moratoria of unreasonable length. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l 18 Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or two will be difficult to justify. As noted in Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request, the City's funding 19 Priorities for the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd PI intersection suggest that needed improvements won't be constructed for 18 years. Consequently, if the Enclave application is denied because of the 156 Ave 20 SE/SE 142nd PI intersection, the City is essentially placing an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to that intersection. The applicant would be in a very good 21 position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium. - 22 In understanding the use of LOS to gage the adequacy of roads for subdivision review, there is on 23 additional point that helps put the Renton LOS into the proper context. Although the Renton LOS standard is somewhat unique in that it doesn't adopt the more traditional"ABCDEF" system of review, 24 the Renton system isn't at all unique in having an LOS system that designates some congested areas as adequate or appropriate. Cities such as Seattle that have the letter system adopt an LOS of F for 25 portions of their transportation system. Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to 26 only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street PRELIMINARY PLAT- 4 I segment above a failing level of service. So even if Renton had adopted a letter system for its LOS, Renton could still assign an LOS of F to the intersections in the Enclave area if it determined that its 2 limited transportation funds were more effectively spent elsewhere in the city. 3 Hopefully the explanation above provides some additional clarity as to why an adopted LOS standard 4 is the best tool for assessing whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a development for purposes of subdivision review. Enforcing the type of standard contemplated by Mr. Paulsen would place the City 5 in the impossible position of having to commit funds it doesn't have to upgrading all failing intersections for new development beyond the applicants' proportionate share, or paying the applicants 6 millions of dollars in taking claims. The LOS standard is the culmination of some very difficult and 7 detailed policy choices made by the City Council on where to spend limited public funds to improve its transportation system. It is the only2 practical and reasonable way to address congestion in a manner g that recognizes that there is a limit to how much money is available to address the problem. 9 TESTIMONY 10 11 SEPA Appellant Testimony 12 Mr. Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the 13 city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concem to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has 14 continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was 15 misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to 16 provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. 17 Applicant Testimony 18 Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the 19 traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and 20 how it will not negatively impact traffic. 21 Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraffEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, 22 2 One other potential option that hasn't been addressed due to space limitations is to reduce the density of the 23 proposed subdivision. The R4 designation does not have a minimum density requirement. However, the GMA requires cities to accommodate assigned 20 year population projections and a city's zoning designations are 24 designed to accommodate these numbers. Further,the GMA requires residential development within cities to occur at "urban" densities which at a minimum is usually four dwelling units per acre. Routinely requiring reduced 25 densities to reduce traffic impacts would arguably violate these GMA principals. Further, in this case the intersection at issue is already operating at LOS F so that from the standpoint of"appropriate" roads it makes no 26 substantial difference if the subdivision has a density of one unit per acre as opposed to four units per acre. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 5 1..r 1 I attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has 2 defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those 3 that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx 4 to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original 5 study looked at the pm peak-hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new 6 project. TraffEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak 7 hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. g This information is in tables l and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th 9 Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north-side access street will 10 operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 11 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TrafEEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new 12 conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly 13 reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 14 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. The south side access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft. which is north of the 15 stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project 16 will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. 17 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am 18 peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulsen. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst 19 operating conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. 20 Mr. Paulsen stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am 21 peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. 22 Under cross examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers 23 both queue time and opposing traffic. 24 Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very 25 rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. 26 City Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT- 6 1 In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City 2 Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record 3 and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulsen was able to understand the 4 process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise this issue because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative 5 DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. 6 The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment 7 period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. g Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter during the SEPA comment period(Exhibit 2, attachment 21). 9 10 Rohini Nair,Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." 11 However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm 12 peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For 13 projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil 14 Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak 15 hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In 16 some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd 17 intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if 18 traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a 19 signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the 20 signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal 21 installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 22 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not 23 back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and 24 the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know 25 the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on 26 existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, PRELIMINARY PLAT- 7 tirrr `vase 1 specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development 2 such as a mall being built close-by. 3 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be 4 1 required. 5 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not 6 deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The 7 SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to 8 be installed as part of the project. 9 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable 10 addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. 11 Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the 12 city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when 13 reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more 14 trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a 15 guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet 16 the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any 17 analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 18 Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and 19 noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The 20 response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, 21 and location of the review hearing. 22 Applicant Response 23 Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that 24 traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the 25 problem areas. 26 Appellant Response PRELIMINARY PLAT- 8 I Mr. Paulsen stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the 2 assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If 3 comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their 4 right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulsen's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the 5 inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was 6 nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. 7 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one 8 period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. 9 LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application 10 Staff Testimony 11 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the 12 west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and 13 two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size 14 from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the 15 subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th 16 Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a 17 single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no 18 critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, 19 and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was 20 issued on March 31 st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant 21 conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have 22 significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting 23 that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning 24 regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as 25 protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest 26 will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant PRELIMINARY PLAT- 9 I submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around 2 stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only l Oft and increasing the size would result 3 in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the l Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. 4 In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are 5 policy,not code. 6 Applicant Testimony 7 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal 8 Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to 9 traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that 10 current conditions warrant a signal. 11 Public Testimony 12 Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it 13 implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that 14 will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny 15 development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing 16 concurrency. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true 17 impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional 18 transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards 19 smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city 20 should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to 21 the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He 22 submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 23 Roger Paulsen testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 24 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6- 25 year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city 26 builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 10 I The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a 2 request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied(Exhibit 11). He 3 entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. 4 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 5 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the 6 morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will 7 not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. g Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in 9 regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 10 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, 11 you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage 12 provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a 13 stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic 14 analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as 15 needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order 16 to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a 17 busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for 18 improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to 19 deal with the impacts of new development. 20 In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural 21 damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have 22 responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is 23 unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an 24 enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the 25 area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks 26 should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, PRELIMINARY PLAT- 11 I the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made 2 them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, 3 route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as 4 Exhibit 13. 5 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 6 impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this 7 particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this g light in the morning,thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She 9 also noted that not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There 10 will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. 11 These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of 12 Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive 13 but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. 14 Staff Rebuttal 15 Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the 16 landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to loft. In regard to 17 the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff 18 report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city 19 would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but 20 is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency 21 analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will 22 talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 23 Applicant Rebuttal 24 Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 25 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant 26 believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 12 "aw `ftt*"` 1 Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted 2 transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and 3 collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation 4 analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 5 percent growth has complied with SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulsen. Mr. Carson 6 believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will 7 actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He g noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. 9 10 Staff Response 11 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed 12 by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the 13 transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's 14 1 documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. 15 16 EXHIBITS 17 Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/attachments a-h 18 Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/attachments 1-33 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia 19 Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20,2014 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June,2014 20 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan,Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments 21 Exhibit 8 Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr.Paulsen 22 Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulsen second request for reconsideration 23 Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulsen's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet 24 Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map 25 Exhibit 16 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulsen to Jill Ding 26 Exhibit 17 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulsen comments PRELIMINARY PLAT- 13 I Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulsen 2 3 FINDINGS OF FACT 4 Procedural: 5 1. Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. 6 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was 7 held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. 8 Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1, 2014 to respond and the 9 appellant July 2, 104 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27,2014 for the applicant 10 to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 11 3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th 12 Place and SE 143' Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") 13 issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the 14 review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all 15 lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 1561' Avenue 16 SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a 17 later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling 18 units per acre. 19 The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report 20 for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, 21 and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 22 23 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, specifically including all the infrastructure 24 and services identified below. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the 25 City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 14 1 - A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A 2 water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 1561'Avenue SE. 3 4 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition 5 that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are 6 applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit 7 issuance. 8 C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage 9 plan(Exhibit 5) and drainage report(Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City 10 of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to 11 develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final 12 engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat 13 review. 14 The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas 15 maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. 16 Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration 17 Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream 18 conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed 19 rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the 20 southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water. 21 quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be 22 required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to 23 help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. 24 Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech 25 engineer, and lining may also be required. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 15 ,%WWI �+ 1 D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to 2 building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for 3 residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks 4 and open space. 5 E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets, roads, alleys and public 6 ways. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. 7 However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council 8 adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" or "appropriate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review 9 and as an adverse impact for environmental(SEPA)review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly 10 arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of 11 the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for 12 infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that 13 developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For 14 these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels 15 makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. 16 17 Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to 18 appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS 19 requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. 20 LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, 21 Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that"...prohibit development 22 approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation 23 facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are 24 referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities 25 and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well- 26 functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 16 vr,® ti„rr° 1 An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If 2 a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D,the developer basically has three choices: (1)make traffic improvements 3 that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so 4 LOS is not violated; or(3)face denial of the permit application. 5 The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows 6 for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city 7 that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to an LOS 8 of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this 9 standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through 10 the concurrency ordinance identified in the preceding paragraph. 11 Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has 12 developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one 13 single-occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI-26. The 14 Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high 15 occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it 16 appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in 17 one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. 18 19 The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other 20 jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring 21 device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and 22 deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this 23 may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its 24 transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project 25 level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose 26 a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no PRELIMINARY PLAT- 17 wr' `'"No' 1 development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development 2 moratorium, or(B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation,which is also unconstitutional. 3 4 The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of 5 congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that 6 the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to 7 contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The 8 proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the 9 proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. 10 It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" 11 concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it 12 causes "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below 13 the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted 14 standards, the provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will 15 cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there 16 can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet 17 minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards to affected intersections and finds that the proposal 18 doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All 19 LOS levels stay the same. 20 Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts 21 at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, 22 C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can 23 be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156 ' Ave. SE/SE 24 142nd Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon 25 these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that 26 3 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calculate LOS. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 18 `'4011 1 mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This 2 means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned 3 to the developer. 4 In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly 5 rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list 6 of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor 7 was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects 8 identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. 9 Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site 10 distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project 11 opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is 12 found more compelling. 13 One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement 14 required as mitigation for the project area the si eq g p � gnalization of the 156` Ave. SE/SE 142na 15 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to 16 support this position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, 17 establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study 18 addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced 19 no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that 20 the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the 21 intersection. 22 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking 23 for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 24 G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional 25 students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed 26 development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 I mile from the project site at 156th Avenue SE & SE 5' Place. The proposed project 2 includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north 3 of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be 4 adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions(Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 5 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to 6 allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would 7 be required to cross 156ti Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The 8 driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the 9 conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. 10 A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to 11 mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at 12 $6,392.00 per single family residence. 13 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate 14 public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are 15 no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. 16 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the 17 trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The 18 replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. 19 The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees,lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been 20 determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that 21 have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 22 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention 23 requirements. 24 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 25 26 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration with the City on PRELIMINARY PLAT-20 I April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19,2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate 2 share of a signal for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then filed the 3 subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment 4 on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel56' Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr., Paulsen 5 argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that 6 demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat 7 access points. 8 Conclusions of Law 9 10 1. Authori . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the 11 Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 12 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 13 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential 14 Low Density(RLD). 15 SEPA APPEAL 16 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or(2)the SEPA responsible official 17 has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. 18 Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. 19 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. 20 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See 21 WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS 22 to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold 23 determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to 24 substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6(3)(a)(viii). 25 B. Adequate Environmental Review 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 21 err *Isle 1 The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 2 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 3 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4 An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a 5 showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State 6 Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community 7 Assn v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental 8 impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental 9 impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example,the court recited the prima facie rule and 10 then applied it as follows: 11 The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The 12 environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered 13 extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and 14 imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately 15 analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating 16 that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 17 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. 18 WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information 19 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane 20 County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a 21 prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to 22 evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 23 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, 24 but Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. 25 Mr. Paulsen in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and 26 makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. PRELIMINARY PLAT-22 N1001 1 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- 2 Significance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "[c]omment periods for the project and proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period." The 3 second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in 4 writing....by 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments..." 5 Mr. Paulsen asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment 6 period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the 7 hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the 8 above application", not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that"[t]here will 9 be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on 10 commenting on the MDNS to seek clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. 11 'The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a 12 new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for 13 standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to 14 issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulsen does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public 15 hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulsen submitted numerous comments on the 16 MDNS on March 22, 2014,prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 17 5. Intersection Miti ag tion. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulsen 18 asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately 19 assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SERA review was 20 adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse 21 environmental impacts. 22 On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon 23 information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been 24 applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with 25 site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The 26 environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed PRELIIVIINARY PLAT-23 I legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site 2 and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. 3 In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12,was prepared analyzing 4 impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, 5 even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's 6 engineering department. The advisory notes to the MONS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues 7 that were assessed by City engineering staff. 8 All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. 9 It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal 10 will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima 11 facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to 12 establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of 13 course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it 14 could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As bome out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the 15 MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulsen 16 presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit 17 further environmental review. 18 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse 19 environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This fmding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the 20 determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an 21 engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection will not interfere with the access 22 points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no evidence to the contrary. 23 PRELIMINARY PLAT 24 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 25 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 26 1 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: PRELIMINARY PLAT-24 *WW NOW001 1 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2 2.Access:Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 4 because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may 5 be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 6 supplies and sanitary wastes. 7 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by 8 reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this 9 decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is 10 adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public 11 facilities as required by RMC 4-8-080(B). 12 RMC 4-7-080(n(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 13 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 14 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined 15 in Finding I(1) of the staff report,which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 16 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 17 or street(according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 18 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public 19 1 road. 20 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 21 City. 22 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would 23 be to an extension of SE 8'h Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the 24 criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 25 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed[sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the Cityfor trail 26 purposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT-25 +u✓ 1 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 2 trail. 3 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 4 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 5 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such 6 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 7 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 8 a. Flooding/Inundation:If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is 9 subject to flooding or inundation, thatportion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 10 such subdivision. 11 b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a 12 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 13 approved. 14 15 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention:Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 16 Clearing Regulations. 17 4. Streams: 18 a. Preservation:Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, 19 and wetland areas. 20 b. Method:If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which 21 indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. 22 c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going 23 under streets. 24 d. Clean Water:Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris 25 and pollutants. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 26 1 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not 2 contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of 3 Fact No. 5. 4 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 5 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 6 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The 7 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 8 9 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing 10 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street 11 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as 12 defined and designated by the Department. 13 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the 14 only road connection possible for the project. 15 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 16 15. As conditioned. 17 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 18 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 19 116. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. 20 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 21 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet(125)are not desirable, but may be 22 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 23 24 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets,which includes compliance with applicable street standards. . 25 RMC 4-7-150(E): 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-27 OW `4"0* 1 1. Grid:A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the 2 predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 3 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 4 of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design 5 Element, Objective CD Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 6 3. Exceptions: 7 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid"by reducing the number of linkages or the 8 alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: 9 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or 10 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 11 4. Connections:Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link 12 existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required 13 within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 14 5. Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the 15 RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible... 16 17 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 18 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically 19 possible. 20 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is 21 not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road 22 is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. 23 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, 24 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 25 Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 26 19. As proposed. PRELIMINARY PLAT-28 1 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be 2 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be 3 required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 4 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a 5 depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. 6 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 7 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3,the side lines are in conformance with the requirement 8 quoted above. 9 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road.Access may be by private 10 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 11 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. 12 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 13 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 14 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 15 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 16 123. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, which includes area,width and density. 17 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the 18 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line)shall not be less than eighty percent(8001o) of 19 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twentyfeet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 20 shall be a minimum of thirtyfive feet(35). 21 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,the requirement is satisfied. 22 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, 23 shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet(15). 24 25. As conditioned. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-29 I RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, 2 watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 3 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. 4 There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted 5 above. 6 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no 7 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 8 eight feet(8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 9 26. As conditioned. 10 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all 11 surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of 12 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage 13 system shall include detention capacityfor the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include 14 detention capacityfor future development of the lots. Water qualityfeatures shall also be designed to 15 provide capacityfor the new street paving for the plat. 16 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which 17 are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil 18 plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 19 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 20 Department requirements. 21 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. 22 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any 23 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 24 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 25 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the 26 maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. PRELIMINARY PLAT-30 ,yam, `%W101 1 29. As conditioned. 2 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic 3 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley 4 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of 5 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 6 shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to 7 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. 8 30. As conditioned. 9 RMC 4-7-210: 10 A. MONUMENTS: 11 12 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department.All surveys 13 shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. 14 B. SURVEY. 15 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 16 C. STREET SIGNS: 17 18 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 19 31. As conditioned. 20 1 DECISION 21 The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is 22 consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 23 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. 24 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 25 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have 26 minimum radius of fifteen feet(15'). PRELIMINARY PLAT- 31 1 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are 2 available,or provided with the subdivision development. 3 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the 4 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, 5 including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. 6 Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the 7 Department of Public Works. 8 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by 9 Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or 10 alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore 11 required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land 12 owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall 13 provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to 14 the City that it is properly installed. 15 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 16 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156 ' Ave crossing for school children is 17 safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as 18 necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 19 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 20 150(G)if this is not already proposed. 21 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19,2014. 22 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of 23 the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 24 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning 25 Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped visual 26 barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract(Tract A). PRELIMINARY PLAT- 32 1 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to 2 recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 3 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the 4 trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement 5 should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection,however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the 6 stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the 7 Final Plat. g 15.A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 9 16.A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review 10 and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 11 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat 12 map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the 13 final plat. 14 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 15 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the 16 wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow 17 for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 18 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities 19 for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be 20 submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City 21 Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 33 1 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. 2 3 DATED this 13th day of August, 2014. 5 Niir 1,01hrechi 6 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 7 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 8 9 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's 10 decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 11 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new 12 fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from 13 the City Clerk's Office,Renton City Hall—7h 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-34 Denis Law ,,, '�,✓ .Mayor Clty_-O f 1ty r At City Clerk -Bonnie 1.Walton July 31, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26"St, Suite 105 Mercer Island;WA 98040 Re: Request for Reconsideration for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000241. - Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your copy of the Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger&Jason Paulsen in the . above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel.free to contact me or Jill Ding,the Senior Planner at (425)430-6598. -Since el Chris Chau Deputy City Clerk Enc.:" Request for Reconsideration . cc: Hearing l xaminer Jill Ding,Senior Planner.. Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager Jennifer Henning,Planning Director : Neil Watts,Development Service Director Chip Vincent,.CED Administrator, . Sabrina Mirante,Development Services Garmon Newson,Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren;City Attorney" Parties of Record(16) 1055 South Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057•(425)430-6510/Faz(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov Easy Peel@ Labels ♦ Bend along line to gVERY® 5160® Use Avery®Template 51600 °ped Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM 1 ,,w,, David Michalski Wade Willoughby ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: 6525 SE 5th PI. 6512 SE 5" PI Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulson Marsha Rollinger PNW Holdings, LLC. to 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 6617 SE 5 PI. 6618 SE 4th PI. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Peter& Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. P p 36 R Box 29 Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton, 29WA 98056 Gary &Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166 th PI SE 6220 SE 2"d PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 14004 156th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama, WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 orsell Tom Carpenter Kathyy nd 15006 SE 139th PI. M.A. Huniu 15451 SE 142 PI. RentonWA 98059 6608 SE 5th PI. , Renton, WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 ttiquettes faciles h peter ; A Repliez A la hachure afin de; www.avery.com Utilisez le abarit AVERY®5160® i Sens de r�v�ler le rebord Pop-up- 1-800-GO-AVERY ' 9 chargement 1 **AO' C17Y OF RENTON July 30,2014 City of Renton JUL 3 0 2014 City Clerk RECEIVED •" 1055 S. Grady Way CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton,WA 98057 City of Renton Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(9) Dear Mr. Examiner, Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18,2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241). Standing Roger was a Party of Record prior to the close of the hearing, he participated in the hearing, and we jointly submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date, and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in light of the following: 1. Streets:We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified, and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately,we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17,and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affirmative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is made for services,including streets. Despite raising this issue in our earlier testimony,nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 acknowledged in your findings or decision. Further,RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect. The record clearly does not allow for affirtnative findings to be made in this regard,because,as pour record shows,NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following are facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156d'Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level---LOS level"F" 1 NOW, b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection. c) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection d) The City acknowledges that it may need to impose left turn restrictions on the access road from the proposed development e) The City's concurrency test,which the proposed plat did pass,is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). f) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to,localized congestion. g) In response to concerns about congestion,the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level—LOS level"C". h) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's adverse impact on the intersection,the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. i) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9d' on their Traffic Signal Priority List j) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP #25) indicates that"on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years k) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection,absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact,the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development,and there is nothing in the record,or your approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our State Legislature in RCW 58.17.110. Relief Requested We respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request,and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110,or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development-related traffic will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. Sincerely, I aulsen /son NI Paulsen POA for Judy Al Paulsen 6617SL 5`"Place 31 Mazama Pincs Lane Renton,WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98833 CiTY Or RENTOiv July 30,2014 J U L 302014 City of Renton City Clerk RECEIVED 1055 S. Grady Way CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton,WA 98057 City of Renton Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(9) Dear Mr. Examiner, Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18, 2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241). Standing Roger was a Party of Record prior to the close of the hearing, he participated in the hearing, and we jointly submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date, and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in light of the following: 1. Streets: We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified, and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately,we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17, and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affirmative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is made for services,including streets. Despite raising this issue in our earlier testimony,nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 acknowledged in your findings or decision. Further,RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard,because, as your record shows,NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following are facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156`x'Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level---LOS level"F" Sincerely, :7 aulscn `can i\I Paulsen ,� POA for Judy M Paulsen 6617SE 5'"Place 31 Mazanla Pines Lane Renton,W.A 98059 i4lazaina,VIA 98833 Denis Law v..r Mayor City Of Y ♦ "R— City City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton June 24,2014 Justin Lagers, PNW.Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26"St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: REVISED Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000241 Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your,revised copy of the.Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated July 18,2014, in the above-referenced matter.There Were scrivener's errors on pages 20, 28,,29 & 30. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Jill Ding at 425-430-6598. If I can provide further information; please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, i7b ason A.Seth. Deputy City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc Hearing Examiner Jill Ding,'Associate Planner Jennifer Henning;Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director. Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Parties of Record (16) 1055 South Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057•(425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov Hearing Examiner's Decision n CITY OF REMN JUL 2.4 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9. ) RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ) 10 Preliminary Plat ) FINAL DECISION 11 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal 12 LUA14-000241 ) 13 ) 14 SUMMARY 15 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family 16 residential lots on the east side of 156d'Avenue SE between SE 139`h Place and SE 143rd Street. An 17 appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The 18 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. 19 The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City 20 Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic 21 congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. 22 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's 23 transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of(1) the state's Growth 24 Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) 25 limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for 26 the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 I improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20%of the improvement); and(4)avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits 2 development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a 3 situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council,unless some proportionate share improvements 4 can be required of the applicant. 5 In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money 6 has to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will 7 not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other 8 proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation,the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion 9 issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. 10 11 TESTIMONY 12 13 SEPA Appellant Testimony 14 Mr. Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the 15 traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, 16 he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments 17 regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. 18 Applicant Testimony 19 Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. 20 The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not 21 negatively impact traffic. 22 Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with Tra$Ex. His firm prepared the 23 traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed 24 level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be 25 subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in 26 Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection PRELIMINARY PLAT -2 I is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak-hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd 2 intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. Tra$Ex prepared an 3 addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the 4 levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse 5 than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north-side access street will operate at level C,the south side access street will 6 operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of 7 approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20,2014 8 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound 9 queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations 10 are all subject to how the signal is timed. The southside access road to the enclave road is 11 approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through 12 the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. 13 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak 14 analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating 15 conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. 16 Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that 17 the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. 18 Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson,Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both 19 queue time and opposing traffic. 20 Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent 21 increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. 22 23 City Testimony 24 In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom,Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a parry of record and were 25 denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems 26 1 likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELIMINARY PLAT -3 `ome 1 because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period 2 to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city 3 was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. 4 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during 5 the SEPA comment period(Exhibit 2, attachment 21). 6 Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the 7 policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project,it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which 8 is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III 9 Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil 10 Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there 11 are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold 12 for impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the 13 area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd intersection,the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. 14 The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes 15 and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic 16 improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February,2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would 17 still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5)for 156th and 142nd In this new analysis,the city analyzed what level 18 of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. 19 Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C 20 and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the 21 likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 22 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall 23 being built close-by. 24 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of 25 "should," if a site will not have a significant impact,then neither an am or pm study would be required. 26 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson,Ms.Ding noted that one public comment was received PRELIMINARY PLAT -4 1 after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation 2 included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the 3 mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. 4 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing 5 the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was 6 outside of her Department. ,7 Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New 8 Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more 9 trips generated The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline 10 and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review 11 is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant 12 used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 13 Under redirect by Mr.Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted 14 concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted 15 that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the 16 review hearing. 17 Applicant Response 18 Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will 19 be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. 20 Appellant Response 21 Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no 22 reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that"If comments 23 cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and 24 present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic 25 issue, Mr. Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to 26 ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT-5 1 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an 2 optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period- 3 The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. 4 LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application 5 Staff Testimony 6 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner,testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west 7 side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two 8 tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was 9 a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new 10 subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional 11 extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a 12 detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day 13 notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A 14 DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31 st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the 15 request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that 16 the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM 17 on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and 18 the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as 19 protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will 20 be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant submitted a 21 preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in 22 this case, the strips are only IOft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the 1Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, 23 staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. 24 In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are 25 policy,not code. 26 Applicant Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT -6 1 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code 2 requires certain tangent lengths,but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the 3 necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions 4 warrant a signal. 5 Public Testimony 6 Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the 7 transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will 8 intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because 9 it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. In a letter when King County 10 was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency 11 irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for 12 when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave,thus Renton's standards 13 are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead,it needs a balance 14 between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be 15 addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 16 Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a 17 comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not 18 meet state transportation requirements(Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6-year Transportation Plan into the record(Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every 19 two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th 20 created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and 21 made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied(Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. 22 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd 23 Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 24 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. 25 She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-7 *4W11 N"0001 I Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to 2 planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states 3 that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the 4 access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The 5 analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern 6 boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis,the distance from the crosswalk 7 and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as 8 a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The 9 proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use 10 the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the 11 developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. 12 In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance 13 system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have 14 responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear 15 what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are 16 part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from 17 accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for 18 newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, the tree retention plan, the landscaping 19 plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are 20 required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact 21 on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. 22 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, 23 there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 24 impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is also 25 a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 26 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELIMINARY PLAT -8 r.r+� 1 not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection.There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. 2 People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she 3 believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling 4 information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. 5 Staff Rebuttal 6 ,7 Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping 8 around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 1Oft. In regard to the number of 9 reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports 10 are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to 11 removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To 12 clarify questions regarding traffic impact,the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met,the project 13 is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where 14 the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 15 Applicant Rebuttal 16 Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that 17 the project should provide for existing public needs. 18 Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation 19 concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide,basis and collect traffic 20 impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through 21 legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with 22 SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this 23 during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse 24 impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even 25 though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. 26 Staff Response PRELIMINARY PLAT -9 NOW %woo' 1 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, 2 Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the 3 institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the 4 transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to 5 make their conclusions. 6 EXHIBITS 7 8 Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/attachments a-h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/attachments 1-33 9 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20,2014 10 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June,2014 11 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan,Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments 12 Exhibit 8 Paulson Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson 13 Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulson second request for reconsideration 14 Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulson's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet 15 Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map 16 Exhibit 16 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment 17 Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments 18 Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulson 19 20 FINDINGS OF FACT 21 Procedural: 22 1. Applicant. PNW Holdings,LLC. 23 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held 24 on June 24,2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant,Mr.Paulsen,was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant 25 during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1,2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 10 fir` °rr►' 1 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27,2014 for the applicant to provide comment on 2 Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3 3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place 4 and SE 143rd Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued 5 under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. 6 The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots 7 would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avenue SE. A 8 dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, 9 under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. 10 The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for 11 the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and 12 groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be 13 demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 14 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 15 infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are 16 addressed as follows: 17 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District#90. A water 18 availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. 19 20 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that 21 the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable 22 at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 23 24 C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. 25 The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of 26 Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11 r.r ter+' 1 an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work 2 staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. 3 The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas 4 maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and 5 reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration 6 Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and 7 Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed rates 8 for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The 9 engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and 10 retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton 11 Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the 12 new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be 13 submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may 14 also be required. 15 D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to 16 building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for 1.7 residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and 18 open space. 19 E. Streets. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It 20 is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested However, 21 what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as"adequate" 22 traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental 23 (SEPA) review is the LOS standard Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be 24 legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely 25 tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth;available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional 26 mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12 I a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these 2 factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a 3 specific project review basis. 4 Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring 5 system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS requirements 6 and how it more typically works is necessary. 7 LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, 8 Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards 9 for transportation facilities along with ordinances that"...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to 10 decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation 11 plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for 12 specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF 13 scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as 14 minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to 15 decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2)redesign 16 the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the 17 permit application. 18 The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for 19 a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would 20 lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E or 21 F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then 22 imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency 23 ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. 24 Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no 25 A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead,Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single-occupant 26 vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELIMINARY PLAT- 13 I Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. M-26. The Renton LOS index 2 standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the 3 LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard 4 imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. 5 The City-wide focus of the LOS ``index" system makes it a more questionable measuring 6 tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other 7 jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" 8 LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate 9 choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the 10 City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation 11 funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular 12 area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard 13 for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or(B)the developer would be 14 required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also 15 unconstitutional. 16 The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's 1-7 concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the 18 proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed 19 this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City 20 concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by 21 the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. 22 23 It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most 24 jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes 25 "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally 26 by most jurisdictions— if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14 I provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection 2 or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E,there can be no violation 3 of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized 4 standards' to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of 5 the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report,Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. 6 Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at 7 project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can 8 be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an 9 objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. 10 However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share 11 contributions is very limited because state law requires that mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining 12 balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers 13 within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. 14 In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly 15 rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents,who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The 16 applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was 17 more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, 18 which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised 19 about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and 20 approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert 21 testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. 22 23 One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd 24 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. 25 Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. 26 I The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calculate LOS. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15 I The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering 2 calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review 3 by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or 4 conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any 5 queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. 6 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a 7 minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 8 G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional 9 students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed 10 development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile 11 from the project site at 156`h Avenue SE & SE 5`h Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including 12 sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project 13 site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions(Exhibit 25). In addition, the 14 City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is 15 being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future 16 subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th 17 Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns 18 raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further 19 staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. 20 A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate 21 the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per 22 single family residence. 23 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public 24 facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No.4. There are no critical areas on site.. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an 25 issue. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16 I There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot 2 be retained, new trees, with a two-inch(2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is 3 twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single 4 family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report(Staff Report Exhibit 15),and 46 would be located 5 in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project 6 site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which 7 complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. 8 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 9 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the 10 proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 11 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19,2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a 12 signal for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Mr. Paulson then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1)the notice for the comment period on 13 the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of 14 thel 56`h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr.Paulson argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In 15 response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups 16 caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. 17 Conclusions of Law 18 19 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5)provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner 20 authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 21 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling 22 units per net acre(R4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density 23 (RLD). 24 SEPA APPEAL 25 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or(2)the SEPA responsible official has 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17 I not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each 2 grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. 3 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. 4 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11- 5 330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts 6 so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination,the determination made by 7 the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). 8 B. Adequate Environmental Review 9 The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 10 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably 11 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 12 An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a 13 showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie 14 showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community 15 Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several 16 occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental 17 impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of 18 Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: 19 The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The 20 environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA 21 official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, 22 and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. 23 Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating 24 that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting 25 an EIS. 26 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18 Nome 1 WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information 2 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn.App. 555 (2013). The 3 standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie 4 showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 5 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that 6 the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing,but Mr. 7 Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no 8 assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. 9 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- 10 Significance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "/cJomment periods for the project and proposed DNS-Mare integrated into a single comment period." The second page 11 of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing....by 12 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments..." 13 Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period 14 on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the 15 application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the 16 MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[tJhere will be no comment period 17 following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek 18 clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. 19 The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new 20 threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulson does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an 21 appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision 22 under appeal. Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. 23 In point of fact Mr. Paulson submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014,prior to 24 the issuance of the MDNS on March 31,2014. See Ex.A to Ex. 1. 25 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6,Mr. Paulson asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in 26 the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 NOW, o..✓ 1 points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental 2 impacts. 31 On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA 4 responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied 5 in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case,supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site 6 specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site 8 was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. 9 In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it adequately reviewed traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts 10 to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis 11 under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering 12 department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues that were assessed by City engineering staff. 13 All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" 14 showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will 15 create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a"prima facie" 16 showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish 17 that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a 18 single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that 19 level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson 20 presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the 21 SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. 22 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental 23 impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This fording can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the 24 SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-20 I qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156h Ave. SE/SE 142nd 2 Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT 4 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 5 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 6 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 7 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 8 2.Access:Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 9 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 10 because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may 11 be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 12 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 13 supplies and sanitary wastes. 14 7' As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As 15 depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road 16 A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, 17 the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 18 1 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 19 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 20 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(1) of the staff report,which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 21 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be 22 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 23 or street(according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 24 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE,a public road. 25 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 26 City. PRELIMINARY PLAT -21 1 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the 2 administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8t' Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently,the criterion above 3 is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 4 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed[sic] trail, 5 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 6 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 7 trail. 8 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance 9 with the following provisions: 10 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 11 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the 12 Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 13 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 14 a. Flooding/Inundation:If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State 15 according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 16 such subdivision. 17 b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 18 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 19 approved. 20 .. 21 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention:Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 22 Clearing Regulations. 23 4. Streams: 24 a. Preservation:Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water; and wetland areas. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -22 1 b. Method:If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which 2 indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. 3 c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going 4 under streets. 5 d. Clean Water:Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris 6 and pollutants. 7 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is 8 proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. 9 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 10 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 11 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The 12 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation 13 Resolution. 14 113. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. 15 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street 16 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall 17 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as 18 defined and designated by the Department. 19 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possible for the project. 20 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 21 15. As conditioned. 22 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 23 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 24 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. 25 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 26 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PRELIMINARY PLAT -23 N%W 1 alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet(1259 are not desirable, but may be 2 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 3 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved 4 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 street pattern 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 of roads and pathways. Implementation of this 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 13 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid"by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: 14 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints;and/or 15 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 16 17 4. Connections:Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made.At a minimum, stub streets shall be required 18 within subdivisions to allowfuture connectivity. 19 5.Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for 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 of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall 21 evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use ofalley(s) is not feasible... 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 due 24 to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 25 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not 26 required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are PRELIMINARY PLAT-24 `%O'' 1 looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as 2 encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. 3 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and 4 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 5 Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 6 19. As proposed. 7 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot 8 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be 9 required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 10 1 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a 11 depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. 12 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 13 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3,the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted 14 above. 15 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road.Access may be by private 16 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 17 22. As previously determined,each lot has access to a public street. 18 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 19 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 20 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 21 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, 23 which includes area,width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the 24 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line)shall not be less than eighty percent(80016) of 25 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -25 I twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 2 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35). 3 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,the requirement is satisfied. 4 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteen feet(15). 5 25. As conditioned. 6 7 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 8 adding attractiveness and value to the property. 9 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There 10 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. 11 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no 12 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 13 eightfeet(8) into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 14 26. As conditioned. 15 16 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 water flow and shall be of 17 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be 18 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include 19 detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed 20 to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 21 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are 22 incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan 23 review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 24 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 25 Department requirements. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -26 1 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. 2 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any 3 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 4 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 5 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 6 29. As conditioned. 7 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic 8 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line 9 by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for 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 to 11 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer andlor 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 to 13 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 14 30. As conditioned. 15 RMC 4-7-210: 16 A. MONUMENTS: 17 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of 18 the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys 19 shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. 20 B. SURVEY.' 21 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 22 C. STREET SIGNS: 23 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 24 31. As conditioned. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-27 Iq.v+' 1 DECISION 2 The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is 3 consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 4 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated 5 Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. 6 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 7 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet(15'). 8 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are 9 available, or provided with the subdivision development. 10 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities 11 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, 12 including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such 13 installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the 14 Department of Public Works. 15 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are 16 installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by 17 Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The 18 cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore 19 required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit 20 ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to 21 the City that it is properly installed. 22 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat 23 approval. 24 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156th Ave crossing for school children is 25 safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 28 1 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 2 150(G) if this is not already proposed. 3 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 4 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal 5 of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 6 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current 7 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot 8 landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract(Tract A). 9 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to 10 Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 11 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect 12 the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for 13 protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based 14 on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 15 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application 16 identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 1.7 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for 18 review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 19 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the 20 final plat. 21 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech 22 engineer, and lining may also be required. 23 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during 24 the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 25 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance 26 agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and PRELIMINARY PLAT- 29 I responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the 2 document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the 3 final plat. 4 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. 5 6 DATED this 18th day of July, 2014. 7 8 1'h.��.tathrfecht�c 9 10 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 11 12 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 13 RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to 14 the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision 15 to be filed within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal 16 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information 17 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7b floor, (425)430-6510. 18 19 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 30 Cynthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday,July 23,20141:01 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Revised Enclave Attachments: Preliminary Plat- Enclave.pdf From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:53 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Sabrina Mirante; Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: Revised Enclave There were some minor corrections made to the Enclave decision. See the email from Phil below and the attached document. It looks like we have some pages to swap out. Thanks, Jill From: phil olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw(clgmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:34 AM To: Jill Ding Subject: Revised Enclave Hi Jill, The attached contains the revised pages you need for the enclave decision. Please remove Page 20 from the attached and use that to replace Page 20 of the decision I previously sent you. Also, please replace the decision section of the decision I previously sent you with the decision section of the attached. Let me know if that corrects the errors. Sorry about that! Unfortunately, I was unable to get the formatting of my word file of the decision the same as the pdf version. Otherwise I would just have sent you a replacement decision instead of having you replace specific pages. Denis Law 'r►' Ma or �I, Crty Of, �y Y J't; .O. City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton June 16,2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26th St, Suite 105 . Mercer Island, WA.98040 Re: Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14-000241 . ' Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached.is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated July 18, 2014, int he above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,. ,Bonnie I: Walton City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner. Jill Ding,Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Parties of Record (16) 1055 South Grady Way. Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov Easy Peel®labels Bend along line to i a AVERY® 51600 Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTIA 1 M.A. Huniu David Michalski Wade Willoughby 6608 SE 51h PI. 6525 SE 5th PI. 6512 SE 5th PI Renton Wa 98059 Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, Wa 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulson Marsha Rollinger PNW Holdings, LLC. to to to 6617 SE 5 Pl. 6618 SE 4 PI. 9675 SE 36 St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Peter& Debi Eberle Michael Nipert Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th St. 900 Queen Anne Av N. CARE P.O. 36 Box 29 Renton, Wa 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton, 29 98056 Gary&Janice Smith Ronda Bryant Richard Ouimet 14504166th PI SE 6220 SE 2"d PI. 2923 Maltby Rd. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 14004156th Av SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln. 6614 SE 5th PI. Renton, WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell Tom Carpenter 15451 SE 142"d Pl. 15006 SE 139th pl. Renton, Wa 98059 Renton, WA 98059 tiquettes faciles h peter ; A Repliez A la hachure afin de; www.avery.com Utilisez le abant AVERY®5160® i Sens de r6vfiler le rebord Po U Tu 1-800-GO-AVERY 9 chargement p- p 1 `4 Hearing Examiner's Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ) 10 Preliminary Plat ) FINAL DECISION 11 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal 12 LUA14-000241 ) 13 ) 14 SUMMARY 15 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family 16 residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143`d Street. An 17 appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The 18 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. 19 The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City 20 Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic 21 congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. 22 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's 23 transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of(1) the state's Growth 24 Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) 25 limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for 26 the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed tragic PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1 titer I I improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20%of the improvement); and(4)avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits 2 development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a 3 situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements 4 can be required of the applicant. 5 In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money 6 has to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will 7 not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other 8 proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation,the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion 9 issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. 10 11 TESTIMONY 12 13 SEPA Appellant Testimony 14 Mr. Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the 15 traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, 16 he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments 17 regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. 18 Applicant Testimony 19 Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. 20 The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not 21 negatively impact traffic. 22 Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraffEx. His firm prepared the 23 traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed 24 level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be 25 subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in 26 Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraflEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection PRELIMINARY PLAT-2 I is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak-hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd 2 intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. TraflEx prepared an 3 addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the 4 levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables 1 and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit 1, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse 5 than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north-side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will 6 operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of 7 approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed,thus TraflEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20,2014 8 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound 9 queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations 10 are all subject to how the signal is timed. The southside access road to the enclave road is 11 approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through 12 the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. 13 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak 14 analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating 15 conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. 16 Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that 17 the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. 18 Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson,Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both 19 queue time and opposing traffic. 20 Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent 21 increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. 22 23 City Testimony 24 In regard to the procedural issues raised,Mr. Garmon Newsom,Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a parry of record and were 25 denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr.Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems 26 1 likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELIMINARY PLAT-3 I because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period 2 to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city 3 was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. 4 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during 5 the SEPA comment period(Exhibit 2,attachment 21). 6 Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, .stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the 7 policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which 8 is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally,when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III 9 Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil 10 Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal,there 11 are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold 12 for impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the 13 area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd intersection,the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February,2014. 14 The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes 15 and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic 16 improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February,2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would 17 still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5)for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis,the city analyzed what level 18 of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. 19 Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C 20 and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the 21 likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 22 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as,a mall 23 being built close-by. 24 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of 25 "should," if a site will not have a significant impact,then neither an am or pm study would be required. 26 Under cross-examination by Mr.Paulson,Ms.Ding noted that one public comment was received PRELIMINARY PLAT -4 I after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEPA related questions. The SEPA mitigation 2 included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the 3 mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. 4 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms.Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing 5 the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was 6 outside of her Department. 7 Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New 8 Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more 9 trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline 10 and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review 11 is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant 12 used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 13 Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted 14 concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted 15 that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the 16 review hearing. 17 Applicant Response 18 Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will 19 be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. 20 Appellant Response 21 Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit 1, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no 22 reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that"If comments 23 cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and 24 present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic 25 issue, Mr. Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to 26 ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT-5 ter✓' �"� 1 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an 2 optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. 3 The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. 4 LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application 5 Staff Testimony 6 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner,testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west 7 side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two 8 tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sgft to 12,566sgft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sgft open space area. There was 9 a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sgft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new 10 subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional 11 extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a 12 detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day 13 notice and comment period commenced on March 10th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A 14 DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31 st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the 15 request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that 16 the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM 17 on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and 18 the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as 19 protected,thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will 20 be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant submitted a 21 preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in 22 this case, the strips are only loft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the loft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, 23 staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. 24 In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are 25 policy,not code. 26 Applicant Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT -6 1 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code 2 requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the 3 necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions 4 warrant a signal. 5 Public Testimony 6 Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the 7 transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will 8 intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because 9 it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. In a letter when King County 10 was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency 11 irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for 12 when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave,thus Renton's standards 13 are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance 14 between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be 15 addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 16 Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a 17 comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not 18 meet state transportation requirements(Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6-year Transportation Plan into the record(Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every 19 two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th 20 created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and 21 made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied(Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. 22 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd 23 Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 24 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. 25 She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-7 1 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to 2 planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states 3 that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the 4 access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The 5 analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern 6 boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis,the distance from the crosswalk 7 and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as 8 a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The 9 proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use 10 the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the 11 developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. 12 In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance 13 , system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have 14 responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear 15 what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are 16 Part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from 17 accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for 18 newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, the tree retention plan, the landscaping 19 plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are 20 required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact 21 on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. 22 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, 23 there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 24 impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is also 25 a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 26 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELIMINARY PLAT-8 NOW N"0✓` 1 not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection.There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. 2 People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she 3 believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling 4 information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. 5 Staff Rebuttal 6 7 Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping 8 around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to loft. In regard to the number of 9 reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports 10 are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to 11 removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To 12 clarify questions regarding traffic impact,the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis.Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met,the project 13 is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 14 15 Applicant Rebuttal 16 Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that 17 the project should provide for existing public needs. 18 Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation 19 concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and collect traffic 20 impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through 21 legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with 22 SEPA regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this 23 during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse 24 impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even 25 though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. 26 Staff Response PRELIMINARY PLAT-9 1 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, 2 Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the 3 institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the 4 transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to 5 make their conclusions. 6 EXHIBITS 7 8 Exhibit 1 Notice of Appeal w/attachments a-h Exhibit 2 Staff Report w/attachments 1-33 9 Exhibit 3 CV of Vincent Geglia Exhibit 4 TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 10 Exhibit 5 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 11 Exhibit 6 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Exhibit 7 Tom Carpenter comments 12 Exhibit 8 Paulson Comment Letter Exhibit 9 Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson 13 Exhibit 10 City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Exhibit 11 Paulson second request for reconsideration 14 Exhibit 12 City's denial of Paulson's second request for reconsideration Exhibit 13 Gwendolyn High Comment Packet 15 Exhibit 14 Map provided by Ronda Bryant Exhibit 15 Utility Map 16 Exhibit 16 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding Exhibit 17 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment 17 Exhibit 18 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments 18 Exhibit 19 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding Exhibit 20 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulson 19 20 FINDINGS OF FACT 21 Procedural: 22 1. Applicant. PNW Holdings,LLC. 23 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held 24 on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant,Mr.Paulsen,was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant 25 during the hearing. The applicant was given until July 1,2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 10 I to reply. The record was also left open through June 27,2014 for the applicant to provide comment on 2 Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3 3. Proiect Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156 'Avenue SE between SE 139th Place 4 and SE 143`d Street. Ana appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance "MDNS" pp g gn ( ) issued 5 under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. 6 The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots 7 would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avenue SE. A 8 dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, 9 under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. 10 The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for 11 the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and 12 groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be 13 demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 14 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 15 infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are 16 addressed as follows: 17 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District#90. A water 18 availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. 19 20 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that 21 the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable 22 at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 23 24 C. Draina e. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. 25 The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of 26 Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELIMINARY PLAT- 11 1 an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work 2 staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. 3 4 The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and 5 reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration 6 Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and 7 Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed rates 8 for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The 9 engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and 10 retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton 11 Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the 12 new runoff created by this development.The final drainage plan and drainage report must be 13 submitted with the utility construction permit applicati Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may 14 also be required. 15 D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to 16 building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for 1.7 residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and 18 open space. 19 E. Streets. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It 20 is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, 21 what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as"adequate" 22 traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental 23 (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be 24 legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely 25 tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional 26 mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT- 12 I a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these 2 factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a 3 specific project review basis. 4 Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring 5 system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS requirements 6 and how it more typically works is necessary. 7 LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, 8 Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards 9 for transportation facilities along with ordinances that"...prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to 10 decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation 11 plan, ..." See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for 12 specific arterial intersections and/or road segments gments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF 13 scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as 14 minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to 15 decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1)make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2)redesign 16 the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the 17 permit application. 18 The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for 19 a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would 20 lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D,E or 21 F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then 22 imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency 23 ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. 24 Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no 25 A,B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead,Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single-occupant 26 vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELIMINARY PLAT- 13 I Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI-26. The Renton LOS index 2 standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the 3 LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as 4 travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. 5 The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring 6 tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other 7 jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the"A, B, C" S LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate 9 choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the 10 City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation 11 funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular 12 area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard 13 for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or(B)the developer would be 14 required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also 15 unconstitutional. 16 The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's 17 concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the 18 proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed 19 this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City 20 concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by 21 the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. 22 23 It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most 24 jurisdictions. As quoted previously,the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes 25 "...the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element... " This language is taken very literally 26 by most jurisdictions — if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELIMINARY PLAT- 14 I provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection 2 or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E,there can be no violation 3 of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The 4 applicant's traffic report applies an"A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards' to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of 5 the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report,Ex.2. All LOS levels stay the same. 6 Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at 7 project level review,there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can 8 be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an 9 objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. 10 However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share 11 contributions is very limited because state law requires that mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining 12 balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers 13 within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. 14 In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly 15 rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents,who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The 16 applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was 17 more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, 18 which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised 19 about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and 20 approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert 21 testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. 22 23 One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156t''Ave. SE/SE 142nd 24 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. 25 Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. 26 1 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Hi iwaCgpacity Manual to calculate LOS. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 15 I The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering 2 calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review 3 by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or 4 conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any 5 queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. 6 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot,to accommodate required off street parking for a 7 minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 8 G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional 9 students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed 10 development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile 11 from the project site at 156th Avenue SE & SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including 12 sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project 13 site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions(Exhibit 25). In addition, the 14 City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is 15 being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future 16 subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th 17 Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns 18 raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further 19 staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. 20 A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate 21 the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per 22 single family residence. 23 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public 24 facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No.4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an 25 issue. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 16 I There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot 2 be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is 3 twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single 4 family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report(Staff Report Exhibit 15),and 46 would be located 5 in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project 6 site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which 7 complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. 8 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 9 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the 10 proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 11 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19,2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a 12 signal for the 156`h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Mr. Paulson then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (1)the notice for the comment period on 13 the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of 14 thel561h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr.Paulson argued that back-ups caused 15 by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups 16 caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. 17 Conclusions of Law 18 19 1. Author i . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5)provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner 20 authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 21 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling 22 units per net acre(R4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density 23 (RLD). 24 SEPA APPEAL 25 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or(2)the SEPA responsible official has 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 17 I not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each 2 grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. 3 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. 4 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11- 5 330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts 6 so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination,the determination made by 7 the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). 8 B. Adequate Environmental Review 9 The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 10 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably 11 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 12 An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a 13 showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie 14 showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community 15 Assn v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several 16 occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental 17 impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of 18 Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: 19 The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The 20 environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA 21 official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, 22 and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. 23 Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating 24 that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting 25 an EIS. 26 109 Wn.App. at 23-24. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 18 I WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information 2 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn.App. 555 (2013). The 3 standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie 4 showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 5 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that 6 the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing,but Mr. 7 Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no 8 assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. 9 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- 10 Significance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "[c]omment periods for the project and proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page 11 of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing....by 12 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014....If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments..." 13 Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period 14 on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the 15 application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to"comments on the above application", not the 16 MDNS. Further, the firsta e of the Notice also notes that " p g [tJhere will be no comment period 17 following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek 18 clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. 19 The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new 20 threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulson does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-110(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an 21 appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision 22 under appeal. Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. 23 In point of fact Mr. Paulson submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to 24 the issuance of the MDNS on March 31,2014. See Ex.A to Ex. 1. 25 15. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No.6,Mr.Paulson asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in 26 the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 I points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the 2 intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. 3 On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon 4 information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in 5 numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific 6 comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist 7 contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a 8 critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. 9 In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts 10 prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the 11 number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City 12 policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues that were assessed by City 13 engineering staff. 14 All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" 15 showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will 16 create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due 17 diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review,the City does not have to establish that 18 it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information 19 considered was "reasonably sufficient"to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing 20 of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the 21 subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson presented no evidence to the 22 contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to 23 conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. 24 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This 25 finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the SEPA 26 responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a PRELIMINARY PLAT-20 *4WO 1 qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156 ' Ave. SE/SE 142r1 2 Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT 4 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 5 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 6 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles.of acceptability: 7 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 8 2. Access:Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 9 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 10 because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may 11 be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 12 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 13 supplies and sanitary wastes. 14 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As 15 depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road 16 A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, 17 the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 18 RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ...Tlie Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 19 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 20 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(1)of the staff report,which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 21 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be 22 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 23 or street(according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 24 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE,a public road. 25 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 26 City. PRELIMINARY PLAT-21 1 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the 2 administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8th Street,which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently,the criterion above 3 is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 4 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed[sic]trail, 5 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 6 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 7 trail. 8 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance 9 with the following provisions: 10 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 11 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the 12 Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 13 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 14 a. Flooding/Inundation:If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State 15 according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 16 such subdivision. 17 b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 18 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 19 approved. 20 .. 21 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 22 Clearing Regulations. 23 4. Streams: 24 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -22 1 b. Method:If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which 2 indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. 3 c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going 4 under streets. 5 d. Clean Water:Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris 6 and pollutants. 7 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute 8 to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. 9 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 10 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 11 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The 12 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation 13 Resolution. 14 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. 15 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street 16 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall 17 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as 18 defined and designated by the Department. 19 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3,the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possible for the project. 20 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 21 15. As conditioned. 22 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 23 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 24 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. 25 26 1 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PRELEVIINARY PLAT-23 I alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet(125) are not desirable, but may be 2 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 3 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved 4 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 street pattern 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 of roads and pathways. Implementation of this 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 13 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid"by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: 14 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or 15 16 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 17 4. Connections:Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made.At a minimum, stub streets shall be required 18 within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 19 5.Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for 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 of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall 21 evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(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 Oficial where due 24 to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 25 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not 26 required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are PRELIMINARY PLAT-24 *ftwol N%00111 I looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as 2 encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. 3 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and 4 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 5 Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 6 19. As proposed. 7 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot 8 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be 9 required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 10 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a 11 depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. 12 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 13 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3,the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted 14 above. 15 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road.Access maybe by private 16 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 17 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. 18 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 19 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 20 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 21 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R4 zone, 23 which includes area,width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the 24 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line)shall not be less than eighty percent(80%) of 25 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-25 i.r `ftwl 1 twentyfeet (20) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 2 shall be a minimum of thirtyfive feet(35). 3 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex.3,the requirement is satisfied. 4 RMC 4-7-170(E): 411 lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, 5 shall have minimum radius offifeen feet(15). 6 25. As conditioned. 7 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 8 adding attractiveness and value to the property. 9 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There 10 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. 11 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no 12 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 13 eightfeet(8) into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision 14 development. 15 26. As conditioned. 16 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 water flow and shall be of 17 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be 18 designed per the requirements of AMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacityfor the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include 19 detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed 20 to provide capacityfor the new street paving for the plat. 21 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are 22 incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan 23 review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 24 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 25 Department requirements. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-26 *..•y 14400, 1 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. 2 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any 3 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 4 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 5 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 6 29. As conditioned. 7 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic 8 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line 9 by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for 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 to 11 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 to 13 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 14 30. As conditioned. 15 RMC 4-7-210: 16 A. MONUMENTS: 17 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of 18 the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department.All surveys 19 shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. 20 B. SURVEY- 21 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 22 C. STREET SIGNS: 23 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 24 31. As conditioned. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-27 *mow rr+ 1 2 DECISION 3 The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is 4 consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 5 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated 6 Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. 7 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 8 3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have 9 minimum radius of fifteen feet(15'). 10 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 11 12 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground.Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. 13 Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service 14 connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be 15 required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public 16 Works. 17 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by 18 Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley 19 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to 20 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The 21 applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and 22 specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is 23 properly installed. 24 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat 25 approval. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-28 1 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156th Ave crossing for school children is safe in 2 terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 3 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7-150(G) 4 if this is not already proposed. 5 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised 6 Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated,dated May 19,2014. 7 10. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the 8 removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 9 11. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current 10 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract(Tract A). 11 12. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to 12 recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of 13 Occupancy for the new single family residences. 14 13. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect 15 the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however 16 staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of 17 trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 18 14. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application 19 identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 20 15. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 21 22 15. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the 23 final plat. 24 16. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and 25 geotech engineer,and lining may also be required. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 *so `"0001 1 17. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during 2 the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 3 18. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance 4 agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for 5 all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and 6 Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 7 19. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. 8 9 DATED this 18th day of July,2014. 10 11 12 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 13 14 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 15 RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the 16 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be 17 filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as 18 identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). Anew fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal 19 process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office,Renton City Hall—7th floor, (425)430-6510. 20 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding 21 any program of revaluation. 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-30 Sao Jill Ding From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday,June 26, 2014 12:11 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Jill, Can you please respond to Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Vanessa IOoC6ee Current Planning Manager Department of Community& Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall-6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Chip Vincent Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:52 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Vanessa,could you please handle the following.Thanks, Chip From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday,June 25, 2014 8:20 PM To: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Chip, Can you or one of your staff please respond to Mr. Paulsen on this issue? Thank you. Bonnie Walton City Clerk From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(&cs.com] Sent: Wednesday,June 25, 2014 5:36 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Request for Reconsideration Explanation 1 Ms. Walton, At your suggestion, I requested from Mr. Vincent an explanation for the denial of my June 5th Request for Reconsideration. It has been over a week since I made that request(see below), and I haven't received a reply. That seems a reasonable amount of time. Please advise on the best way to proceed to get the requested information. I'd prefer not to escalate my request, but will if necessary. Thanks!!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(Dcs.com> To: cvincent<cvincent(a)-rentonwa.gov> Cc: bwalton <bwalton(aDrentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 7:01 am Subject: Re: Appeal Mr. Vincent, Please see my question below to Ms. Walton, and her reply, suggesting that I forward my question to you for clarification. The only reference to a Request for Reconsideration that I am aware of is in code section 4-8-110, which is titled "Appeals". Therefore, I assume a Request for Reconsideration is a form of appeal. Is that a correct interpretation?? If so, it appears my June 5th Request for Reconsideration met the requirements of the ERC letter dated May19th, which leads to my original question: What is it that disqualified my Request for Reconsideration? Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton(cDRentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(aDcs.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 2:01 pm Subject: RE: Appeal Mr. Paulsen, I see that the response to the request for reconsideration issued by Gregg Zimmerman did not state the option for filing of a second request for reconsideration, but it did allow for an appeal process. So that is why the appeal is being processed next. I am not an expert on state law or land use, but it seems to me that doing this fairly preserved your right to be heard and your viewpoints to be considered, but it also preserved the rights of the applicant to receive timely processing of the land use application submittal. 2 N"Wo The better person to contact for thi*410, clarification really would be Chip Vincent, CED Administrator, however. His phone number is 425-430-6588, and his email is cvincenta-rentonwa.gov. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 From: Roger Paulsen [mai Ito:rogerapaulsen(ab-cs.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:31 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Re: Appeal Bonnie, Welcome back!! I also was away much of the week, but did have a chance to review the copy of code section 4-8-10 that came in the mail. I'm curious what in that code section disqualified my Request for Reconsideration?? From my perspective, the ERC modified their determination, and it was that modification that created a nexus to the proposed installation of a problematic stop light. That appears to qualify as"any administrative decision made". Thanks for any clarification you can provide!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton(a-Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen (rogerapaulsen(a-)cs.com) <rogerapaulsen(c-cs.com> Cc: Jill Ding <JDing(a.Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Sun, Jun 8, 2014 5:16 pm Subject: Appeal Mr. Paulsen: I'm going to be out this week, but you can look for the attached to come in your mailbox. As you can see, no Request for Reconsideration process is available at this point. Instead, we will be proceeding with the appeal process. The appeal hearing notice will be coming to you by separate letter this week from my office. The appeal hearing will be held on June 24'h which is when the plat hearing also will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. I'll be out of the office this week, but if you have questions, feel free to contact Jill Ding or my main office number and someone will be able to help. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6510 3 *4WV1 "Nor Jill Ding From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 25, 2014 12:36 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re:Traffic Study Comments Thanks!!! -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(cDRentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(aD_cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, The hearing examiner has indicated that any comments/questions you have should be emailed to me. I will forward your questions to the applicant and hearing examiner. Thanks, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(a)cs.com] Sent:Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:01 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Traffic Study Comments Jill, realize should have been more specific with my question. At yesterday's Appeal Hearing, the Hearing Examiner provided me an opportunity to submit comments about the two "eleventh hour"Traffic Studies by 5:00 PM Friday, June 27th, but he didn't say how those comments should be submitted. -Can my comments be submitted via e-mail, or should they be in the form of a hard copy letter? -To whom should the comments be addressed? - Is it necessary to copy others parties when the comments are submitted?? If so, what addresses should I use?? I assume I should continue to use you as my City of Renton contact person for all questions related to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. If that is not correct, please let me know. Thanks for any guidance you can provide!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(a)Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(o)cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:45 am Subject: RE: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Rohini would be your contact for traffic related questions. 1 Jill From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen(aD-cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:07 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Jill, To whom should I address my comments on the traffic studies??? ThanksM Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(c-Rentonwa.gov> To: Phil Olbrechts<olbrechtslaw(d,)gmail.com>; 'Justin Lagers' <Justin(a_americanclassichomes.com>; 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(a),cs.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsomC@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:04 pm Subject: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 am going to be sending all the exhibits in separate emails as the files are so large. Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton idinq(o-)rentonwa.gov z Cynthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Friday,lune 20, 2014 5:00 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place& 156th Ave SE intersection after signal Attachments: REV 2ND Addendum to the Enclave TIA.pdf I think she will put a copy in the yellow file. Maybe you have discussed this previously. bw From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:29 PM To: Phil Olbrechts; 'Roger Paulsen'; Garmon Newsom II; Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place& 156th Ave SE intersection after signal Please find attached a revision to the second addendum to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traffic Impact Analysis as required by our transportation dept. I will have hard copies available at the hearing on Tuesday. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:01 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee; Chris Barnes; Bob Mahn Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place& 156th Ave SE intersection after signal From: vince@nwtraffex.com [mailto:vince0)nwtraffex.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:37 AM To: Rohini Nair Cc: Justin Lagers (Tustin(&americanclassichomes.com); Larry Hobbs Subject: RE: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place& 156th Ave SE intersection after signal Rohini, Attached is the 2nd Addendum assuming a signal is installed and using the exact same lane configuration as existing conditions. The results are good. For future reference, I would suggest that when the signal is designed, the southbound approach be channelized with a right turn lane and a through lane. By doing so, the southbound right turn movement can be overlapped with the eastbound phase of the signal which would improve overall operating conditions. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Vince Geglia Traffex 425-522-4118 i -------- Original Message ------A„r `Woe Subject: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection after signal From: Rohini Nair <RNairCd)Rentonwa.gov> Date: Fri, June 20, 2014 7:46 am To: "'vince(abnwtraffex.com"' <vince0)nwtraffex.com> Cc: "Justin Lagers (justin(a americanclassichomes.com)" <justin0americanclassichomes.com>, Jill Ding <JDinQCa)Rentonwa.gov> Hi Vince, As discussed yesterday, the after signal scenario should have the same lane configuration the different movements should be in the same order as the without signal scenario in the Synchro report. Sincerely Rohini z THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE 2nd ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SE 142ND PL./156TH AVE. SE INTERSECTION CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by NC7RTr'YWES'T TPA F"F!G EXF'E)v T.S 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 20, 2014 `r✓ *400, rraffzmy 1Vt7,q7-Hrv--sr T�►.aF,-rc 11410 NI E 124th 3t. #590 K Nand ��95034 Phone:425.522.4118 VM 118 June 20, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton 2nd Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis with a Traffic Signal at SE 142nd PI./156th Ave. SE Intersection Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this 2nd addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide an analysis of the SE 142nd PI./156th Ave SE intersection assuming a traffic signal is installed. The analysis is summarized as follows: • With a signal installed the level of service improves from F to B in both the AM and PM peak hours at the SE 142nd PI/156th Ave SE intersection • With the improved operating conditions resulting from installation of a signal, the southbound queue on SE 156th St. is significantly reduced and does not block either of the Enclave's site access streets or SE 5th Pl. AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AM and PM peak hour level of service calculations were performed using the projected 2015 traffic volumes (including protect generated traffic) and assuming a traffic signal installed at the SE 142nd PI/156t Ave SE intersection. The level of service improved from F without a signal to B with a signal in both AM and PM peak hours. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for future conditions with the project. Page 1 -"0` ffmy The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ra TABLE 1 2015 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLED AT SE 142"D PU156T" AVE SE INTERSECTION INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SE 142" PI / B14.3 B14.8 156" Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (X XX) LOS and average control delay in seconds SOUTHBOUND VEHICLE QUEUES ON 156TH AVE SE While performing the traffic counts for the TIA, it was observed that in the PM peak hour existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PI. which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PI./156th Ave SE intersection. With a traffic signal installed, the maximum southbound queue is significantly reduced to 77 feet in the AM peak hour and 61 feet in the PM peak hour. The distance from the stop bar on SE 156th Street to the Enclave's southern access street is approximately 175 ft.. Therefore, the queue would not block either of the two Enclave's access streets nor SE 5th Place. The queue summary is attached in the technical appendix. Since these intersections would not be affected by the southbound queue, they would therefore operate at an acceptable level of service C or B as calculated and shown in the April 29, 2014 Addendum. Page 2 ** oe The Enclave at Bridle Ridge /of fmy If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince a�nwtraffex.com or IarryCa)nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, L� i • cu Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 3 TECHNICAL APPENDIX crow' *.MOO FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 verteni L EBR", NBLIBT SBS Lane Configurations Configurations +' T Volume(vph) 659 42 103 117 73 229 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1765 1820 1672 At Permitted 0.96 0.64 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 1765 1198 1672 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj.Flow(vph) 686 44 107 122 76 239 RTOR Reduction(vph) 4 0 0 0 163 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 726 0 0 229 152 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Effective Green,g(s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 912 379 529 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.60 0.29 Uniform Delay,dl 9.5 13.9 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.9 2.7 0.3 Delay(s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Level of Service B B B Approach Delay(s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 48.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 carie roup EBL NBT ABT Lane Group Flow(vph) 730 229 315 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.61 0.46 Control Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 168 56 16 Queue.Length 95th(ft) 291 #164 77 Internal Link Dist(ft) 404 136 230 Turn Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity(vph) 1336 476 809 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.48 0.39 Intersection Summary. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St& 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 ver ent - - EM EB_JR, NBT SST SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1� Volume(vph) 300 118 81 92 73 726 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.97 0.98 1.00 Said.Flow(prot) 1730 1820 1634 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.25 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 1730 470 1634 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj.Flow(vph) 316 124 85 97 77 764 RTOR Reduction(vph) 32 0 0 0 434 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 408 0 0 182 407 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Effective Green,g(s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 606 203 706 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.90 0.58 Uniform Delay,di 10.2 9.7 7.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 . 3.0 35.8 1.1 Delay(s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Level of Service B D A Approach Delay(s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Approach LOS B D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 36.8 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 t eroup � BLBT :-Sb-T-. , _. _ Lane Group Flow(vph) 440 182 841 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.91 0.74 Control Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 74 35 9 Queue Length 95th(ft) #175 #133 61 Internal Link Dist(ft) 168 201 240 Turn Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity(vph) 817 281 1286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.65 0.65 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 ti,r,rr' t r Cynthia Moya From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday,June 23, 2014 8:37 AM To: Phil Olbrechts; Bonnie Walton; 'Justin Lagers'; Garmon Newsom U, 'Roger Paulsen' Subject: FW: 156th Ave SE &SE 142nd PI level of service study with signal Attachments: 156th & 142nd Pl.pdf Please find attached additional traffic analysis with the installation of a signal at 156`h Ave SE and SE 142"d PI.This study was conducted by the City. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 8:04 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: 156th Ave SE&SE 142nd PI level of service study with signal Hi, Here are the results of the study done by the City traffic operations. Sincerely Rohini From: Asma Tuly Sent: Friday,June 20, 2014 3:16 PM To: Rohini Nair Subject: 156th Ave SE &SE 142nd PI Hi Rohini, Please see the attached copy for your reference. Thanks Asma Tuly Civil Engineer II City Of Renton 5 I Floor-Transportation 1055 S.Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 425-430-7222 atuly@rentonwa.gov www.rentonwa.gov 1 www.idaxdata.com r s5 c,A 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL pit', wa�. 0�4 Date: Tue,Apr 15, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM z N h w f ti 0 to CM P. _ n 0 297 E-- TEV: 1,220 0 • ---> 642 , PHF: 0.96 0 0 719 7740 r � SE 142ND PL a 0 a z HV%: PHF j L •... EB 1.9% 0.89 NB 4.6% 0.72 • M F- SB 3.0% 0.78 aha •- n TOTAL 2.7% 0,96 Two-Hour Count Summaries Interval SE 142ND PL SE 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE 15-min Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound One LT . TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Tota! Hour 7:00 AM 165 0 36 0 0 0 24 16 0 0 11 52 304 7:15 AM 137 0 19 0 0 0 30 46 0 0 40 45 317 7:30 AM 158 0 8 0 0 0 28 54 0 0 12 43 303 7:45 AM 182 0 14 0 0 0 18 21 0 0 4 57 296 1,220 8:00 AM 148 0 10 0 0 0 24 11 0 0 3 96 292 1,208 8:15 AM 168 0 9 0 0 0 32 16 0 0 4 59 288 1,179 8:30 AM 170 0 8 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 6 59 282 1,158 8:45 AM 175 0 J77 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 9 61 282 1,144 Count Total 1,303 0 0 0 0 193 192 0 0 89 472 2,364 Peak Hr 642 0 0 0 D _ 100 137 0 0 67 197 1,220 Note:Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude tricycles in overall count, Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians(Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 7:00 AM 2 0 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 7:15 AM 5 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 a p 7:30 AM 3 0 3 2 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 p 0 7:45 AM 4 0 3 2 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 p 8:00 AM 7 0 2 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15AM 5 0 2 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 8:30 AM 4 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 8:45 AM 4 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 a a 0 Count Total 34 0 16 18 68 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 p Peak Hr 14 0 11 8 33 0 0 1 1 2 p 0 0 0 p Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL Date: Tue,Apr 15,2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Peak Hour: 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM t z H N 4 Ln N M G I' 313 �— TEV: 671 r o —� 221 PHF: 0.95 282 61 � � 0. > UU" 5E 142ND PL ``` �� '-"QQQQQQ""' to"j n 0 00 > z HV%: PHF f EB 4.6% 0.84 c H NB 8.0% 0.84 o N CD SB 6.1% 0.80 Q TOTAL 5.8% 0.95 Two-Hour Count Summaries Interval SE 142ND PL SE 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE Rollin Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound 15-min g LT TH RT LT TH RT LT Southbound One TH RT LT' TH RT Total Hour 11:00 AM 57 0 11 0 0 0 16 10 0 1 0 10 49 153 11:15 AM 49 0 20 0 0 0 11 8 11:30 AM 70 0 14 0 0 0 24 13 0 0 8 52 148 11:45 AM 47 0 11 0 0 0 43 172 5 0 0 12 57 154 627 12:00 PM 52 0 12 a 0 0 22 9 0 0 10 72 177 651 12:15 PM 52 0 24 0 0 0 20 10 0 0 9 53 168 671 12:30 PM 47 0 14 0 0 0 13 10 0 0 7 48 139 638 12:45 PM 37 0 19 0 0 0 19 11 0 0 15 49 150 634 Count Total 411 0 125 0 0 0 147 76 0 0 79 423 1,261 Peak Hf 221 0 61 0 0 0 88 37 0 0 39 225 671 Note:Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians(Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total 0 0 0 EB WB NS SB Total East West North South Total 11:00 AM 7 0 2 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 AM 3 p 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 AM 4 0 5 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 AM 2 0 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 3 0 1 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 PM 4 0 20 a 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 p U 0 0 f? 12:30 PM 2 0 0 00 2 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 PM 6 0 2 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 31 0 i6 24 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hr 13 0 10 16 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EEOJ 0 0 0 Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com (� 10 r, 156TH AVE NE WWI SE 142ND PL VJM Date: Tu e,Apr 15,2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM CQ W r 01 z ao a x cm M n o 0 839 _flolu E- TEV: 1,461 1 q -� 375 ,,.__._„_�s PHF: 0.97 � �0---j� 494 119 V��Q o SE 142 c W 0 o +� z HV%: PHF j EB 1.4% 0.91 Q NB 1.9% 0.70 • I SB 1.2% 0.96 TOTAL 1.4% 0.97 Two-Hour Count Summaries interval SE 142Nd PL SE 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE Rollin ' Start Eastbound Westbound 15-min g Northbound Southbound One LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT THTotal RT Hour 4:00 PM 71 0 28 0 0 D 31 18 0 0 17 149 314 4:15 PM 74 0 36 0 0 0 27 13 0 0 12 176 338 4:30 PM 115 0 28 0 0 0 25 11 0 0 10 185 374 4:45 PM 101 0 27 0 0 0 14 7 0 0 10 202 361 1,387 5:00 PM 86 0 23 0 0 0 25 14 0 0 22 185 355 1,428 5:15 PM 87 0 35 0 0 0 27 12 0 0 21 186 368 1,458 5:30 PM101' 0 34 0 0 0 34 21 Q 0 21 166 377 1,461 r4:105:45 PM 64 0 24 0 0 0 18 13 0 0 15 147 281 1,381 10 nt Total 699 0 235 0 0 0 201 109 0 0 128 1,396ak Hr 375 0 119 0 Q 0 100 54 00 74 739 1,461 Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. erval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians(Crossing Leg) tart EB WB NB SB Total ES WB NB SB Total East West North South Total PM 4 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 4:15 PM 2 D 3 1 6 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 4:30 PM 2 0 0 6 B 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4:45 PM 3 0 1 2 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 p p 5:15 PM 3 0 2 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q p 0 0 5:30 PM 1 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 p Q 5:45 PM 1 p 10 0 24 0 0 0 0 Count Total 16 0 7 25 48 0 00 1 1 0 0 0 Peak Hr 7 0 3 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ 0 0 0 0 Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com FfGM'M-U AWSC C s r) 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 Intersection Delay,s/veh 41,8 Intersection LOS E 777�sT F 57 !�` y 77 -„ a Vol,veh/h 0 642 77 0 100 137 0 67 197 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.72 0.72 0.90 0.78 0.78 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 5 5 2 3 3 Mvmt Flow 0 721 87 0 139 190 0 86 253 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 �ts � I , .o., , ... .. 77 Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 61.5 19.1 16.9 HCM LOSF C C LW7-1777777T7TNiW705r7%W77777-77 77777-77 Vol Left,% 42% 89% 0% Vol Thru,% 58% 0% 25°/0 Vol Right,% 0% 11% 75% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 237 719 264 LT Vol 137 0 67 Through Vol 0 77 197 RT Vol 100 642 0 Lane Flow Rate 329 808 338 Geometry Grp, 1 1 1 Degree of Util(X) 0.599 1 0.568 Departure Headway(Hd) 6.555 6.098 6.038 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 546 606 592 Service Time 4.646 4.098 4.118 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.603 1.333 0.571 HCM Control Delay 19.1 61.5 16.9 HCM Lane LOS C F C HCM 95th-tile Q 3.9 14.9 3.5 ` AM p6a-k 5:00 am 08/18/2010 Tactics Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 1=iM2010 aMa` 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 kx7.E,[ ,.. ✓m9'vT^`r�^' ".'�' `�"^ ds"i"-'3+�'".::�" 5w�p�wY" _;_77 Intersection Delay,s/veh 50.1 Intersection LOS F Vol,veh/h 0 375 119 0 100 54 0 74 739 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 ,Heavy Flow 0 412 131 0 143 77 0 77 770 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 MARC— Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 49.5 15.2 59.6 HCM LOS E C F ai .. 777 t . 1ItL 't Vol Left,% 65% 76% 0% Vol Thru,% 35% 0% 9% Vol Right,% 0% 24% 91% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 154 494 813 LT Vol 54 0 74 Through Vol 0 119 739 RT Vol 100 375 0 Lane Flow Rate 220 543 847 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util(X) 0.43 0.941 1 Departure Headway(Hd) 7.038 6.243 5.731 Convergence,YIN Yes Yes Yes Cap 515 575 635 Service Time 5.038 4.334 3.746 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.427 0.944 1.334 HCM Control Delay 15.2 49.5 59.6 HCM Lane LOS C E F NCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 12.2 15.3 Pidtpeak 3:00 pm 09/22/2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 `R PE�t�t w T T LA Cx V0124ME Timings L.JE 0.4) 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI G6/20/2014 -� 4\ T 1 arae,irIsI�.,. .EER SBL i1". .. BT} Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 375 119 100 54 74 739 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 Lane UtiL Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.967 0.877 Fit Protected 0.963 0.969 Satd.Flow(prot) 1752 0 0 1805 1650 0 Flt Permitted 0.963 0.227 Satd.Flow(perm) 1752 0 0 423 1650 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Said,Flow(RTOR) 24 770 Link Speed(mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance(ft) 683 816 406 Travel Time(s) 18.6 22.3 11.1 Confl.Peds.(#/hr) Confl.Bikes(#lhr) Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.96 0.96 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1°f 2% 2% 1% 1% Bus Blockages(#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic(°,6 j 0% 0% 0% Adj.Flow(vph) 412 131 143 77 77 770 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 543 0 0 220 847 0 Tum Type Prot Penn NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split(s) 27.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Total Split(%) 38.6% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 21.7 35.7 35.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.54 0.54 PM peak 3:00 pm 09/2212010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 -* -'V 4� t 1 ' 77777- Vii- v/c v/c Ratio 0.93 0.97 0.68 Control Delay 46.8 74.3 4,5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.8 74.3 4.5 LOS D E A Approach Delay 46.8 74.3 4.5 Approach LOS D E q 90th%Ile Green(s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 90th%Ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold 70th%Ile Green(s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 7001%Ile Terre Code Max Max Max Hold 50th%Ile Green(s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 50th%Ile Terre Code Max Max Max Hold 30th%Ile Green(s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 3001°/dile Terre Code Max Max Max Hold 10th%Ile Green(s) 18.2 25.4 25.4 25.4 10th%Ile Term Code Gap Gap Gap Hold Queue Length 50th(ft) 216 81 14 Queue Length 95th(ft) #406 #147 65 ' Internal Link Dist(ft) 603 736 326 Tum Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity(vph) 616 247 1286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.89 0.66 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:70 Actuated Cycle Length:66.5 Natural Cycle:70 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:28.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min)15 90th%Ile Actuated Cycle:70 70th%ile Actuated Cycle:70 50th%Ile Actuated Cycle:70 30th%Ile Actuated Cycle:70 10th%Ile Actuated Cycle:52 6 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. lits and Phases: 341:156thAve SE&SE 142nd Pi 02 04 06 City of Renton Page 2 6f-pc ; . PO C Lanes, Volumes, Timings ( ;t-' WO 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 375 119 100 54 74 739 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 20 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.967 0.850 Fit Protected 0.963 0.969 Said,flow(prot) 1752 0 0 1805 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.963 0.757 Said.Flow(perm) 1752 0 0 1410 1881 1599 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Said.Flow(RTOR) 42 770 Link Speed(mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance(ft) 683 816 406 Travel Time(s) 18.6 22.3 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles(°k) 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% Adj.Flow(vph) 412 131 143 77 77 770 Shared Lane Traffic(°/a) Lane Group Flow(vph) 543 0 0 220 77 770 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed(mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 2 2 1 Detector Template Left Left Thru Thru Right Leading Detector(ft) 20 20 100 100 20 Trailing Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 6 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend(s) 0.0 0.0 Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 PM peak 3:00 pm 09/22/2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 '%.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06120/2014 * -A 4\ 1 +� 7 7771, 18 1117- _. _ 77 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split(s) 22.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0- Total Split(%) 48.9% 51.1% 51.1% 51.1% 51.1% Maximum Green(s) 17.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead(Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 14.4 11.7 11.8 11.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 vlc Ratio 0.74 0.47 0.12 0.74 Control Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 LOS B B A A Approach Delay 17.9 13.5 6.3 Approach LOS B B A Queue Length 50th(ft) 67 34 10 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #247 56 29 51 Internal Link Dist(ft) 603 736 326 Tum Bay Length(ft) 20 Base Capacity(vph) 925 770 1027 1222 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.59 0.29 0.07 0.63 [. ers7tida:Vi4�rnGr :ro „ : as 77--01717- Area Type: Other Cycle Length:45 Actuated Cycle Length:35.6 Natural Cycle:45 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:11.2 Intersection LOS:B Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles: Splits and Phases: 341.-156th Ave SE&SE 142nd Pt 1to2 04 T ~� 06 AM Pr-, IN Fx uvLLV"E Timings �� S n N A l.-?it"55.0) 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06120/2014 _ -A ytmri �1n t 1 ` 7 77 71-7777777 77 Lane Configurations '(ri Volume(vph) 642 77 100 137 67 197 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.985 0.899 Fit Protected 0.957 0.979 Said.Flow(prot) 1756 0 0 1772 1658 0 Flt Permitted 0.957 0.582 Satd. Flow(perm) 1756 0 0 1053 1658 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Satd,Flow(RTOR) 12 228 Link Speed(mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance(ft) 973 828 981 Travel Time(s) 26.5 22.6 26.8 Confl.Peds. (#/hr) Confl.Bikes(#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.72 0.72 0.78 0.78 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2%° 5% 5% 3% 3% Bus Blockages(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic(%) 0% 0% 0% Adj.Flow(vph) 721 87 139 190 86 253 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 808 0 0 329 339 0 Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split(s) 42.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split(%) 56.0% 44.0% 44.0% 44.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 33.7 24.7 24.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.36 0.36 AM peak 5:00 am 08/18/2010 Tactics Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Timings 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 t m7 77 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.86 0.45 Control Delay 34.1 44.3 8.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.1 44.3 8.1 LOS C D A Approach Delay 34.1 44.3 8.1 Approach LOS C D A 90th%Ile Green(s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 9001%Ile Tenn Code Max Max Max Hold 70th%iie Green(s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 70th%Ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold 50th%lie Green(s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 50th%ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold 30th%ile Green(s) 33.9 24.0 24.0 24.0 30th%ile Term Code Gap Gap Gap Hold 10th Me Green (s) 22.6 15.2 15.2 15.2 10th%ile Term Code Gap Gap Gap Hold Queue Length 50th(ft) 322 135 33 Queue Length 95th(ft) #558 172 64 Internal Link Dist(ft) 893 748 901 Tum Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity(vph) 1010 458 850 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.72 0.40 7,777 7,7 Area Type: Other Cycle Length75 Actuated Cycle ength:67.7 Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio:0.92 Intersection Signal Delay:30.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% _tC�Level of Service D Analysis Period(min)15 90th%ile Actuated Cycle:75 70th%Ile Actuated Cycle:75 50th%ile Actuated Cycle.,75 30th%ile Actuated Cycle:66,9 10th%ile Actuated Cycle:46.8 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 333: 156thAve SE&SE 142nd PI i o, 04 "At `�S't 06 City of Renton Page 2 N N N N;0 W -4 0 � � j -► -� -' CO 00 -j O CJI � W N'-► _ 0000 000 C) CAU100CD000000Od00:000 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C? 0 0 0 0 ooOOQp000000do RtNNN � s 4�-, W N' " O O W - CA CJI ? W N s p C0 00 -tel O M A W N s M A O O O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O a 0 0 0 O'Z OOOQOdOOdOd0000000' Od0000 � N � � s . . . . . . . . . . _ (n W v 0 00 WO 0 CJI CA W O s N W W O N N A CA V Z .s 0) CJI V 0 W W 4�h, N E3} 0 M CJI C7.CJ1 C7i =. OW -P V O 1 V A W t0 C0 co 0) CXs (n Cl) co CA CJI J Op CO CJ1 N CJi CA -J CJt Q CAN Cat V V N Cb W C't N Cp w m 0 W -�P CSD N V -� O C)I W W $i N N O N N N W CAN CA -' N Cat `J ' }tel �' O + CO co - M -4 -4M -NWNNN _NNN N O N O G3 W W tW -4NJt W 0a0 COJt 0�a W OD 00 000 co mCD, (ts =- CD A CD N ChD z 1 (A -� � NN W44h. 4 _WNNNc440) ACA - O N Q � W � Ca7ti � m00 w00WONt0JtNCO O000O Ww �lm cu C0 m .i 1 CJt CP CTI (A - Nca � j � - � � � 00N � CC}Cn O 00 0) OD (04yi a � o � + ja C _ 4 W O _ - s L W WIx O , 2 Oe � ° coo � `,` � Lo d' >= Z N ry. C7 = 00 w 9 a v1 J - F 4A O z N �. 03cc LU W W o �, T W uj - a LOCM �J 1 JQ co ui Qy N `err+ ORTHWEST EXP ?�!�",•,.-r/C ER TS rraff 11410 NE 124th St. #590 Kirkland,WA 98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax:425.522.4311 Vincent J. Geglia Principal, TraffEx Degree BS Civil Engineering - State University of New York at Buffalo Association Membership 1986 to present- Institute of Transportation Engineers Occupational Experience 2004 to present-Principal of TraffEx, a consulting engineering firm specializing in traffic engineering services, Kirkland, WA. 1986 to 2004-Senior Transportation Engineer for Transportation, Planning and Engineering, Bellevue, WA. 1981 to 1986- Project Engineer for AESL 1976 to 1981 - Facility Engineer/Master Planner Dept of Defense 1973 to 1976-Transportation Engineer for NYSDOT Mr. Geglia has been the project engineer responsible for the preparation of over 400 traffic impact analyses for a variety of office, commercial and residential developments in the Puget Sound area. He has prepared the transportation section for several Environmental Impact Statements including Mill Creek Town Center and Sammamish Parkplace, a 1.2 million square foot office complex; Mr. Geglia has designed more than 60 traffic signals, street illumination plans, signal interconnect system, and channelization plans, including the illumination design for six miles of freeway and five interchanges on WSDOT's 1-405 Northup to Bothell HOV lanes project.. tx, �l THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE 2nd ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SE 142"D PL./156TH AVE. SE INTERSECTION CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by rVCJR THWEffEX TRAP FIC EXPORTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 20, 2014 NORTHWEST TRAFF/C ExPERTB rralffmy 11414 NE 124th St. Kidd ,WA9803498034 Phone:425,522.4590 Fax:425.522.4311 June 20, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton 2nd Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis with a Traffic Signal at SE 142nd PI./156th Ave. SE Intersection Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this 2nd addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide an analysis of the SE 142nd PI./156th Ave SE intersection assuming a traffic signal is installed. The analysis is summarized as follows: • With a signal installed the level of service improves from F' to B in both the AM and PM peak hours at the SE 142nd PI/156th Ave SE intersection • With the improved operating conditions resulting from installation of a signal, the southbound queue on SE 156th St. is significantly reduced and does not block either of the Enclave's site access streets or SE 5th PI. AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AM and PM peak hour level of service calculations were performed using the projected 2015 traffic volumes (including proect generated traffic) and assuming a traffic signal installed at the SE 142"d PI/156t Ave SE intersection. The level of service improved from F without a signal to B with a signal in both AM and PM peak hours. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for future conditions with the project. Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TABLE 1 2015 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLED AT SE 142"D PL/156TH AVE SE INTERSECTION INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SE 142" PI / 156th Ave SE B 14.3 B 14.8 Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (X XX) LOS and average control delay in seconds SOUTHBOUND VEHICLE QUEUES ON 156TH AVE SE While performing the traffic counts for the TIA, it was observed that in the PM peak hour existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PI. which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PI./156th Ave SE intersection. With a traffic signal installed, the maximum southbound queue is significantly reduced to 77 feet in the AM peak hour and 61 feet in the PM peak hour. The distance from the stop bar on SE 156th Street to the Enclave's southern access street is approximately 175 ft.. Therefore, the queue would not block either of the two Enclave's access streets nor SE 5th Place. The queue summary is attached in the technical appendix. Since these intersections would not be affected by the southbound queue, they would therefore operate at an acceptable level of service C or B as calculated and shown in the April 29, 2014 Addendum. Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rrafift, If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(a)-nwtraffex.com or larry nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, 4 "AL CO Or S7 ()NAL Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 3 TECHNICAL APPENDIX FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 4% t 4 Lane Configurations 4 Volume(vph) 659 42 103 117 73 229 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.96. 0.98 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1765 1820 1672 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.64 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 1765 1198 1672 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj.Flow(vph) 686 44 107 122 76 239 RTOR Reduction(vph) 4 0 0 0 163 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 726 0 0 229 152 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green,G (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Effective Green,g(s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 912 379 529 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.60 0.29 Uniform Delay,d1 9.5 13.9 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.9 2.7 0.3 Delay(s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Level of Service B B B Approach Delay(s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Approach LOS B B B HCM Average Control Delay 14.3 HCM Level of Service B NCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 48.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR vvITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 t Lane Group Flow(vph) 730 229 315 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.61 0.46 Control Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 168 56 16 Queue Length 95th(ft) 291 #164 77 Internal Link Dist(ft) 404 136 230 Turn Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity(vph) 1336 476 809 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.48 0.39 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR V1TH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St& 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 T l Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 300 118 81 92 73 726 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.97 0.98 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1730 1820 1634 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.25 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 1730 470 1634 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj.Flow(vph) 316 124 85 97 77 764 RTOR Reduction(vph) 32 0 0 0 434 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 408 0 0 182 407 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Effective Green,g(s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 606 203 706 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.90 0.58 Uniform Delay,d1 10.2 9.7 7.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.0 35.8 1.1 Delay(s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Level of Service B D A Approach Delay(s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Approach LOS B D A HCM Average Control Delay 14.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 36.8 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE 6/20/2014 " I i Lane Group Flow(vph) 440 182 841 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.91 0.74 Control Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 74 35 9 Queue Length 95th(ft) #175 #133 61 Internal Link Dist(ft) 168 201 240 Turn Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity(vph) 817 281 1286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.65 0.65 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 �x www.idaxdata.com S5 C6,4 156TH AVE NE Wax SE 142ND PL -p ✓/''iw Date: Tue,Apr 15,2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM ti Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 2 N �} ` LU Ui A off 0 297 < TEV: 1,220 --j 642 PHF: 0.96 719 77 0 > S 0 Z HV%: PHF QEB 1.9% 0.89 = NB 4.6% 0.72 ti SB 3.0% 0.78 O N TOTAL 2.7% 0.96 Two-Hour Count Summaries SE 142ND PL SE 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE Interval 158TH AVE NE Rollin Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound 15-min 9 Southbound One LT TH RT LT TH RTf24 LT TH RT LT TH RT Total Hour 7:00 AM 165 '036 0 0 0 16 0 0 11 52 304 7 15AMw 137w 0 19 ' 0 0 0 30 46 7:30 AM 158 .» U.... ._8. 0 0 28 54 0 0 12 43 303 7:45 AM 182 0 14 0 0 0 18 21 0 0 8:00 AM 148 0 10 0 p 4 57 296 1,220 0 24 11 0 0 3 96 292 1,208 8:15 AM 168 0 9 0 0 0 32 16 0 0 4 59 288 1,179 8:30 AM 170 0 8 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 6 59 282 1,158 8:45 AM 175 0 11 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 9 61 282 1,144 Count Total 1,303 0 115 0 0 0 193 192 p 0 89 472 2,364 Peak Hr 642 0 77 0 0 6 100 137 0 0 67 197 1,220 Note:Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians(CrossingLeg) Start EB WB N8 5B Total ES WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 7 00 AM 2 D 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 p 7 15 AA g p� 2 0 7 0 {0 0 .. OHI , 0 0 7:30 AM 3 �0 w3 n 8 0 .. .> 0 1 0 1 0 D . 0 _ 0 . ,. 7:45 AM 4 0 3 2 9 0 0 0 1 1 !0 0 8:00 AM 7 0 2 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 5 0 2 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 4 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 8:45 AM 4 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 0Count Total 34 0 16 18 680 0 1EA 0 EEE=0 0 Peak Hr 14 0 11 8 33 0 0 1 0 0 Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL WC Date- Tue,Apr 15,2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM • w W °° Peak Hour: 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM LU Z N N Q H o. N M O 313 4— TEV: 671 a —� 221 PHF: 0.95 0 282 61 40 0 > rf SE 142N co 1 D 0D M Z HV%: PHF Lu EB 4.6% 0.84 0 NB 8.0% 0.84 oc N F- CD B 6.1% 0.80 O r V_ I TOTAL 5.8% 0.95 Two-Hour Count Summaries Interval SE 142qPLSE 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE 156TqNE RollinStart EastboWestbound Northbound 15-ming One LT THLT TH RT LT TH RT LT SoTotalHour 11:00 AM 57 00 0 0 16 10 0 0 11:15 AM 49 0 20 0 153 0 0 11 8 0 0 8 52 148 11:30 AM 70 0 14 0 0 0 24 13 0 0 8 43 11:45 AM 47 0 11 0 0 0 22 5 0 0 172 12 57 154 627 12 DO PM.- 52� 0 12117.1-11-1., 0 D 2Z gg 0 0 12:15 PM 52 p 44 D 10k 72 ;177;' 651 0 0 20 10 0 y0 �,9 .. 53 168 •.. 671 12:30 PM 47 0 14 0 0 0 13 10 0 0 7 48 139 638 12:45 PM 37 0 19 0 0 0 19 11 0 0 15 49 150 634 Count Total 41 i 0 125 0 0 0 147 76 0 0 79 423 1,261 Peak Hr 221 0 61 0 0 0 88 37 0. 0 39 225 671 Note:Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count IntervalfEEHeavy Vehicle Totals Bi les Start WS NB SB Total EB WB NS SB Total East P West North Nort(Croh South Total 11:00 AM 0 2 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 AM 0 2 1 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 AM 0 5 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D 0 0 11 45 AM 0 2 1 5 0 0 00 2OO:PM 0a 7 8�v712 0 0 f FO^ 0 0- 2:15 PM 4 0 2 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 p 0 � 0 D 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 12:45 PM 6 0 2 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 31 0 16 24 71 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 Peak Hr 13 0 10 16 39 0 0 D 0 p iD 0 D 0 0 Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com ""' UrrN ' 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL �M A Date: Tue,Apr 15, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM °' Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM w r z co Q 40 m 0 839 F--- i TEV: 1,461 r= —> 375 PHF: 0.97 C2494 119 0 4 0--j SE 1 LU c w 0 I � m z HV%: PHF EB 1.4% 0.91 c NB 1.9% 0.70 SB 1.2% 0.96 TOTAL 1.4% 0.97 Two-Hour Count Summaries Interval SE 142ND PL SE 142ND PL 156TH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE g�� Eastbound Westbound 15-min Rolling Northbound Southbound One LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Total Hour 4:00 PM 7i 0 28 0 0 0 31 18 0 0 4:15 PM 74 0 36 0 17 149 314 0 0 27 13 0 0 12 176 338 4:30 PM 115 0 28 0 0 0 25 11 0 0 4:45 PM 101 0 27 p p 10 185 374 0 14 7 0 0 10 202 361 1,387 5:00 PM 86 0 23 0 0 0 25 14 0 0 5:15 PM 87 0 35 0 p 22 185 355 1,428 0 27 12 0 0 21 186 388 1,458 e 5 30 PMS = 101'° 0" _ 34w W p p� 34 21` Q; 0 21 e 166 :377,' 1,461 5:45 PM 64 0.. 24. 0 0 . 0 18 13 0 0 rNoteo: unt Total 699 0 235 0 15 147 281 1,381 0 0 201 109 0 0 128 1,396 2,768 eak Hr 375 0 119 0 0 0 100 54 0. 0 74 739 1,461 Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles In overall count. F rval Hea Vehicle Totals Bic lesart EBWS NB SB Tol EB WB N8 SB Total East. PWest NCorth SegsTotal 0 PM 4 0 0 6 100 0 0 0 0 05 PM 2 0 3 1 6 00 00 PM 2 0 0 6 g 0 0 0 1 0 4:45 PM 3 0 10 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p 0 0 0 515 PM 3 0 2 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 r k- 530`:PM 1 0k# 34i 0lA 0 5:45 PM 1.., 0 1 2... 4.. _,0 0 ., 00p 00 0OCount Total 16 0 7 25 48 0 0 0 0Peak Hr 7 ;0 3 10 26 0 0 0 EOO - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com W.G4 Ex ca NO 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 Intersection Delay,s/veh 41.8 Intersection LOS E : Vd,'veflh 0 642 77 _ .0 100 137 .0 67 197 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.72 Q72 0.90 0.78 Q78 Heavy Vehicles, 96 2 2 2 2 5 5 2 3 3 Mvmt Flow 0 721 87 0 139 190 0 86 253 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Rlght 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 61.5 19.1 16,9 HCM LOS F C C Vol Left,% 421A 89% 0% Vol Thru,% WA 0% 25% Vol Right,% 0% 11% 75% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 237 719 264 LT Vol 137 0 67 Through Vol 0 77 197 RT Vol 100 642 0 Lane Flow Rate 329 808 338 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of UGI(X) 0.599 1 0.568 Departure Headway(Hd) 6.555 6.098 6.038 Convergence,YIN Yes Yes Yes Pap 546 606 592 Service Time 4.646 4.098 4.118 HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.603 1.333 0.571 HCM Control Delay 19.1 61.5 16.9 HCM Lane LOS C F C HCM 95th4le Q 3.9 14.9 3.5 1 Wpe c 5:00 am 08/18/2010 Tactics Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 PMP tic Co W.2 E'K �J1J Fq 3 : 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 Intersection Delay,s/veh 50.1 Intersection LOS Vd,veflti 0 375 . 119 0100 54 0 74 ---739 _. Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles,96 2 1 1 2- 2 2 2 11 Mvmt Flow 0 412 131 0 143 77 0 77 770 Number of Lanes 0 1. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 49.5 15.2 59.6 HCM LOS E C F Vol Lett,% 65% 76°/6 0% Vol Thru,% 35% 0% 996 Vol Right,% 0% 24% 91% Sign.Control Stop stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 154 494 813 'LT Vol 54 0 74 Through Vol 0 119 739 RT Vol 100 375 0 Lane Flow Rate 220 543 847 GeometryGrp 1 1 1 Degree of Util(X) 0.43 0.941 1 Departure Headway(Hd) 7.038 6.243 5.731 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 515 575 635 Service Time 5.038 4.334 3.746 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.427 0.944 1.334 HCM Control Delay 15.2 49.5 59.6 HCM Lane LOS C E F HCM 95th-tile 0 2.1 12.2 153, IPMTe*3:00 pm 09/22/2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 164W `� PEwhc W Tn Ex VOL-uME ' Timings SrL,N Q L-IL0. 1) 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd P) 06/20/2014 t Lane Configurations Vokime(vph) 375 119 100 54, 74 739 Ideal Flow' (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width(f) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 096 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage lanes 1 p 0 0 Taper96O 25 25 Lane U6L Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Fit 0.967 0.877 Fit Protected 0.963 0.969 Satd.Flow(proQ 1752 0 0 1805 1650 0 Flt Permitted 0.963 0.227 Said.Flow(perm) 1752 0 0 423 1650 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Said.Flow(RTOR) 24 770 Link Speed(mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance(ft) 683 816 406 Travel Time W. 18.6 22.3 11.1 ConA.Peds.(#!hr ) Confl.Bikes(#fir) Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 Q96 0.96 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% bus Blockages(#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic(%) 0% 0% 0% Adj.Flow(vph) 412 131 143 77 77 770 Sharedlane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 543 0 0 220 847 0 Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6. Permitted Phases_ 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 000 Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split(s) 27.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Total Split(%) 38.6% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4% Yellow rime(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 21.7 35.7 35.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.54 0.54 PM peak 3:00 pm 09/22/2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 `Timings r 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 _)V AN f i W ARatio 0.93 0.97 0.68 Confr�Delay 46.8 74.3 4.5 ,Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.8 74.3 4.5 LOS D IE A Approach Delay 46.8 74.3 4.5 Approach LOS D E A 90th%He Green(s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 90th%tie Term Code Max Max Max Hold 70th%tu Green(s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 70th%ile Tenn Code 'Max Max Max Hold 50th%Ile Green(s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 50th%Ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold 30th%Ile Green(s) 22.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 30th%Oe Term Code Max Max Max Hold 10th%He Green(s) 18.2 25.4 25.4 25.4 10th%Ile Term Code Gap Gap Gap Hold Queue Length 50th(ft) 216 81 14 Queue Length 95th(ft) #406 #147 65 ' Internal Link Dist(ft) 603 736 326 Tum Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity(vph) 616 247 1286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.89 0.66 IN Area Type: Other Cycle Length:70 Actuated Cycle Length:66.5 Natural Cycle:70 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum We Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:28.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min)15 90th%Ile Actuated Cycle:70 70th%ile Actuated Cycle:70 50th%le Actuated Cycle:70 30th%Ile Actuated Cycle:70 10th%tie Actuated Cycle:52.6 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. lits and Phases: 341:156th Ave SE&SE 142nd PI 02 04 106 City of Renton Page 2 •,.� �„'' eM Pk Wi=b� AC3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings CWS 1ti- 6-,, VOL) 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/2012014 t` 4N 1 Wool Lane Configurations V olume(vph)V 315 119 100 54 74 739 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(it) 0 0 0 20 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 25 25 Lane U61.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.,00 1.00 Fill 0.967 0.850 Flt Protected 0.963 0.969 Satd.?Flow(prat) 1752 0 0 1805 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.963 0.757 Satd.L Flow(perm) 1752 0 0 1410 1881 1599 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Said.Flow(RTOR) 42 770 Link Speed(mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance(ft) 683 816 406 Travel Time(s) 18.6 22.3 11.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% Adj.,Flow(yph) 412 131 143 77 77 770 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Groupflow(vph) 543 0 0 220 77 770 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No NoNo Lane Alignment Left fight Left Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 0 0 Unk Offset(#) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Wldth(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tuming Speed(mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 2 2 1 Detector Template Left Left Thru Thru Right Leading Detector(ft) 20 20 100 100 20 Trailing Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 6 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend(s) 0.0 0.0 Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 PM peak 3:00 pm 09/22/2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 341: 156th Ave SE& SE 142nd PI 06IM2014 t l 41 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum kiHial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split(s) 22.0 210 23.0 23.0 23.0 Toth Split(%) 48.9% 51.1% 51.1% 51.1% 51.1% Maximum Green(s) 17.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Yetiow Tune(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1:0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 14.4 11.7 11.8 11.8 Actuated WC Ratio 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 vic Ratio 0.74 0.47 0.12 0.74 Control Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 LOS B g A A Approach Delay 17.9 13.5 6.3 Approach LOS B B A Queue Length 50th(ft) 67 34 10 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #247 56 29 51 Internal Link Dist(ft) 603 736 326 Tum Bay Length(ft) 20 Base Capacity(vph) 925 770 1027 1222 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.59 0.29 0.07 0.63 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:45 Actuated Cycle Length:35.6 Natural Cycle:45 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:11.2 Intersection LOS:B Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds cape ft queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 341:156thAve SE&SE 142nd PI 102 4 7 AM P17AeV--.L'tf1 Fk Vvt_Ltr F Timings C SJtn N A L--ZtF.d) 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06120/2014 Lane Configurations Vokime(* 642 77 100 137 67 197 Ideal Flow(00) 1900 1901) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lara Width(ft) 12 12 12 12< 12 12 Grade C ) 0% 0% _ 076 Storage Length(ft) 0 0 p _ 0 Storage Lanes 1 6 6 0 Taper Lerigth(R) 25 25 Lane Ul 1.Factor mkt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped We Factor _ Frt 0.985 0.899 Flt Protected 6.957 0.979 Said.Flow(prat) 1756 0 0 1772 1658 0 Flt Permitted 0.957 0.582 Said.Flow(perm) 1756 0 0 1053 1650 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Said.Flow(RTOR) 12 228 Link Speed.(mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance(ft) 973 828 981 T1,901 Time(s) 26:5 22.6 26.8 T Confl.Peds.(#/hr) Conflr.Bikes(#fir) Peak Hour Factors 0.89 0.89 0.72 0.72 0.78 0.78 Growth Factor. l 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 5% 596 3% 3% Bus Bk4'ages(fffir) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (1Ilhr) MOlodc Traff o(96) 0% 0% 0% Adj.Flow(vph) 721 87 139 190 86 253 Steered tare Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow(vph) 808 0 0 329 339 0 Tum Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Split(s) 42.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split(%) 56.0% 44.6% 44.0% 44.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 .Total Lost Time(s)` 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Act Effd Green(s) 33.7 24.7 24.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.36 0.36 AM peak 5:00 am 08/18/2010 Tactics Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 Iftw r Timings 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd PI 06/20/2014 4 vk Ratio` 0.9'P 0.66 0.45 m"Delay 34.1 44.3 8.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.1 44.3 8.1 LOS C I D A Approach Delay 34.f 44.3 8.1 i�pproadt LOS C D A 901h lige Green(s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 0*Xtie Term Code Max Max Max Hold' 766%He Green(s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 70th%Ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold 50th%He Green(s) 37.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 50th%Ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold 30th%Ile Green(s) 33.9 24.0 24.0 24.0 30th%ile Term Code Gap Gap Gap Hold 10th%He Green(s) 22.6 15.2 15.2 15.2 10th%He Term_Code Gap Gap Gap Hold Queue Length 50th(ft) 322 135 33 'Lon'6 95th(ft) ,#558 172 64` Internal Link Dist(ft) 893 748 901 Tum Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity(vph) 1010 458 850 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 SpIlbadc Cap Redudtn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.72 0.40 Area Type: Other Cycle Leh IT5 Actuated Cyc ength:67.7 Natural Cyde:75 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum We Ratio:0.92 Intersection Signal Delay.30.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% 1CW-level of Service D Analysis Period(min)15 90th%He Actuated Cycle:75 70th%He Actuated Cyde:75 50th%He Actuated Cycle.-75 30th%Ile Actuated Cycle.66.9 .10th Mie Aict eted Cyd e 46.8 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown-is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 333:156th Ave SE&SE 142nd PI 1r2 84 City of Renton page 2 WN — OCOCbV GACA -AkCA) M pO W -400 A WN -� _ "I OOOO'OOOOOOOOOO � OOOpOOOOp �C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O NNN, NN � W N " 0 (000' -40C3 4WN - 00000000002 0) 0000000000 00000000 000000000000000000000000p L CW37 WAV000WOCJ7OCb0 � N) Ws0N � OD W O O -� CJI VO) 0DWp . NWOCTIONDCJICO0DN A;CAV Q7ul CA 3 N�OcO W V QC000) -� co WO C> -1 OV _ 0W CbOJNJyCONJWWC) NG M ' NNW WN W WWNNNNNN -� Z � ONV �,COUt.W pW OANNNNWO) NO � � CA -' N W V PD OOCnCA) W W W WO'�P � NU1V V Cil 'pO CD CJI V -4 M,.A6 W N N N NO -LW ~ WN000OD0 _N N (11 N --► 00 N � N NOODCJI 0) WO0J10D0DVNC 000NW -AL OO 0o m cn CD z CD CAO CF) -' NNW p p pWN'NNW .p ' CAO) 0) -1 N O CJl N CA OD O) p CJI -� 00 O) CO -- .p, CA CO W p) W -� -' N Ill CC) -� W O) (O (Jl .p, O) 00 CO W O N CJI N O Cb 0 W W VCA W T N N W �. 0); co V CJI CJI!CJl Cn CA CO (O V N Q1 0000 � O 0 O) �;0D C(O v " 0ODD 00 N CU � N 0) co O CV V V A V W N CJl — Ca aVNw W VCO N CJN V N 00 14 CD WNA CO (D 0) 0 cnWOV CJ 24 June 2014 Renton Hearing Examiner re: The proposed Enclave development along 156th Ave SE For the last 34 years, I've lived within a half mile of the 154th PI SE/156th Ave SE arterial corridor which runs adjacent to the Enclave development site. This 1.77 mile route connects Maple Valley Hwy(SR-169)with the arterial network on the plateau east of Renton. I'm here because I've driven all or portions of the corridor perhaps thousands of times. I'm also here because I don't live in city, residing the unincorporated area in one of Renton's Potential Annexation Areas. As a resident of a neighboring jurisdiction (i.e. King County), I'm here to assure you are aware of the impacts we're witnessing outside Renton's jurisdiction. It doesn't appear that a holistic plan or vision for the corridor exists. This, not surprisingly, results in a mosaic of changes that all but ignore impacts outside their immediate epicenter. It means were designing things based on formulas, without the availability an integrated vision to orchestrate the changes. Renton has a subarea approach to community planning. At last check, only the boundaries of the subarea that includes the corridor have been created. Renton needs a comprehensive subarea plan for this plateau before it makes one more decision that, once made, is essentially impossible to correct. If wrong, the"cost of quality" also increases dramatically. It's not clear if Renton is operating the way intended as evidenced by comments on King County Transportation Concurrency Management Program, and the City Council Resolution for an ILA with King County that includes transportation. Renton's Transportation Concurrency Program Management Plan mentions that much of the load on the city's transportation system is out of their control, coming from decisions made in other jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the city appears to be ignoring the reverse where decisions made in the city impact transportation systems in other jurisdictions. The City's intent to be sensitive to impacts their decisions make on other jurisdictions should be clear. • Renton Resolution 4165' that calls for staff work on creating an Inter-Local Agreement with King County that was intended, among other things, to include a commitment by the city to comprehensively evaluate transportation issues that are analyzed and prioritized by the county. • Renton comments2 on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program update to King County Code 14.703 where the city"requests that King county Renton Resolution 4165, 10 December 2012, Inter-Local Agreement(ILA) between Renton and King County. 2 Letter from Jennifer Henning to Josh Peters, 18 December 2013, "Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 1391h Place, Renton, WA 98059 1 establish Level of Service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary`. But what is not clear is how the decisions Renton has made align with that intent. This certainly includes development and the transportation system. If Renton were to follow its recommendation to King County Transportation Concurrency Management Program, Travel Shed 12 would be expanded to its "natural" boundaries (as opposed to stopping at jurisdictional boundaries). At a minimum, this would cause all road segments along the 154th/156th arterial corridor to fail transportation concurrency. Following the Transportation Concurrency RCW, this would require development denial until allowed response plans were committed. No such response plans exist in Renton. The decisions regarding the Enclave development application are highly questionable in context of 1) goals for the entire 154th/156th arterial corridor, and 2) impacts to other jurisdictions, including King County and Washington State. From a Transportation Concurrency perspective, Renton is permitting additional daily trips in a road network that will increase load on road segments currently failing King County transportation concurrency that are within a mile and a half of the arterial corridor. All the unincorporated area road segments along the arterial corridor are in King County Travel Shed 12. Under King County's method, if more than 15% of the road segments in a travel shed fail concurrency, the entire travel shed fails. This approach recognizes the interconnected nature of the road system and, analogous to water sheds, recognize the most road users travel routes, not just intersections or road segments. The travel sheds recognize that development doesn't just impact roads and intersections near the project, but drives trips onto routes that will likely impact roads and intersections some considerable distance away. Renton, on the other hand, approaches transportation concurrency completely differently. The Level of Service is an index last updated in 2002 that essentially is the sum of distances traveled using three different types of routes over a fixed period of time. The Renton transportation model is updated annually with, among other things, new net trip data. As long as the predicted miles are below the 2002 index, the entire system passes transportation concurrency. 3 King County Roads has proposed changes to their transportation concurrency that could impact this situation, but staff has advised that the changes are significant and might involve Code and Comprehensive Plan. Regardless, we expect quite a bit of discussion before decisions are made. Interestingly, Renton has expressed its opposition to the proposed county changes. Some residents from the area have also provided comments opposed to portions of the proposed changes. 4"King County's Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 94.70 should consider areas within and outside of its jurisdictional boundaries in applying the concurrency test. The City of Renton requests that King county establish Level of service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary. This will provide the ability to understand and evaluate the true impact and movement of vehicles on our road infrastructure. This will in tum give clear information on which impact fees and mitigation can be based." Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, WA 98059 2 Although there are some interesting elements to this approach, Renton's transportation concurrency will not fail for a very long time so developments, like Enclave, that may have local transportation service level issues, we always be issued a concurrency certificate. It's clear that the Transportation Concurrency laws strongly intend for jurisdictions to work together because of the possibility of impacts outside the permitting jurisdiction. This situation exists throughout the east plateau. This cross-jurisdictional issue also includes the Interstate 405. The 154th/1561h arterial corridor is formally identified as a bypass route for that interstate, and is identified for improvement in the WS DOT Interstate 405 Corridor Plan'. Radical improvements have been made at the Cedar River crossing, and on Coal Creek Pkwy between Renton and Newcastle, a major destination for traffic on the 154th/156th corridor. The county continues to prioritize flow improvement projects along 128th Ave SE, the major intersection route at the north end of the 154t'/156 1h corridor. In the context of the 1-405 program, plans like putting in an electric stoplight to replace the 3-way stop makes no sense. Assuming one of the objectives is to allow relatively unencumbered traffic flows along the 1-405 alternate route, stop lights should be reserved only for major intersections, something the 3-way stop is a long ways from being. One can do all sorts of speculation about things like political will and funding availability, but the raw facts are 1)the corridor is part of an accountable plan, 2)that plan is bigger than Renton, and 3) major investments have been made. Unfortunately, Renton Transportation and Community and Economic Development modified the mitigations required of the Enclave developer to add mitigation of the cost of putting a stoplight at the intersections. That decision is extremely presumptive about the validity and lack of importance of the WS DOT Interstate Program. There is no indication in the Enclave permitting or, for that matter, any of the other development permits issued by Renton along the corridor that the designs are aware of and aligned to the vision pass-through vision for the arterial network and the role the 154th/156th arterial segments contribute. There are questions about Renton's Transportation Concurrency Management Program. Although these will need to be addressed during the next update, it is purely coincidental that any analysis of the impact to intersections or road segment travel times are even included in the permitting analysis for Enclave. It was the developer that included the delay analysis for the 3- way stop, something not required by Renton SEPA or concurrency. Unlike what's called for in the RCW, Renton concurrency does not drive development at all. In fact, it appears to have no relevance to development decisions. 5 The WS DOT"Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects" (28 May 2008) identifies over 150 individual projects including improvements to"key arterials". Projects are included that extend from SR-169 through Newcastle. s Letter from Chip Vincent to Roger Paulsen, 22 May 2014, "Enclave at Bridal Ridge Preliminary Plat" Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, WA 98059 3 Development on this plateau, with disturbing trends and impacts, is far from over. The plateau continues to be a desirable development area. My last comment is to make sure we stay aware of where we are in development on the plateau. Some years ago, most of the large vacant parcel development was completed but development on the plateau is far from over. There are a number of annexations in different states of progress all driven by developers and all intended to get vested under Renton's rules, certainly including concurrency and without benefit of a holistic plan for the corridor, let alone the entire plateau. Based on what we're aware of we expect to see development applications for at least 150 new dwelling units generating over 1,200 daily trips, much of which will use at least a portion of the 154th/156th corridor. The decisions that are impacting the corridor transportation and the look and feel of the community need to be stopped before it becomes impossible and/or of significant cost to change the decisions. I recommend the HE rule that all development permitting that will impact the 154'h/156 1h arterial corridor be judged as not allowed until such time as 1) Renton can demonstrate its intended interregional coordination and mitigation plans, and 2) be in possession of a holistic plan for the area. Attachments: • WS DOT Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects, 28 May 2008, one-page summary. • Letter from Chip Vincent to Roger Paulsen. Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-00241, PP, ECF, 22 May 2014, additional mitigation for a stoplight. • Renton Resolution 4165, 10 December 2012, requesting work be done with the objective of an Inter-Local Agreement(ILA) between King County and the city. • Renton comment on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program update to King County Code 14.70 • Various maps including King County Travel Shed 12 and transportation needs, the corridor including the 1-405 bypass route, etc. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, WA 98059 4 Denis Law,. - .. Mayor f City Of Department ofCommuniry.and:E onomicEievelopmen#. C.E."Chi.*"Vincent,Admi n istrator December 18; 2013" . _ I Josh 13.Peters,:AICP,'Transportatian P.lanningSupervisor i Road Services Division,Strategic Business Operations Section King County Department ofTransportaton {CCS-TR-0312, 201 South Jackson Street. Seattle;WA..98104=3856 :. . Via email- Josh.Petexs kingcounty.goy . SUBJECT: Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management,Program Update to King Counfy.to 14.70' Dear:Mr: Peters::: Thank you for acce.ptinglcornments from the City.of.Rento.n regarding King County's.. 2013 Transportation.Concurrency Management Program Update. We-undOrstand.that., the comment.period forthe State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) Deterrnination.of Non=Significance,(DNS)ended on.November 22"d,_and.we.re ret not_ rovidin . g . p .. i g' . :eoniments at,that tune. 1Ne appreciate consideration-of our concerns;at this time. i King County's Trensportatiori Coijcurrency Management.Progra.m Update to King.,County ' Code 14-70'should consider areas withii.n and.outside of Jts ju�isdictional.boundaries.in applying the concurrency test::_The City of Renton requests that King Coanty.establish . Level of Service concurrency requirements comprehensively for:the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton'municipal:liinits.orthe Urban Growth Boundary: This w%IE provide.the.ability to understand.and ei ahiate the:true' pact and movement of vehicles on our road-infrastructure. This will in turn give.eEearinfo rriiatiorr. on which impact fees and mitigation can be based. In-addition,we encourage.King County to expend mitigation funds coilectecf within Renton's,Potential Annexation Area (PAA)on'projeets that directly benefit the tevel of: Service within the PAA. Renton City Hall'.'.1055 South Grady_Way..Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov -. Josh Peters 2of2 December 18,2013 . Please feel fires to contact me at ihennin (�.rentonwa.>;ov or 425-430-7786 if you would like to meet or discuss this further. Sincerely, Jennifer Henning,AICP Planning Director. C.C., C.E."Chip'.Vincent,CED Administrator Gregg Zimmerman,PW Administrator Doug Jacobson',Deputy Public Works Administrator Jim Seitz,Transportation Systems I Bob,Mahn,Transportation Systems CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 416.5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REQUESTING KING COUNTY BEGIN DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING A POTENTIAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF RENTON'S POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) facilitates the transformation of unincorporated urban areas to incorporation through either annexation or incorporation; and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan has designated the Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) for the City of Renton wherein annexation is the most likely and preferred choice of incorporation;and WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the City and King County to plan for the City of Renton's PAAs in a coordinated and consistent manner; and WHEREAS, King County should recognize the Comprehensive Planning and Development Regulations of the City within the PAAs, given that the PAAs will most likely at some time be within the City; and WHEREAS,the Puget Sound Regional Council developed VISION 2040, which recognizes the value, benefit, and role for cities planning beyond their incorporated limits for unincorporated urban areas; and WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPB) establish that King County should jointly plan with cities in a collaborative and coordinated manner; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations are in compliance with the GMA; and 1 ------------- RESOLUTION N0. 4165 WHEREAS, the City of Renton has adopted Comprehensive Plan land use designations and Development Regulations that could be applied to its PAAs; and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement establishing a joint effort in planning for Renton's PAAs would be in the best interest of the City and King County; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City requests King County begin discussions with City staff regarding a potential interlocal agreement concerning its Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations for land use development in the City Of Renton's PAAs. SECTION Ill. The City would like the potential interlocal agreement with King County to address the following: A. Testimony and Comments to the Kine County Hearing Examiner: In land use matters located in Renton's PAAs that are before the King County Hearing Examiner, testimony from the City of Renton, written or verbal, will be allowed to be considered as evidence in the decision making of the Hearing Examiner. B. Comprehensive Planning and Pre-Zoning: King County will endeavor to evaluate their Comprehensive Plan land use designations for consistency with City of Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations in Renton's PAAs. Additionally, King County will consider making amendments to their land use designations so that they are reasonably consistent with Renton's land use designations and pre-zoning when it has been adopted. 2 RESOLUTION N0. 4165 C. Transportation: Transportation concurrency, levels of service, and high incident accident areas that are analyzed and prioritized by King County will be evaluated comprehensively,considering information and documentation within Renton City limits. D. Transfer of Development Rights: Transfer of Development Rights receiving areas in the PAAs be limited to areas planned for higher densities (zoning that allows for densities of 10 dwelling units per acre and greater). SECTION IV. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to enter into the interlocal agreement with King County that jointly plans for Renton's PAAs. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 10th dayof_ December 2012. i` son A. S h, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 10th day of December 2012. xtp-�i , Denis Law, Mayor, Approved as to form: r' 9' T Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES:1577:11/26/12:scr 3 i Denis Law Mayor City Of, ii Community&Economic Development Department May 22, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator 1 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th.Place Renton,WA 98059 RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/LUA14-000241, PP,ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration,the City conducted an independent study of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection.The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal.The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection,the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC).has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at . (425) 430-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, C.E. "Chip"Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton,City Clerk Justin Lagers,Applicant Sally Lou Niper,Owner G.Richard Ouimet,-Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way . Renton,Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov Corridor . . Congestion Relief&Bus Rapid Transit Projects The 1-405 Corridor Program The 1-405 Plan What is the 1-405 Program? r / The Interstate 405 Corridor Program is a broad term for a MILD,CREFX program of more than 150 individual, coordinated projects �'`- --- to relieve congestion and improve mobility for motorists, 99 r� ® - transit and freight users along the freeway's 30-mile ' length. The full name is "Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects." The master plan for fixing ji—BOT'N�ELL _ 1-405 traffic includes all transportation modes, adding up BRIER ® to two new lanes each direction to 1-405, a corridor-wide r ITHoMISH COUNry �; _ ��_. , bus rapid transit (BRT) line and Increased local transit - '"G`°""" --- - 'y- _ __ _ - _ KENMORE service. It will fix bottlenecks such as the SR 167/1-405 R't� un:.Q W°°OWUE LAKE `. - -' �ry-� _ interchange, improve key arterials, expand transit centers, FOREST °"K _,\i4 r and add about 1,700 new vanpools and over 5,000 park and ride spaces. sz z UANITA KIRKLAHO yy�L I� -- ^"" //R.0 The 1-405 Master Plan will ultimately.• z° Q Add up to 2lanes in each direction in 1-405 sz Develop a Bus Rapid Transit line with stations along 1- � / 405 and expanded transit centers SEATTLE EEvuE • Improve key arterials a sAMMAMSH • Accommodate an additional 110,000 trips per day in the corridor MERCER ISL"D • Reduce time stuck in traffic by over 13 million hours per year-an average of over 40 hours per year per regular sp ssuw user AG ; NEWCASTLE Produce travel time savings valued at$569 million each - year - _ AddedBwwa,Wa&0—aliens Save$42 million each year in decreased traffic accidents Thune Ae—edded—h deed.on -�` 1405MMekmh 99 P4 _ -„ ��� Create 1700 new van ools-a 100%increase R RENTON f4mispoktrrLTedar SRI®,l90, P xoaandameone„ Increase local transit service by up to 50%within the –. 518 --Q©_ Bus Rapid transit(BRn Sena + aR RT I k* study area a""'a 7nnslt5erva • Build 5,000 new park-and-ride spaces 18 6 •dh HOV ecce 7i anddiect �Ss , np-mis Create eight new pedestrianlbicycle crossings overt-405 k%,W Improverneres se Enhance freight mobility through better interchanges, MAI LanaRc�assF4id travel time reduction,and updated and technologies 5,6 P4 BU SM- kn BRTseta. Provide much-needed economic benefits for Washington 7m itcent- State-for each$1 million spent on new construction,an Bute b—t mtm Park-es,"ida Lets additional 30 jobs are created S Bdd n ewpad-and-LMe spaces WashingtonState Department of Transportation c F 6qh AveS• �_ E - Orcer wd ■ r _, U1 ID I-SE ■ CD n x m o y min Enx ■ 00 M, A y _ �+ v m o a--,v n ! ° � c � rn co gra -� - o-O = D o rn - m'a m m m m d G N = ca N y. 3 3 3 7"(D O (/1 N 7 7c p 0 0 3 v, F m w �. < y .�. W 3 (D O N M N N 7 a n aS s 5 Pa 1 'C m > a D)O N .�. O =0 7' 7 O :D a o v CO o 3 o <� o � 0 Ow 3 �< mm oc -' �.a � S � O O o. D a O to CD 7 (D n -w-w 7 :IED .O+ CD a 7 fD 3 n 3 O `C 7 i O O _� �. N �• fD y ;V YJI S O O O- Z z � "' @ � �a � oin �'. oI 21n � o� ■' Er3am < � �, �. m m 3 m' y� m' m � cam me o < m j5 o m oc °: � < a a a n'O a 0 a � y.O � � N fD � � � N ��m N N� la � � < N N N = j O ,n.. 3'O '00 O. D) 'O N ' ID 2.N Cn a. CD M O 7 N N 7 p LD..�.y -+. D1 < m CD O a < S 3 O Q a 7 cn •• n (D a 01 �_ O O a vi shin O '0, •"S N �" Ci O -CD S rn -, �'m � w Ion I 112th Cp CD 116th Ave SE Edmo-sgv SE _a_ O < — 01 CD N 01 Ave SE O fn CD 7 y CD a N a- (D =r a m • G1 = k .40 w i y 3S anV-4lbAl Mon a Ave!E . yLv 23rd Ave SE 1h Ave SE l o mn e In nion Ave SE Union E 132 ` m �• Is e� Duvall Ave NE N �S e Jericho Ave NE -" Jen oAve SE - O h m 1 rn Nlle Ave NE - t08 ve S ET 0 C N p CD CnCD ."l7 3 x _ Ao 164y ye 16BV veS 3 O D) O ,µ ``• �16BM Ave SE D) Ave o 3 seell. _ coi =r O O my_ -3o W to o n S- s n X ( m m D n d o m O E, � � � � iN N � � OK O A N 3 0 Q (n �• as ui = �- n m f D y-00 m a° c �� c an 3CD FmF D0 "D -o a 0 `< 0 C m 3 � a' o y 90 (? � a �y i 1� �� • y �. N T. o C«1 y O �� i1■� m °Oca1 ( a 5 SU ae�y roll 1� ■ 1CD im6(D 0 s 0 CD Wo S. (a Q m N _ pus J ao v a y CD O 7 3 CD 7'< f17 0 2_45- �°' �^ 3 '; n-3•CD /A m CY CL CO j C Q N N ..a4s�wewwes Q. d w CD Fr N -c'� m 7 n fa S✓T ifiF 1 ;v l X (D O• a NE m m a3 r*, CeoarGo a CN(a m� m v 4C, Ry � _ 911,Ave NE LLII i (rEt E ( .��l NE-4th St I a Eo { - ... Connects to envisioned - Cedar-Sammamish Trail Renton is permitting development in annexed areas that touch property inside King County's jurisdiction that is are failing PENN. J•" I King County Transportation on Concurrency. -_ The entire length,along with much of SE 128th St and 164th Ave SE,are listed The permitting is allowing increases in in King County's Transportation Needs vehicle trips immediately adjacent to an - -- Report .- area failing Transportation Concurrency. �_- - It is also changing the configuration of the .._.,_ ( 154th/156th corridor by adding sidewalks TM• E - > and intersections with local roads without -. the benefit of an agreed-upon vision for - .,DDLfspoop the corridor. 154th/156th is the 1.77 mile,mostly 2-lane arterial,connecting Maple Valley Highway(SR-169) _. Npf. p° with the residential area on the plateau east of Renton,along with an arterial network interchange E.p.Ef _ U RUN connecting May Valley,Issaquah,Newcastle, Bellevue,and Renton. - Renton has create a mitigation to install a stoplight at the 3-way stop. This would be the least - significant intersection along the 1-405 bypass The arterial intersects access route that has electronic traffic control. All others points for both the f -- ---- - ° °° are at intersections of primary and/or collector developed Cedar River Trail •°p arterials. At present,the 154th/156th corridor is and the envisioned Cedar- identified as a minor arterial. Restricted N .DD Sammamish Trail line-of-site n Nplf intersection Newlft - - ND E, residential - E 14217ld development I :... "Tcrn lulu �.���� w _ sn I pyo E6 Np xo fi E CO Do - StyThe arterial passes through an area �Q _.. _ SE.144th I zoned residential coming to within a Ery'•Ep" _ oNEsmP I �- - _ t._ mile from three schools. There are sporatic safety measures for bike and \ °° pedistrian traffic. There are segments p Significant grade without protectionfrom open {; i without the benefit t 5 culverts. The are line-of-site safety of a slow traffic I --- issues at one arterial intersection. lane - ° _fDN.NNP p1 Some Questions N What is the appropriate shared vision forthe design of _ s this arterial? Should it have more intersections created or designed to limit additional access? Should there be bike lanes and safe walking surfaces? Should their be ° / ---- slow-vehicle lanes on portions of the north route? / What about the shared experience(e.g.street trees, = Connects to attention to what is visible from the developments, r Cedar River \\\� etc.)? Is Renton development that is changing the road Trail �� f.: configuration based on an explicit vision for the entire Rentoq corridor? Legend New S DE R Renton PAA commercial _ •L E 1ss ,.Transportation Need development _ F• _ `` Transportation Need - ( —Trail a E. Four Creeks 154th PI/156th Ave Arterial Corridor The arterial corridor connecting Maple Valley Hwy and the SE 128th St arterial ZJnzncorporatedArea CouruiC FCUAC Theme_Tmmportation Roads Corridor.1 54th 3 June 2014 -- e 0 Avp n n 1161h.Ale SE m a c �� l r = a m 00 G SE Monroe Ale NE 1 Lt �^ i F 3 eAve SE N _ s N c i o R 3 � JiF " 128N � m = _ a hAve SE - Umon NE as ((1. E - Ale L „�..=:. tle Ave NE . e1 01 i kp"+om u 1681hAeSE � -- Ave SE: O OCD m CDD U7 �sg (D CTn ; !p 1961th AveO;3 �a� T N 3 '6th ye.E V/ '1 z O01 � 0 = Cly _ (D O n O =r _ O O Vl 7 O .' y 0 _. _m NCDO O 7 N -"i h - 3 3g pb - O .� .--t 7 O (D 0 CD �. �3im Z CD �' (n to C eR°SF 0 rt �CO aid C ID 0O• CD Ff7A � 44MA _ :3 O O 0 (n Q 9th Ave NE :3 -3 ' C X N 4 Vuel4 IH 3 : Q .. ." U) C ? 7 (D m rt O a > — CD � �_ t D r 007mm M (v (D � En 0 =3 O -< 2761 Ave SE 3 n ® t 3'f n 0- .f # - u Four Creeks Transportation Road Corridors � Four Creeks area road transportation corridors ZJnincorporated area Council FCUAC_heme Four 23 June 2014 `t7C, June 24, 2014 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project#LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. We intend for this letter to supplement Roger's earlier comment letter dated March 23, 2014. Included by reference is Roger's Request for Appeal, dated June 5, 2014. Traffic Study and Impacts In order to make a recommendation that the Renton City Council approve this subdivision request, it is our understanding that the Hearing Examiner must make affirmative findings based in the public record which satisfy the requirements of RCW 58.17.110, and the City of Renton Municipal Code. Specifically,RCW 58.17.110(2)provides: (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a)Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners. Our concern is that the record fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project given the acknowledged inadequacies of the 156"'Ave SE/SE 142nd PL intersection, and the nexus between this project and the intersection, as established by the City in their revised SEPA Determination. 1 More specifically, no adequate study has been performed nor required to inform how the two new access streets proposed as part of this plat,nor other existing adjacent intersections including SE 5th Place and 154'Ave. SE,will function with the installation of a traffic signal at SE 156th Ave.AE / SE 142nd PL intersection. See attached"Neighborhood Detail Map" for intersection locations. Absent this information,the Hearing Examiner cannot make findings based in the record to recommend approval of this subdivision. To do so would be contrary not only to City of Renton Municipal Code, but to State law established to ensure that new subdivisions are only approved when it can be found that they make appropriate provision for infrastructure including streets, and that the public use and interest will be served. While we appreciate the fact that the City of Renton, after reviewing Roger's April 16th Request for Reconsideration, has decided to utilize the SEPA Determination to require mitigation associated with the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection,it has functionally changed the environment with which this plat will interact, without an understanding of the likely impacts associated with a proposed new traffic signal. Our concern is that, in attempting to address a failing level of service at this intersection, the City may actually be creating a situation where ingress and egress from the proposed plat is nearly impossible (or certainly unsafe) due to increased traffic queues on 156th Ave. SE associated with a signalized intersection. A subdivision can only be approved when the Hearing Examiner can make findings that the interface with the public street system serves the public interest. It is simply not possible to snake this finding when the record lacks the necessary information to evaluate whether an appropriate provision has been made in this regard. We urge you to recommend denial of the proposed plat until the necessary traffic studies have been completed and reviewed,to inform whether affirmative findings can be made that allowing two new access points to 156th Ave. SE as part of this plat are in the public interest, and until the impacts upon adjacent existing intersections including SE 5th Place and 154th Ave. SE are adequately understood. The public should be given an adequate period of time to review this information prior to any further proceedings. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide a primary point of access, and conventional intersection alignment, at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection,including what the City now recognizes as appropriate signalization. This approach is supported by the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan(Ref- Objective RefObjective T-A and Policies T-2, T-3,T-9,T 14, T 15), and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection that are now a part of the public record. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity As raised in Roger's initial comment letter, and his April 16th Request for Reconsideration, we remain concerned that the City's "Notice of Application ...." (attached),with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns we have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA)review of this project. 2 In short, the notice.states that a citizen having concern, and who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22nd. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22nd,the opportunity to provide input that would inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the original Threshold Determination being issued. We believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on June 24th,and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. We fully understand the efficiency the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but we urge a careful review of these notices to understand the concern we once again raise here. Rear Yard Designation With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (Ref. Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code), we ask, as part of the recommended conditions of approval, that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard setback on proposed lot##4. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 40 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest to the east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this proj ect. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any 3 up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunities provided by this project. If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact us as shown below. Sincerely, R\ Jas M. Paulsen, POA r Judy M. Paulsen 6617 SE 5th PL 17 SE 5th PL Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 (425)228-1589 (509)996-8160 RogerAPaulsenRcs.com JasonMPaulsen(r.)gmail.com Attachments: - Neighborhood Detail Map - Notice of Application 4 I _ *of a Z Z� 47 N IY M P e" aswuimr 0 LETIr c 00 N U Q k �+ Q3 O :Lu CL 3Q V� CD Q aolr� Nm o a� a NI, co iu COUj Iftl� f �W I� v Ln a� 3 w C/) 0 aaonam (n U C L cA k LL T B a � ON3 3141 �► ,� City of,k CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: ZoningAand Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density(COMP-RCD)on the City Of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map., Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigatlon: The project will be'subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development, and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ Praject construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnical report. ■ Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding,Senior Planner,CED—Planning Olvisian, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057,by 5:00 PM on March 24,2014. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22,2014,at 10:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hail,1053 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at(425)430-5578, If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml,idinli rentonwa,a?ov Y ® Q Y, Y 71Y� PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057. Name/File No.:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO.: �. City of I rf"� r NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. 'DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 30,2014 F LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-WO241,ECF,PP PROJECT NAME. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 - tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8;050 square fleet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project size. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156"Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.210.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMITAPPUCATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers/PNW Holdings,LLC/4675 SE 3e Street Suite 105, Mercer Island,WA 98040/EMIL:justin@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(5EPA)Review,Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies: Drainage Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community&Economic Development(CED)—Planning Division,Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing Is tentatively scheduled for April 22,2014 before the Renton Hearine Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and return to:City of Renton,CED—Planning Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057, Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/Zip: TELEPHONE NO �x 9 to the Hearing Examim. State law(RCW 58.17)and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Signature Address oaAlt 4glO IOM A11, Of PUU�I t L w 1837 C C & -,,J , Ab s C1 otlCt LvA C %OA J iutpoa st44,x • f-- ob K Rgo ,;L �M N UA IOon Cx AAJ 6,-J Gil i A4-1 PC- R• - P!'a n �y I U%� ,yam/ f :i /� L a n `1 0:6 �3 IGS 6,7 r3 S TIA/k-ice sc- Pee - �L3 I/ �s 1 � i'1 S „r• ),L.-,on to the Hearing Examin_, State law(RCW 58.17)and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our contention that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet.that requirement. Name (printed) Signature Address d 1 vl �� I s k i � ./�'l��.k.1�►!�; �' S 5+'"SPI Sir f ,tern - r� S-j57 s� AMU 91LARW 5HU AV& SE l4-0`-St Of Woo 5 Tib tq/C s rk 3 co 0' 13� a be k e GGA // .Se, I�4o3 94rl fie, rL L►r,�ta:�s e�a h 5er1 `�imotdt,I�aQ. H' t � P.L. 14#�� L Gv 57Iiv4r A)EI-Sc 13407 5k- SC � L'4 ,A(7W 14 �' '�c X 0 3// �r ��G �✓ ,. F _Lk,aon to the Hearing Examinb. State law(RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Signature Address lie ze� i /"!< — 1 (�6 5-7 SC' 3 fo L �+7u rapt, V - �n�� 12 , 6+", " , lj f -C 2 \% e,1i.•`.� �'a � qtr iZ 1.LPO vwe- Sc'Q vacs „., 14 lug - X11 P (S Cs VAN ► ,_�, .,on to the Hearing Examine.. State law(RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Signature Address • Page 1 of 1 E� E0 Gid cif� mow. >" r i A 41, , You are here: Living:Roads and Transportation:Transportation Proiects Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Annually,the City of Renton updates a Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). It is a The 2014-2019 Six-Year TIP planning document adopted by the Renton City Council. was adopted on June 24, The TIP: 2013. • Reflects involvement by citizens and elected officials. • Implements the City of Renton Mission Statement. • Is used to coordinate transportation projects and programs with other jurisdictions and agencies. • Is a multi-year planning tool for the development of the transportation facilities within the City. • Is required for State and Federal funding programs. • Is a vital part of planning under the Growth Management Act(GMA). • Is mandated by State law. Projects and programs can be found listed with the appropriate Transportation Division section on each of their web pages:Transportation Planning Transportation Design,and Transportation Operations and Maintenance. Copies of the TIP can be purchased from the City Clerk's Office,425-430-6510. Questions about the TIP process can be directed to the Transportation Systems Division,425-430-7321. City of Renton Washington 2014 — 2019 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program z ' f f, r t k' � ' N 4u P.La3i7e - � zp - fpyf�i q t�� 1 NE 4"St at Whitman Ave NE(replace once completed) Mayor Denis Law Hearing: June 24, 2013 (tentative) Gregg Zimmerman Adopted:. ... , 2013 Public Works Administrator Resolution: .... f SECTION ONE PURPOSE OF SIX-YEAR TIP PROGRAM • Purpose of Six-Year TIP 1-1 • Vision Statement 1-2 • Mission Statement 1-2 • City Business Plan 1-2 CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2019 PURPOSE • Reflects involvement by citizens and elected officials. • Implements the City of Renton Mission Statement. • Used to coordinate transportation projects and programs with other jurisdictions and agencies. • Multi-year planning tool for the development of the transportation facilities within the City. • Required for State and Federal funding programs. • Vital part of planning under the Growth Management Act. • Mandated by State Law. 1-1 Renton Busmess Plan Vi ' - Renton: The center of opportunity in the Puget Sound Region S101111 where families and businesses thrive M• 0The City of Renton, in partnership and communication lssl® with residents, businesses, and schools, is dedicated to: ■ Providing a safe, healthy, welcoming atmosphere where people choose to live ■ Promoting economic vitality and strategically positioning Renton for the future ■ Supporting planned growth and influencing decisions that impact the city ■ Building an inclusive city with opportunities for all ■ Meeting service demands through high quality customer service, innovation, a positive work environment, and a commitment to excellence 2013-2018 Goals t 1. Provide a safe, Promote economic Support planned Building an Meet service healthy, vibrant vitality and growth and influence inclusive city with demands and community strategically position decisions that opportunities for all provide high quality Renton for the future impact the city customer service ■ Promote safety, health, ■ Improve access to city and security through services and programs effective communication ■ Promote Renton as the ■ Foster development and make residents and ■ Plan,develop, and and service delivery progressive, opportunity- of vibrant, sustainable, businesses aware of maintain quality services, rich city in the Puget Sound attractive, mixed-use opportunities to be involved infrastructure,and amenities ■ Facilitate successful region neighborhoods in urban with their community neighborhoods through centers ■ Prioritize services at community involvement ■Capitalize on ■ Build connections with levels that can be sustained opportunities through bold ■ Uphold a high standard ALL communities that reflect by revenue ■ Encourage and partner and creative economic of design and property the breadth and richness of in the development of quality development strategies maintenance the diversity in our city ■ Retain a skilled workforce by making Renton the housing choices for people of all ages and income levels ■ Recruit and retain In Advocate Renton's ■ Promote understanding municipal employer of choice businesses to ensure a interests through state and and appreciation of our ■ Promote a walkable, dynamic, diversified federal lobbying efforts, diversity through celebrations ■ Develop and maintain pedestrian and employment base regional partnerships and and festivals collaborative partnerships bicycle-friendly city with other organizations ■ Provide critical and and investment strategies ■ Nurture entrepreneurship that improve services complete streets,trails, relevant information on a and connections between and foster successful ■ Pursue transportation timely basis and facilitate ■ Respond to growing neighborhoods and partnerships with and other regional two-way dialogue between service demands through communitypoints businesses and improvements and focal P .city government and the partnerships, innovation, community leaders services that improve of life community and outcome management ■ Provide opportunities quality E Leverage public/private for communities to be ■ Encourage volunteerism, resources to focus ■Balance development with better prepared for participation and civic development on environmental protection emergencies engagement ; economic centers _.. �Y e SECTION TWO SIX-YEAR TIP MAP • TIP Map, Exhibit A 2-1 • Map Index, Exhibit B 2_2 >>' - Exhibit "A" > 1 W E r 1 • ' > - °-1 L41 1 ♦ `. °,` , w � y � _........ 354i 6 17 f 1 , 1 _ ° • 3 rl 7 : 13 - • 1 �. _ r R _ r 18 22 15 .27 WWI am 36 , . 10. _ , r _ JL,:::.. t : - ° 1; t - : City of Renton - 2014-2019 TIP EXHIBIT `B' City of Renton 2014—2019 Transportation Improvement Program Map Index TIP No. Project Title 1 Street Overlay Program 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 3 Logan Ave N Improvements 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 5 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 6 Duvall Ave NE—NE 7th to Sunset Blvd NE 7 Rainier Ave S Phase II- S 2nd Street to Airport Way 8 Park Ave North Extension 9 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE Improvements 10 Carr Road Improvements 11 NE Sunset Blvd(SR 900) Corridor Improvements 12 Sunset Area Green Connections 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Road SW/68"'Ave S 14 South 7th Street—Rainier Ave S to Talbot Road S 15 S Grady Way-Main Ave to West City Limits 16 Houser Way N—N 8th St to S Lake Washington Blvd 17 Lake Washington Loop Trail 18 Lake to Sound(L2S) Trail 19 Walkway Program 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacement 21 NE 31St St Culvert Repair 22 Maple Valley Highway—Half Bridge Attenuator 23 Bridge Inspection and Repair 24 Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program 25 Intersection Safety and Mobility 26 Traffic Safety Program 27 Preservation of Trak Operation Devices Program 28 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program 29 Barrier Free Transition Plan Implementation 30 City Center Community Plan 31 Project Development/Predesign 32 Arterial Circulation Program 33 Environmental Monitoring 34 1%for the Arts Program 35 Lake Washington Boulevard—Park Avenue N to Coulon Park 36 Lind Avenue—SW 16th to SW 43rd 2 -2 SECTION THREE DEVELOPMENT & PRIORITIZATION OF THE SIX- YEAR TIP • General Programming Criteria 3-1 • Specific TIP Development Activities 3-3 • Summary Table of Projects and Programs: 3-5 DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF THE SIX-YEAR TIP I. General ProQrammina Criteria The yearly update of the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) is part of an ongoing process intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Six-Year TIP is also linked with various state and federal funding programs,regional/inter-jurisdictional planning and coordination processes and the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Projects are developed and prioritized based on community needs, specific goals to be achieved and on general programming considerations. Those general programming considerations are: Priority. As shown on page 3-5 the projects and programs are prioritized by type by City staff with final approval by the City Council during the annual update of the TIP. The prioritization assists staff in assigning the limited resources to projects and programs and reducing resources during funding shortfalls. In general staff expends more resources on higher priority projects in the first three years of the TIP, and when applying for grants staff will consider these projects first unless other lower priority projects better meet the particular criteria of a grant program. Planning. How, at a local and regional level, a project fits with, or addresses identified future transportation goals, demands and planning processes must be evaluated. This is strongly influenced by ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans. Financing. Many projects are dependent on outside grants, formation of LID's or the receipt of impact fees. Prioritization has to take into account the peculiarities of each of the various fund sources and the probabilities of when, and how much, money will be available. Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with, or interdependent on, other projects taking place,this is reflected in their relative priorities. Past Commitment. The level of previous commitment made by the City in terms of resources, legislative actions or inter-local agreements also must be taken into consideration in prioritizing TIP projects. In addition to the general considerations discussed above,there are five specific project categories through which the TIP is evaluated and analyzed. They are: • Maintenance and Preservation of Existing Infrastructure • Corridor Projects • Operations and Safety • Non-Motorized Projects 3-1 • Others These categories provide a useful analysis tool and represent goals developed through an evaluation of the City's transportation program in response to input from citizens and local officials and to State and Federal legislation. Taken as a whole,the five categories provide a framework for evaluating projects both individually and as part of a strategy that seeks to meet and balance the transportation needs of Renton during a time of increasing transportation demand, decreasing revenues, and growing environmental concerns. Although each project can be identified with an important concern that allows it to be classified into one of the five categories, most projects are intended to address, and are developed to be compatible with, multiple goals. Maintenance and Preservation of the Existing Infrastructure is a basic need that must be met by the program. The Mayor and City Council have addressed the importance of sustaining strong programs in this project category. The State Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to assess and address the funding required to maintain their existing transportation systems. The City of Renton owns and maintains 250 centerline miles of streets. Corridor Projects are oriented toward"moving people"through a balanced transportation system that involves multiple modes of transportation. Included are facilities that facilitate the movement of transit and carpools. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21St Century Act(MAP-21), the State and Federal Clean Air legislation, and the State Commute Trip Reduction Act(CTR)have added momentum to regional efforts and placed requirements on local jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these transportation elements. Operations and Safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts, accident records and geometric data, but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. Non-Motorized Projects have been developed with major emphasis on addressing community quality of life issues by improving and/or protecting residential livability while providing necessary transportation system improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in this category. Other Programs involve planning of transportation improvements necessitated by new development and new transportation capital improvements. Below is a more specific discussion of the activities involved in TIP development. 3-2 H. Specific TIP Development Activities TIP project and financial development activities are intricately intertwined and involve interactions with many groups and agencies at the local,regional, state and federal levels. Within the Transportation Systems Division of the City of Renton,project development involves year-around coordination among the Maintenance and Operations, the Planning and Programming and the Design Sections. The Transportation Maintenance and Operations Section compiles accident and traffic count data,performs level-of-service calculations needed to identify operational/congestion problems and tracks all transportation-related complaints, suggestions and requests that come into the City. The Transportation Design Section,through the TIP's Overlay Program and Bridge Inspection and Repair Program, works closely with the Maintenance Services Division to establish structural ratings for the City's roads and bridges. These and other data are being used by the Planning and Programming Section to develop transportation improvement projects,prepare grant applications, interface with ongoing state and federal transportation programs, and develop a TIP that supports the goals of the City's long-range Comprehensive Plan and short-range business plan. The Transportation Planning Section works with King County Metro Transit, the Puget Sound Regional Council, Sound Transit, and other groups and agencies to assure consistency between Renton's transportation policies and programs and those of the region. Such consistency is required by the Growth Management Act and related legislation and by federal and state grant programs. Ongoing transportation planning activities, such as updating the Transportation Element in the Comprehensive Plan and the development of sub-area plans,play an important part in identifying and prioritizing transportation improvement projects. Within the City of Renton, there are actions and interactions involving other departments and divisions,the private sector, the City Council and Administration, which strongly influence the direction of the transportation program. For example,the transportation system is significantly impacted by land use decisions,private development proposals and by public water and sewer extensions which increase transportation demand by making possible higher density and/or intensity of land uses. Such proposals need to be monitored and analyzed in regard to how they individually and collectively create the need for transportation improvements. All departments and divisions in the City,the City Council, and the Administration are solicited each year to provide input, discuss, and comment on the Six-Year TIP. 3-3 Additional input is also gathered through interactions with other public and private organizations and through public meetings held in the community concerning specific transportation projects and programs. At the City, State and Federal level there are new laws and regulations that create the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs. Examples include the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 St Century Act(MAP-21),the Growth Management Act, the Clean Air Act,the Commute Trip Reduction law,the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Water Management Ordinance. All of these laws have tremendous impacts on the development and costs of transportation projects. Interconnection and/or interdependence among TIP projects and with projects by other City departments and by other jurisdictions is another element that affects the development,the prioritization and the timing of transportation projects. Equally important is the likelihood,the time frame and the amount of outside funding that will be obtainable to finance transportation projects. In summary,with its heavy dependence on many different and unpredictable sources of outside funding and with the significant impacts created by ongoing local and regional land use decisions, transportation project development is a continuous activity comprised of a multitude of diverse elements. 3-4 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O p a 4 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O p 0 0000Go aioa0i0000 00 0 0 M o � oo � o (n00000 o (o � o v CO r (A O h 00 - V' M O S lA M .V O LO m c t� CD N M (D N Cb r C M CO M U7 r 'I p N r r a C3 00001 0 CD 0 0 0 0 00 00000000 m !� 0 0 0000 0 V• O M 00 O 0 O 00 O O O O o O O O t- 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 O (D O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F_ m M (�N �o CD O tq Cp O M O CD O O N to O(D O _� LO 0 0 0 e} CC) O I` t` M O O O (o O N 0 M N 00 V_N M N M00 - t- r O O 0 c CcN M �- t� r N V' W N co O v Cl) CO V_ N N �- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V' O M 0 0 0 0 numms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N �- 0 o O 0 C 0 0 0 0 CD O N O O O O O O 000 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O y V) (D N (o to C7 (t) (D (D O M O O Cn O O N CD(0 0 (DO (!') (D 0 0 0 N W O t- N M CO M O Co to O Q) 0 0 t- 0 0 0 0 0 LID co M M 0 0 (A ti r CO O b '6 aO N M (A r,- (C') r N V' (o M O aD O O r CD M O � O M M V' N N O N CO aD (O a N •0 V' M CD N h CD CM CO-CJ cC) r Co M Corr (o r r 0 vi. Lo � d r C> 00000 0 0 0000 0 00 00 0000 CD CD r 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0000 O 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 OLI O co 0NO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O ON OO O(D O OO OO O O O O (O N(O N W O O O O O Cn VV (o (fN M NO rCV co LID 0 (A (M N N O V O r (D V' r ((•) L1 N (� -6-0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O Oo o O o 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 co O O O O O Z 00000 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 O O O Q T CD co dC% O c N 0 0 O O to O (n O O O O O O O Co lq O (o O .. O CO r r O O co t!7 (0 � t­ O M (o Cn V' V' M V• M e- N (n N N CD (o N N N M N N r (() > M M r CD r co r _ r M O 00 O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O R y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W 0 N O O (o O O O O O O O (D O O 00 O 00 (f) (A O (o O 'C O Co � CD O M O O O ti [t N ti O (o Cn V' to V (o V' r M r ti N 'IT co CO co y m N (o N N v N } CD r Co r V' N r r M O U M LIP Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O (� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O F CO M N O O to O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O(D O (n O 0 i OLID a O C) r (o O O CD M O N Co O (o V Co O N (A V r M r (O N r N (D t- N r- N V' O N CD N N r p) M N r N O d o 0 0 0 o 00 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O O N O O CD LO O O O Lr O N O O O O O O O O r O C tp Lo O (D O O M r C(7 N O N CO O CD O N V• � M M N N r M r d, N I� V' h V v ti O h O - b F M M CO) 0 0 0 0 00 O CD O O O O Y 0 0 o O o 0 o v O M o 0 0 0 0 00 0 O (D O N O O 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 C~0 O tt ti (o N (o (n O CD (D O (r) C ND 0 C (DC, Opt CI 00 CO U) M r r• CJ CD N r- CD r M (o M ti O 0 M N 40 t` O N r M (D h r r r (O U tO J mm Dco c CL o ° z( > o E cc Z a m � >� —E � LE o aoo mE4) oO 0 m a Z w =° h o w V v k ° m c E c > ma oa m o o mU c w +. w a �, ++ CL Ep ° � W o .+ ae-Yoov� o m N � IL E m c IL o W c o N LL a� `m = e a=i � V m �- .3 Q p CD 2 0 2 c w `m _ � c E � a E O ° W W = W '!3 E o c o .. �. .. m $ c } d aO m = 1° Q ° Wu� c Ewti� �N c m £ N c ° (oF' a a,a c Ea F o c o m T C7 m m m m m W L a w o = ° Q m w ° g E I= c c otr: ,� +r W •a > E > «. rr a o V > _� �tS L o ° a` _ = c U O- :o ` ! c m Q m 0 ` 0D cc w '= C C O` J c 7 C ` > a M Z d Z O c m W �+ N W = m o O — w � > WOd ° Ew � Uw � � E coN ' � = o (ca � ° cg aE t0 (•a0 ° V Z 3 = w w J C Q-— y Z O W L K 0 ' > fn fi � to H � O W O � L = O O W to (� EZ Tm Z " W >�w c E p 7 d 0 0 m W d w W N Q c m ° m > c E Q i >> = = ca tq 'a > > m > W Z m v1 d o •� o s ` a m m R m �. m W > W w y oV Q Q C Q Z > Q Q > N o R W U p c °�.gym. o 3 n (. � o - 7EQ cit m � R o m m C m 3 r d = N N L yL C m IA m L W t Q (A W w .. m 'a a W W p n ate, m.0 3 N > M C t•�D Y d `(�E Y Y ,� Y W O W O w ° W W O r c W •• W W W W �' O = lgQamVIZ � R' MtANUJR2ZOZ0. tAu1e- JO = F- JJm � Q O W � () ° r N M N (O h co t s r N Pf iq t0 h m DD 01 O r N r N r N {"1 O N M V N t0 IL d r N N N N N N N d' Q a 0 tr i0 t0 N aO N b Oa b (O M (() cm DD h CI T N -M N- O $ F r M (7 r N N r r N r M M t7 N M M m m Q- F- uo.IeAJOSGJd dP3 �a ��J�T_gaoueua;uiey0 SECTION FOUR EXPENDITURES & REVENUES • Total Project Expenditure Summary 4-1 • City of Renton Funds 4-2 • Summary of Funding Sources 4-3 • Itemized Funding Sources: ■ Vehicle Fuel Tax 4-4 ■ Business License Fee 4-5 ■ Proposed Fund Balance 4-6 ■ Grants In-hand 4-7 • Mitigation In-Hand 4-8 ■ Other In-Hand 4-9 ■ Undetermined 4-10 Q ca a cm Cc m c mm d d 0 LU ` L R •O N a) a) d d c ob w — N N a) N > a) a`) N d c a a c in in c a — 2 .- 2 . a) a) — > N a) a) N m m a) cc ._ ._ cc O c c p w c = c c c c06 -a ;g - a a as •a as c c C' Lv Q W W a) CD m m a a) a) a) a) a •- •- •- •- •- •- •- , IL 3 3U Z UU c ,� mr 50000 3 3 L 3 3 3 3 3 3 QQQQ ) °� ._. _ > 06 05 a1 C _M N > _ c ">' c co w2 a' ZZZZ U cp c U U U a U U m �_ U U U U U V U Y S U U U U U U U > c c _ U U U E cu m > . r U U = = U U O O O CO O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O o o o O O O o o o 00 0 0 0 0 tD 0 0 0 e)• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 O h O O O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC M (DO COO 1�0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 M O L!) O LA O Lc) O U) U"Lq N Cfl N O CD Ln LO 0 0 O O N O �+ co 0) O C0 LA M U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 S M O rh 0 Lc) 0 (M O M N O M M h M O Fh r r m 0 0 CM 'i O ep N N R T O O (O t-- M O M M Ln 0 co O N M h LC) LC) r V N M r N CD N O LC) r- d �f (h r, C70 N o r CD N O CD Ln C6 M C7 Ln N M r r r N r p P O O cc co coo 00 COOCOOO 00 O 0-6 O O 00 00 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Co 0 0 O O 00 000 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O CO 00O O O O L6 0 O O O O 0 o O N 0 — 66 L17 Oco N O (O CD LO co o0 LO CO MO N O O N LoCD M `7 N to r O N N N CC) (p LA W V $ M O O 000 O 00000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O 00 00 000 O 00000 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O OC) O O 000 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O (� Go 0 CD Lq 0 0 O O LO O O L() 00 O O O O N O O Lo Lo Ln O O O O t` CC) Ln Ln O O Cl) e` U) O r— Ln Cl) O N U) V CD M � r r Ln N N co S Ln co C_ N IV N NN N r N r r M tp r' M C, M N r r r n a r M ~Z O O 000 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 000 OO O O OO O OOO O OO OOOOOO 0 0 0 O OW OO O O C O OOOO OO 0 0 0 0 00 0 O O O O O (D O O O O 00 O L60 0 O O C) U) O O N C7 O Ln Lr) Lo O O # T M IT IT r 0 O � N O h CD U) U') Cl) O r Lo V CO M 'IT r tq > N co `7 CO to co W r N oo V N r r N r r N to [T r O r CD N r r r M e)D M a o. O O OO O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O O O O O C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 O O 00 O p M Lo O 00 O O O O O O LCi O O Ln 0 L() O O N O LC) .;f Ln Ln O e} Z T Ih N 0 Lf) N CO O O L() M O CD tC) O O O r Lo C 0 M N r r 0 co O N r N v N N 0 N r y r N r r O O) M N N N r r r C Q T Q O r 000 O O O O O 00000 0000 0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00000000 O O co O ` (� O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F" (L 00NN O Ln 0000 OO Lo00N00 rr 0N Lr) 0 W) () p � Oco NCO Lo n Ln O M O r U) 'T M M M CM VV r r V r- 0 e` CO A N r O0 tp LLJ Z M o'i M Q T O I'•' O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 tD - O O O It O O Cl) 000 0000000 0 0 0 0 ti L a O O O CD O ON O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O co �. r '� e` Lf) O co O O c7 O U) O U)Ln N Cfl N O O 0 C 0 L T a/ N N N cocM co O co Ln r- W 'T r- co N r CO Cl) Cfl M M n O r 1-7 W L r e9 X N rnLU NZ Q .- r o R g R g itO F. c m ca Go 0 -j E E ° o N Z o •• eO O m L a t: 0a Lv E O eh a 2m LL en (Eo Cr- .. r'n ° O 00: Co m oco aa eo EU) m o u�i `E° c p O — a O = otmr- E « Q = rn `m000 'er ° cam = m cecomEa ° °'o F.. .~ ° m E y w. en c Ca .. - cc . eo c a a L c a ep L E c Cc m +r :° c (o Q Q o o o a a p c co E m a o w y ep eu o o cn > y o- m c 'ca o c E t o O > L � pn � c > E , 0M > r oo ~ ;° °' ta � •Opo� m O E C-L .2 1! m m CL r O tU ` W M O o d to c Q c ao .� rn (� w 3 a� c L O O c E T a= coZ ca• > dtn '� L (aZcNE — � tcep L a� mcoo eo EOpt) ywE ° � � Nm � oJL � > o) o �,ajOw ecaEc � at� y 3 .. J L W x O p (� > C Z pep = .. ep a p L O o cc r Z � : a Z m W N m ep Q 'R eo >,c o m V m a° CO en c E d V > O c Q � c CL > o N m W m > Z m 'O " m d' 1p Z O a Q.' w — rn N O w m N tb d L 47 N d IX O 'p c i i a `m Q Q o c _ ,o •) L ep p Lp � +• > O A > U) Z p u' c G V c > x CD of N N ey C Y w N C Y r a) d Y y M .a 9 w a ` V N MC� �p Q W w O W 7 eE e6 ep S. W O M n t7 O R tYp .d W ep C O w N R ._ L C o C o a) Q .JV) fnZam (L zU) 0yy3: -131 ZgmI% a. (L a T N M V Q 1p to r- aD to O T N m a N 0co Gt O T N M a' tl) tC ti cD O) O T N M V to t0 u 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 00 0 o 00 0 0 0 0000000 0000 O oOo OO O o 00 000 0000000 0000 0 M (O LO 0 00 O o (O O o LO 0 Ln LO N O N O CO Ln LO 00 n oyO O O) LO N (O Oo 0) r N ~ r o M•L o CC L� r rN M co (O O � F ti• N r � 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 O o 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 00 0000000 0 0 O o CII (p CO 00 0 0 o 0 o o N o r O O Ln V r r O LO O M N 0 It 0 M N Ln r O CD 0 r r N r *' R i-. (V N uj LU LL O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O O O O O 00 0000000 O O O O F- Cl O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O O C� O (5 00 O O O O O O O N O O Lf) l() Ln LA O I- co N to M co N Lf) 'd' (fl Cl) v r ct �- 00 r r N r r M CL N N + O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O CC! 00 O cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O OLIJ O C9 t- d o LO o o O Ln O o N o 0 LO LO LO O LL O p cc) LO CY) M r N (O M r r PLO') W a N N Z Z 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O W W 000 O O cc 0000000 O O O O L) 0 0 0 O o 00 0 o O o 0 0 o 00 O o CO M L() o O (D O O o td o O N 0 Ln I-i Uj L() O J W r ti N L(') tr) r LO O M 0 M N r V O O ti r r r N r r Cl) U) O N N w CL0 Z O O OO O co 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O 000 O O 00 00 0000000 O O O O o 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc O O M Z 0 C d O O o I o O o o Ln o o N o o r o L ® N r Lo O Ln LO M M LO Ln O M r to C O M M 0 r CV _ r N m ClN ~ r N Q N x w 000 O O coo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O , d 000 O O COO 0000000 0 0 0 0 O 000 O O 0 0 0 0000000 OOOO O (l: Ln l!7 O OD O LLQ O O ON- (O N O O 0 0 0 L1) tp Z N n cco O LO to t-- r N r- CO M t0 co M O r r- r h r r r r r M N JrO in W 01O of E c V p z > 0 O R O R N M E Q d tm ta+6 +r > t J O C O (n LU r c m LT4 'C co 0 N d R a R �'' a CD O_ ++ � O � V (1 E 0 L' d E O M N ' a1 `U) 0 U N i i 0 0 V d CL CL.a) R C 3 o U = O y 0) d r0 p a d > a 3 M Cf Z m cr vi o o � °' R COa .� p Etn0 o (n `a) U d o Q rn 0 &- J 'La v c _ (ca a� E a LL w ° m ° N $ aci � � � h ° � ,°, �= � iia a3o p aaa �c � ("n m a E m � `p w aEi aci y o 0 v> > (n o o >.w C7 � E � c �`otf 0 0 2 r 0 c0 W r c > E '0U � > Qwo o � R � � � wcca = `a) a r o d •` W t j 'o O` d R c Q C w J N �° 3 °� c , a, ` R O d c C 0 VQ ° coz cc- > > m � L ('azcJE — CccRdo � cEE ° ga RL° U . U) dEO °) L � d � � o ` ° > �o �'na '~ L`aEc.� (n m >.m r J s W X a. p a W .E ' z 0 a rn m 3 = V w (n ° F- ° ° ' N R R , a+ m W W >+ c C O >� G1 tp �+' c U d 3 d T_ t Z � �+ Z d m E m R Q R R >.._ 3 L. d U d o C d O E d L_ > ` C Q (� mdm d Z ,� mdm ? R .coam .. (now R ° mm ° d coL_ > > (n (n W > > d d 'O d 7 ' W N >,Y N c6 C >• + R + a. Li.L �' CO E c O 3 Q > Q O co >,` R O R l6 .+ � LO c� (n R O L 4) +' C `+ > O d Q d' 3 d N y 01 +. 3 3 r m ,� N V d a y U � .` 0 0 Q fn CD d RNNM > .0 � " L. CY r 7YY � RM as R d y d > " 'Or +�+ 'C O W 3 R R r Lp W 3 R m O R R Lp W R i O +� d (n R •0 0 0 fnQJ (n (nZOmarUZfn0 (n (A2JJ � (nZ �Lm � SF-.a �- mUaQ W J �-- N M d' O O 1� OD Q1 O r N M 0 0 000rl- 0) 0 (D o0 (D coo o co ooCe) LOco0 N oo La IT r• 0 O-t . O O LO ' LO COM O M o 0 N O (D oo O O CO a0ML000tiO N ON TZ t6 O 4 CJ CO N r1,- CA O CD O O CO O O LO CO O Nr !P O a MOC) OC) cf 0r OO qTN N e- (D (G N O N CO (d cli C6 C5 Ni N r 0 C; r i r O r L!7 r N C`7 M LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O a O LO O LO O O o 00 O 0 0 0 O T- (D (Y) ON LOOM N Cci OC) O T- N N 0) � r 0) V CD r- IV O O � N M M Ln N O r N c`7 M LCJ N M co M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O o O OLOOLOC 0 O O O O O O O O w LO CD O 1- CD Ln 0 O LO O LO LO W) O T- OO L000 M N OM r w M M N (O m 0mIT O coo CO) r r LO C4 O M ti r N LO O h N M M M Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O 0 0 O O O LO O L O O O o O O O 0 0 o O ti LO CD C) fl- (D LO O O O O O O O O c! r ONODOCDm N rl- I-- O N N ti O N N co N m N co CD CD M M m to - w tt N M t� N co M M N CL a W F- o 000000 0 00 00 00 0 0 (� Z a 000000 o C) CD 00 00 0 0 W 0LO0LO00 0 00 00 co 0 0 OM Ld 6 C5 C Lri RF o 0 C o O'Cr et l' T- oroOMCO W mti (DO CD r- ti m NW o v CY) o ti v_ o) o cD o CO) LO W rn O N C'7 C6 O cc 1 C'M r LO LA CC ` r r r r r 0 Za 000000 0 00 Ooo 00 0 0 a 000000 0 00 000 00 0 0 M 0 _ 0LO0LO00 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 Z Z W) OV LO V: O CO LA o C4 O O M N N &6 CM O o O M et LO N O 0 V 0 O IVO C I,- v_O LO rl- LA o fl- LO O to (D to Ln N V M Ln qi r V OLL O Q r r U. M L 0o01- rno m o0 OO CD m m a 00 � OeOoO cc 00 co O CCD coo_ Cli co er o v C) 0CiLri r c; c; O Lfj (O r r GC o MCOOtiNcm w CtO (D M � N CO co N V tD M tD Co D ~ U) O) r _ Cn Nc U E aDCO aeric < L`o CU rL - N p m e X m Z LU cu 0 0 0 N j J V- _ = 0 0 D O d U) (D O c W E Z otf m c ._ Ln rn (� c O cc Z LL (A (0 � Oi 0 0 V E 7 0 m :_ D a Z W E 0a. 0 c) c) 0 > maCD2O U. ? E LL c W X >'I N n O D X x W( C 0 IL N U ILLL H H N N W a) WU J N y Z O O � O tC O _ G � c a M ri 0 0 0 o CD 0 0 r m 0 0 O 0 0 � o ao00 0 0 N O O O tD O O O O 0 ti O O o p CL F-• w o 0 ,2 o 0 Q 0 W T CD 0 N CCD a o LU o OLO M LL T � c 0 0 =LLJ O o UJ CL d o 0 Z N m o m H N m c w > o a� E c N Z Q *' O` R O R ` ,c C d C co r c m f9 'O to y N y ate.. m d a> t' a 'a p O ++ ?� 'C 'a ea V O y E O M N d 0 ?� Q' V a3 L R O C 0 a) CLCL Em t6 '7 c a C 'on a, d o _ n m EN d o N ccc 0 +' (n C 0 0 as R' R T L R C, 07 0 m «. p c O' cc)V d O w .°+ '�- c ►. w t0 B L Q. O L L 07 w +' 2 d A U) a.+ a) w N w .,,, H of w C m O O O. a d im c cn CL > eC i +' E c N O c N > � C O QL Q a) O c O L d c � m dp +L' N c d da ° ° OQL ° ~ ° ai >.Q.' �' Ew p c .., a w a) > _ O w Sp -p otS m tr: c c1 CL O c W M N a > > d Q •6 co J N w ��,., L = �+ C7 i N O D p CL o Z c Z 0 m o o f c E a co � `� V ymE "o'sI- o eaa goo y- �- ,� eaEa+� � co >, wJL W K "o 's > .a ' Z cm aft 7 = V a ° H V d � w d is MZU) "' Z W W Em nsQ ea >, Tc O y V >, °f c �` c y > 0 cQ � ° i L y, CD fn O 0 O. a) O a.. d a) d fn fn W a) > Z d y d d Q' R L p d Q' �+ _ y N O �.- *, R ` d d O d N L > �_ > LLZ > d > O U) ca .� �� ; �n >, '@ as c � � �° �� � � U � � > o Q r ++ i > Q O C a+ O y D O O W a) O . d *' . L fn O c ►. a) Q 0: 7 ai N d �+ r d d a! V d `' d V V O O Q L d p�N N M > ._ ►Y. N a. c Y ti C7 O Y Y M O.:C R y e""6 a) (/� •� .�' O d •> r+ O �j 111 7 of m r ea W 7 M O m m W t6 C O +' i L. t6 �' c o O mQ .jtAu z0Ixa. (� Ztn0u) v) 2JJ3: nZ2m � S � a � mc� aQWr JF- Q. Q O r N M CD I� O O� O 94,VYelwlwlr-- ao m OM `cf �DN Mv W tD f� a0 T r T T T T N N NN N N N N N M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V R MO to O N OC) o O O t[)O U7 LO CN CO N O co U') In O.2 Co 0 In Cl) CO r I- O co co r- 00 O h r r CA 0 O OLO. N N ti N CO r r N M r co r O O 00 0 T O O 0000000 O O 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 00 O0000000 p O O O O O cD 0 O O O O L6 O O N O �- O O L O N N C. 'T O M N M I' (C) Cl) Nr N lf) r r r N r r V7 T O O O O Co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O p co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O p O O 0000000 O O O co W C N V O M O O O O O N O O td to OC) O r M N tC) o M r r 16 N r r N r r 0) co C T Q O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O 00 O 00 0000000 O O O O O O 00 0000000 O O O 0 O O O L6 O O N o O In Ln L6 0 o o N � v v TCl) Mr LO ITmv ry r N r r a � ui Z O O o o O O O O O O o 0 0 co O 00 O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LLJ M O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O p LL p r L v O M - LO V' coNOM N C N r r N T r � t~O N ' T ` Z a � 00 O o 0 0 00 0000000 O O O W 00 0 0 00 00 OooO000 00 o c V U Z 00 O o 00 00 OOooOOO 0O o O O O In o O O O In O O N o O -70 L() p M J O B O O L17 M M in v 0 M r U) V O M M r N r '^ N r �' r N r r N U Q ti W F T Z a O O O o 0 O 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o O O O O O O O O 1 O O o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O p d. M Z O o 0p 0 C Ld N M M M O O In tq N o N O O 0 0 0 Ld O r OJ CO O r r r W N M r r r �- c- r M CO U)Q LU m T N Z > +� p R O r tm O � NJ c a E o `+g oco CD 0 `° CO .O �. ui eEa CL d �'' d a N C O N m Y ` R O p v d a c E O V N O d a O osa > Q. a O m E r ., N a c oam dY d o _ a m CD � to c Q' R w T _ O w Cf °' ° a opi a ` = ` c = d O +' o = .00 E w d tll Ri d �' O w a0+ _ - w .� 0 IL .O a R " O O a+ = E m a O w N = d d O O > N p l- O Q' >, U' E V c w otS O ` E L o > Ldvtiao > EoV � dQL d o ,, .. oL CL w o m ` W eh .y o y c > = o J N o ot) o� `�° = _ ° c m a� ozN c ° c y 0ya � z cvE — mL c �a d oi`- c E E c o o E 000 1 :: E L. v (D 1 O Q tm O w ` .� R E a 3' d N eo � � wN xw aot� > _ z a) n rn� 3 = rya o o o `—° R �+ zLza ;. vz dwm _Em � a >,.__ o d � >� � o � c d owe �, d N 0 CoCoW d > Z �+ ` 0 IX M = O a Q.' .+ d a U) C w O eEa d L > ` � a V > � > > mad w m �+ � wM000 m m aw � zQa > > O cwa " >'� eat m'—� .- > eo stn M CM = a0 E � d o CD R chr` � — 07aQ � O C! my a dew 3 H d 0) � o t m •• _ > CD L l4 N N M M .� Y aL+ L d) N d L i U) d N Y T d ca a V O L d () C) C O i Q CO) ` d O > ._ � Cp � c Y +' o tYa cY0 O W Cc'a O N .O OC > \ C w p � � W 7 e0 C6T �t0♦ W 7 COti �' O coa mQ -iV) NzawIL Uzco0U) COx -i -i nz2mwaawt- a F T N M d' I b w r, rb W O T N M IC! CO t` QO W O T N M 'V' K1 t0 p M O T ICIII M IT49 t0 S r T T T T T T T T T N N N N N N N N N N M Cl) Cl) M M M M 5 m o O a m g T O N co O N Q o N IL F- z W LLI C) LLI a O N to J � ` a a ° m � ® z LD z a N U (L w co O o W 0. C d D N f" D7 (q m C) W > w 0 E _O E N Z ¢ a r .+ c i J E O o fn c m R m m N w m L E a m C a a CD O �+ C 'O ?' ea 0 E � �0 co d E O M N V N O U ec L O V d a � t6 c 7r. O V C p O wY d O OCLa > CL _ 'N tM ` ?� m c cA o o °� ca a .Cc �. p E N o y a � ' R � � w Ecy = u> > cocL c `° ad ' o Cf)a >' tom c E (� C- O ,. C 61 d O O o ff O d T R p - �. i ° ° 'o d � ° Lu ° 0 m w c > coL"o � in m 3 � ca m c , a,a = aci c c c a a� = o` zM C- > > dna � z cJ E — � = a m o � c E E .0 CL 3 r- M V m m E o °' m m ° L _> °'W. �'a s "- E CL 0) >+� .`+ J Z W K C' O CD > .E Z 0f= �= C = v N O F. V d 3 Y m ca m z W W E m CoQ cc >, c o (D >, m R v ec c Ed � > G> d d "-' d > Z d d m L o a °' w N 02 w R d d d = d d N > cnNW > d a N m m .• > a' Z ¢ O > !a y Q R ,,,, m fn >�Y .r ea c c�6 V fn N W C 0 U +�+ O O cr ►� 'a — m ¢ m m m � 3 .� 3r m � 3 v d my o ¢ COf 01 t0 N N M tQ 'C Y .�+ L fA y d w i a d d d M C G !Qc d "' tll a 'L d d '> '►- C rte+ cm O W 3 't0 c`0 r tLC W 7 M h L7 O e•YC cc R 6 W eo C O .+ ` ` cn ea ,�+ •� �'' c o c 0 m rn ¢ JcncnzomarUZtn0tnm2JJ � MZ � ma' St- a � mc� a ¢ WT a ¢ O r N M IT 1n to t- 00 C1 O r N M le W) CD h co (DIC r N �' N M I Lo tD t� OD 01 r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M e 00 p O O O Cl) p o p O L T en o Cl) d ° Cli O O 0 0) ~ CL ~ cl 01 O N co O N O o N a z w w t° Q > N O �+ d O O 0 Cl) V- N O o CN c Cl) N z en 0 O O OO O CD O V N 0 C) O U O N z N �0 0 co r ti � Q1 F.. M 07 co m T N z > M 0 Im E C O` r = m R Ocoo fnJm E cEa E O N o O w � ° co -0 ') mLE cm ` a y Ca p N d C N �' aU—+ R L C v y C. C r+ O U ,p Y d w C d d d a O 'y m m U c c N _ o o W m 2 - p E u m o `aev cwc °�ya> crr.cAO OC > E pp 'm Ed � c wFea am �c°' ac � m ao ai %) cop o ` E ' pc ° a ° ° ¢ � Eum � ofoo . O WO mC 3d ,a CSH) ` d C c G C M m ccc zcO OF.. E Epom ' dwxa Ov > c z ° = w 0) 0a co �m mZ � wea � U � y mz _ � > na Lmp ,m- o> m > ot> ccm 0 � 6oa � 3Ha co , oaRNam NCx ` ° U . C Ot ' a'Q1M > dM O W 7 W Ya � t o ea Cc m C p wOW c) a -j co) a) zowarTUz00 V) xA I U) zmmx5 � atmUaaw � � � g CL_ T N M tq c0 1� Cp en N N N N N N N N co N eM m eq M M ami M H n' 0 0 0 O O O p eyo rn o ° a ~ N O O � O O y 01 O O a O O �N r- O O O p COCL O N Q O d O O p (� 0 O r r O N a Z 0 O W o 0 0 wto � c Q O N CD cc L = a o Z O o 0 0 Z Z o L. 0 0LO c M o ® N m Q00 U' 0O 0 O 0 o F_ CL o q c G ca Z C LOOO r tti Q N O r IX d N z Q + w O R ° m j L L C a C C C co r c m � -0r3 my m 0 Ea� `��° a m CD E o a a N ° d L m U co L OL c v d C. p� E d C 0 U to U) p d d r°+ C a OL. •> Q = 0 cm y cw t i o o � Q m 3 � a 'RZ, D Emo o m c _ L _ L = a` o a E > R Lew E c � U) 0- > ch c. L = 14Q (D D ° a >.,�s o'c _ dm fl- o .. y = to °' � ° ° das o � o >.W. a E o � .ra $ L m ° ° > L �dy n -O o > E L U > « o �'' ep �S ` u- = 3 c c °1 r L ' + ° d L w - LO 0 t6 = C CD ..) Cl) r >> � _ >+ p1 M III tU = ° 0 °' ac c ortn c CL m ° ya � z cJ E — d me t0 ' ° t- c E E .2 r- co _ E L oU Nw E Q 3 0) . o � > :, ' Rao L o o �a >.� ..� Jt W x Qo (� > C z cm rnt � = V ,� U) F- 0 d 3 ;a �' d ea «t Z y Z y w w E m to Q to co >� 3 m U >. d to c �' = E to L > = Q d a> d d Z - .. d «t = ° CL a' ++ d C CO O w ° m !v d d = d d U) L > > N Y �a _c >•:• to w O _ E c m Q w w Q L > Q O = y V N .a L O t6 M d d O L d r+ a L U) .r c n h — to Q m rn m 'S ..ctl3 r 3 ° L m r. U ° .` Q ° Q d d N N MLLJ > ._ ��.+ aL. U) = Y +�-' L j Y d M C.'C R dL. w tIl �' .L d > `�' 'G ,��+ � Q JNU) zma'ii drUzfn0U) cn -j -1 U) z ma � �= dF�-- mUdQ W r JH g 2 r M h tp co � O r N M tC1 tD h tb W N N N 04 04 04 N N N N M MM M M MOrN M q to t0ti OMOr NM ,TLt> W O O O O p a ~ N C O N Z rn g N W W Q tp O N O r d N Z Z Q LU O a/ O O F'- W O O Z O N 0 p W r O O r z LOo to O M LU N H � J � H- O v °� a Co N � w et F a N CN V Co wm 0 N z a Y ° o o cc J d L w _ a o :° r c m °O Co m —! -_ E m L = O to V o o .. m L Co -a 0 m E `a� ` a w V a V Z N V Co .L O � V � w L L " O V d CL C_I t6 Q L a a. L a=i ° Q OCD " L L L c = E a o ocvE o c °' ami °: ~ oo � c m • � - m mm0 w O d R' o w L 0 72 a ° Co w 2 d > m c w .. I ea . a14 O aaa L c m d 0- E wL � •' EcN = = m > ina � ctoQyo O >� tA.` E M °- o ., Co O Cl c _ ad o s Z o o > L 0 'o 0 c E ° U _� > Q w °o ~ ° � w a 'a ad "M ° c am aL ° rn o a w ° 0 Lwa, wLdwc Co _j ; otfc o omc = o CL = oz c a > > 0 � R N _ rr c 5 �' � L w o L c w W O O O m L Z c J E m d O H c E E o W – eoOv °�; EL L aa � o ear 010 wQ asEa 2a. m 2 c�0 – —J LUNxw °- oCD > ._ zasa `a�s � = � dya ° � ooR w w „ v z m W m m Q N >,c ; ° m U >` m 0 c U d o m m m d m z .� w m eo .c m a = a� 0 E d L > E = Q > a > r � z > a> d > � °' La 3: 0Cr wNoM :. mLm and mL O Q Q wQ ear, >�� wtn >,xw m c � U) m0U. = GU Es m o . .. L > Q O c .+ L p eo w > = w+ O r 0 0)h h - d Q a' d w N d «. w a) d Z O L d +.+ > to N N t j a3 •C �CL. ate.+ L Co d t ` w d m 3 r d of.a w V d a d V .L OL p Q m w 'C O W 7 .� m r m L. W 7 eYII O m m of 'O w m a 0 .d, m m ,'•O.dL+ .0 \ o fnQJfntnZmmar0Z (n000) -i U) C �- fL IL Q W e- J !° IL =i V- N M - Ln W h Co Cn O r N M d' to to t.- tb til O r NM t0 ►. O Of O r N M v to w r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M m 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO(DOOoOOOOC) OOO LO 0 o ;, o o000Ol- 0o0OOIhC0CC) 0 MCO O � C O O T O O O ti r O M M O O O N CC) to M LO d F CO 00 N CO r C0 N O CA rl C+') M i r M O M T O O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 O O O O O 0 0 O N O 00 CA O Cj O O O T CA CA O O 000 O t` 0 ~ c O r Cf) C0 O Cn Cl) O r N CX) r Ni CO Cn -If r O Ch Cl) O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 00000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w CA 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r' CO Cn O O Cl) n Cn 0 r- 0 t` M to O LO Cfl N 'T 00 N N M N c- M M M OCT r r T r Cn Cl) Q O O O O 00 0000 O O O 0 0 0 O 00 O O O O O O 00 O O O O 00 0000 O O 00 C7 t` 000 O OO OL6L O O O td0 T r 0 O t- N O CO to O N 00 fit' LO 00 O V N N V r N N Q. r 00 r O N r r r C`7 M CD M ZO O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O W0 O O O 000000 O O O O O O O 000000 O O O O CCOCn Wrl-C I' r O O N tl- tl- N N N CO r W) y„ Q O N M N N N r r u6 L _Z I- 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o o O OO 0000 00 0 ch Z o C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O O 0000 O O N W O cL+i O r Ct) M M o r O N O r CO w a T Z ^0 ( � L� 4I Z o Q N 07 CO) m ui 0 CM C E Z > S O O. C6 N a E am L � ,� t r+ > L w c a E O J L C L C) c m 00_ m co m E LaiL m E o Cl) N Cu L U Cc L L O Cu O" Ca V CA 0 N t0) .+ ,*, L G.._ L C 7 Q C M M y 0 W .Y C) O a 4. d O' 7 N O O Cc C t0 J - 3r.Cc a L = L C ❑, O ` C3).� U 0 ++ O C V 0 O r o L C L w C6 a O. 0 0 a i C N dv E � .., dYm w ., „ F- - M .r o. Cc O 0 as 0 U p. > � L EcNccco > in � L cc.ad3 � cL`otf oLE w CD c E m a 0 w c m m o 0 0 - 0 �, >,m m E o 06 L ° ca 0 0 > - 0Mt` -O 0 > E � U � > aw O -w e: :3a�S i ' :, c �- C M r 'O fl w 0 N L W M .y O 0 Cp C a C 00 J N . >i °� C T 01 i N 0 0 0 0 0 a c o z c CL > > d L z c v E — y s = 0 o c E E o g a c E CCn p U N w 7 a0. d « L > w +>+' Cc d �' L E tZ A� r J t W K Q O U' > �_ ' Z d1'O mZ O = 0 w O 0 0 is L ea �o to W W >, C C O >, 0 0 C V > c Q w i t Z � . Z 0 m t0 a �0/ C6 T._ 0 L �0y U 0 Q C 0 O E 0 L > L '^ d 4) Z Y 0 Q: R a. IX w Co O w d Cy d y+ 0 m > co N Z > Q 0 > Con a c6 cn N >,Y N eo C >,�. O m 4 a p U E w m Q w r a L > Q O C .+ O N C L 0 0 ea m > `° d N O i 0 ++ �p c L > > cP- I-- 'a — ma comm � m � .� 3Td � 3y � 0L0V � .` oo a 0 C C6 N N M t6 C �C w L fn (n 0 w L 3 N 0 0 M C.'O Cc '': N �' .L 0 > `� O « O�j W 3 e0 CL6 r CL4 W 7 M ti U' O CYO CYO W .E W t6 % O " . N 0 C C v C 0 tnaJ (nCnZ ❑ W (L 0 nOlntn2 -j--i ztm � cF- CL —co 'C. Q W IL a O r N M CO CG f` 00 CA O T N M '7 O 1` 00 0> O r N M le in w T N M CA w N O O� T r T T T T T T r T N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M Cl) M SECTION FIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS • Summary of TIP Projects & Costs 5-la • Detailed Project Descriptions 5-1 to 5-36 1 O 0101010000000000000 O OMa O O ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 r O r O C ".) 00000000000 C 00 - 6 0o rn Do00000O- ddLd Lf. (:5 C; N o 0 U) L.. 0 0 N 0 0000 r Ln Ln 0 M cc O CA r 00 h O M M CD O h CA N to Ln Ln C (O 00 N 00 r CO CO CO Ln Ih M CO V r M O 3 r r N r M O ? I If I If r O O O Cfl o 0 O O 00 000 0000000 00000 w 0 0 00 0 O M 00 000 0000000 00000 r- 000 00 O N 00 000 0000000 00000 00 M CO o CD O CO r co co o o Ln O LC) to N CD N O 0 Ln to 0 0 0 et .a 00 m O CO Ln N N C) m Ln m M Co 1` O M M ti 00 O 1` r r CA O O O co N CA N ir N CA CLO 1- r <- 'T N M r N CD CO o r w C n N N N O 3 F- LL O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO o O O v o O O o O o o o o o M o o o o o o 0 o o O o o 0 00 O o 0 0r.- 3 O O O CO O O O O O O o 0 0 O N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M Co O 00 1- O O O O r 0 0 0 M o o 0 00 Ln O Ln Ln to N o N O 0 LD Ln 0 0 cc N cc F- 00 m 0 CO Ln co In O O 0 0 0 o in O o r- 0 00 M co CM N O M M ti co O t` r r 0 0 0 0 d .o O N 1` N Iq r o 0 CD h CO O M M Ln o CO O N C'') 1` M M r � N M r N cc 00 O Ln t` er CSD t- CON CO r CO N CD CO LCA CO M CO V) r r r N05 r O r r N r Ln X y � �n a Z o 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 co 000 0 0 O o O O O o 0 0 o O co 0 C) 00 co 0 0 0 cc o O o 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 CA CD OD C7 O o C7 Ln C7 O 0 o O vi 0 0 N O r O O Ln o N - (D CD m O O O O O Ln O O N In 'IT 0 MIt N LO r O N > N CA v r Ln 0 O Ln co co N - r N r r m IV C6 r -- CD Ln Vf r LC> Q M G 0 0 co 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co o 00 O O c o o O 0 0 0 0 0 cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc O co W O O o 0 o O C o 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0 0 C O O O O o co o 00 to o C7 O O Ln o 0 M co O O o 0 N o Cl Lf) Ln Ln co r' n co Ln Ln o O Cl) Ln O t- to M o N to v 0 M It r % r Ln N N 00 d' Ln CD It N v co N N N r r N r- r M Ln r M M M N r M Z O O Cl 000 O O O 0000 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 O O coo o co 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O co I" 0 0 O O O O 00 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 < n ti CO O O O O O O O Ln O o O O o Ln O o N O O Ln Ln Ln O c Cl) v '-Y r 0 O ti N O 1` 00 to LO M O r 0 t- 0 M It r V r Ln t• aI N o co v 00 `7 Ln OO 0) N 00 'T N r r N r r N CO +3N r C a- 00 N r r r M M CL 0 VW Z 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 00 O i 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O co O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 00 O N to M L[) O C5 O O O 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 Ln O Ln O O N CT Ln ' Ln Ln O 4 r' 1` N o Ln N 00 0 o to Cl) o CO Ln O O O r Ln 'It CO M N r I r O CO LO r v CD r N ti r- N It N N CD N r V r N r r O O CO U) a N M N N N r r r CD r N O 0 0 0 00 O cc 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 00 o co o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 co O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 0 U LO O .4- O O N O r O Ln o o O O 0 CT Ln O O N O O r 0 Ln O LC) LC) O O Ln CD N N O CD Ln n LC) O M O r O IT co M M r N r 0 tt N t- v Nr r n tl- O t- M to N r r r N r r O Ln IM M M r r Ch r a 0o0 'IT0 0 0 000 0000000 0000 to 000 �to o Cl) 000 0000000 0000 � Z O O o CD O O N 0 0 0 O O o 0 C 0 O 0 0 0 0 CJD O et ti Lo o CO O O M O Ln C) 0 0 N 0 N O O O O O LO F- O r O C)N LO Cp 0) d' t-- OD N r co CO CD M M0 r r - Cl) r r r r CD z N w W w LL (A m O LUd CE Z Q + gyp+ p CL6 O a Ca1 a g � + > L � J O ++ O CA U C m Oa co (o y L a d a .8 o ° c>s Eaa � m EO = M v N O � � r O L R O o V d Q to i c = Q U r- 'D NY d ° oda d CL� to d R c — N L. o o a' p La 3 C � r D 0 O N H `atL.3U °) $ Q c CD to c acid — a� � LcaiLEaa, 0 � �, to ° m d� a C H ° m F- � R m � CL � o p n n- a � C N y E m a. 0 r C 0 ON > N 0 T E C) 0 ?_',CSS r R O 0 > C. O u t- - p >O E �` U > C coJ Cn ++ t4 CJ� rr " = 7 C a C o a r' O d W m w p a) O C Q >i C cn L N .d C p 0 a� c0Z co- > > d � L. RzcvE — Crcmdo � cEE0 — E C oU . � ;; E ° _ @.' m 4) L o mmi > .0 oa` "- L`a E a ha w T� r J t W X a p t� > .E ' Z �� O)s 0 = v w N O F- O O L6 ' a) t4 t6 ++ W W T C C O T d C6 �` C U d 3 `� d Z i Z E m of Q .� T._ a. a) U C E d a. > V C Q U O O O r7 ++ d > Z �. d 0 a' Ca t p a a' r _d W fn p ,2 O m d a) a) d y fn L > � a r c Z > Q m > m ai Q Lo �. m T� N Lo c eTatp N L° �� c U c > o CISc n n — m Q Q m t°n y m r ; d 3 011.0 N �_ y ° V L o o Q rn d C C6 N N Ch C �L r L. a) dam, i a) d Y a1 C) Q p t' .'� h �' .L d '5 '~ O y r p �j W 7 .� R r C6 W O w O LO R p W C6 C O +' i N t6 ' C e C O mQ -icoU) zo � ar UZU) 0co) x -i -i z2mW 5ra � mUaQ W .-j F- L) a r N N a Q w O n O 0 0 r N N LO to co W co r N ) V K1 CO � co ()f O r N M a Ln t0 a` F r r r r r r r r r r N N N N "I" N N N m N co M M 0 M q o m 0 00 oo Cn ?• r LO C00 V r co fM t0 O M Q E 7 N N 0 0) CO N p) N m m O w 'NQ O 0 E O m .. CD4 0 co 0 00 m p �, 0 00 o Oo p @ o 00 0 0o p v •o mc ° vnorny CrCO U > a N co co (D coO Oo5 .0m0 a m m o w V c 0 c n = U v ui 0 'o C o 0 00 0 00 0 Q C z 0 w O R 0 00 0 00 p M .= V u7 m CA z �, �, N� � `6 0V M r-M M O m C O r co CO Cp U N m C m CD N m in O E N CE m O Cc 7 O L -EO U 7a a U EO 00 O 00 0 c N = CO 0 O 2 O O O O co p O co _ t f[i cn co L6 c6 cNi vi c:5 c6 ci NL C W ddCM Q ¢ c c E O m c E > = m m z z a 'a 0 3 mo c LL} o ''Z >`�,� c mom ~ x o 00 0 00 Cl cm Cp = O 'O N O 0 0 O 0 0 p ea d a w N C an CO ai N 0 00 p Q V J cm O w r r (A V CD Cn o O - o@ '> c Q y m O co t. (0 - C4r. O v x � a c ° 4mc >.o � U d m o '- a� c c E o o m c m m o 0 0 0 0 o 0 m = Clj a V m E 0 00 0 0o p W vio.° � � � oc � `n 0v M �rn M C R.- Z m o C N N co n (0 ow> LL F L m = t m Lo) 0 C + CO O N F- m U F- E t m m as pYW� z�0_� ° `� V o 00 0 00 0 eh >> C m O >c)Z E 7 C w W V U) coccoo co b w O m 0 m - +� CO N w m m ao 0JQ� E U .� m > O' V e! ch V }mF-F, > c a c e- V a CD a O E > F- 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 7. 0 m M O h 0 O 0 0 0 p CLZ U a c V Lo O OCO'id U)Q (D m oo0000 coofM 000 Z W w Q 3 `p u 0 O N w m w Q F- C c O V M C C 'mD Q d Frn 'E r-C O .E r m -2 > V d O Ca O o N m N CVj Q-O m m com 00 m 000 0) E w m z C 0 E r C00 C� OM1 O O OMi Ch m m (A E N O� r y a) ` N l6 O co N M O Co h C4 C) >. 16 C N O V O O NCl p M E Cn .ca O c0 0) (0-- 3: o - O N c m w a= O C 3 c O m N N O f0 C a C > d m > U Q CAV >, C N m Z C m in0a`) CL xL- > xc co Cl) Oo on Oorn 0 ate! c rn2 m ro ITLO rn CD cb c.5 m m e E qui vi m oui U " >'-0 O E 00 Ncl) La 00�M COD T `C U) > m E (fl tD tfi r CO Can cm 70 Co > m O a (D 0) ohm a c z c w m c p m moL Qac W y rn m W Q ca c aci '� v ami z aai m � = E Zd u c Ea; > mE m cE CD O c m m m . m O ma �UWO LLco N of c —0 — o` ao in F- � c¢ c Z ca N� J i ea Z E g o- 2 m m >. E .r W m a).2 N m � c �N Q d p, m co 0 O d > U m V F-. c m Cl) Q U. m c a -O m F- _O m - v c)H F- mc -0c= va c0 > oco FV � cm WOcc2 LL- c> > cm cc H O m c Q C O7 m 0 O C/� U 0 0 +`r O O m'-LL m C m m c F- 0 �= O. 0 E C U U L E a d W C:::«. NF- 7J =_ _= E Qaa) U. a) 4) Zc.� o ULLWmc o c d E U m � HL m m t6 W e E�ininU U C os m E y c y v� as c m a c= c c m 0='m c c `m Ll p W c m m O C c m > X m d0 0 0 o O m o m R rt N U O ¢ 2 c -s ¢ ca 0 wn amUU� to>mac7C9- 00 o —r oT �o o ` o �c� . o .� o 0 wo o 0 o C-6� (q a C co cn > OL 0 C E = N N tf'� Q a) U O) m +L- 7) 0 � NO NO aO � � N� >�T 0 O O O o CO a) -o m o m 66 ao co o ti � ornmm oa) wO m co m co to c � � ° 0) ccaa m > p � pmt m � Oli T N a m o U 3 0 w @ cnm - CO0 0— o 0 0 0 0 v o E o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a� (D � i 0 N r- CO is (D cD ~ oo °� m �c m o v v Nr a O C . m O "0 E m � N U () ".0 W 0 N rn m rn O E o o v rn �� o 0 cm aia E o 0 0 0 N a u) E 0 c it m O O O O W .a O N O O O O 16 > m a) rn •• 0 r N N N N y N �jm p � Q - 2 2 and � > C C Q C Z > ' aC + I- 7}aK) Z N waOE U) CJ N0 U) U. NOOU OO a) a) O O O �CMZc o 0 0 0 cc a0i0- m > c 19 D)= 0 0 0 0 t,. Q 0 > c Q v o v v v le O y •C NON a) � :X N N O �o a` ._.__ Z s (D C w V m w ^ m , cc o Z a ea "° o o 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m >, a1 Q U m m o 0 0 0 0 O Z O (.� c -p m Q W /n c r coE O o O O o0 �W V mQ' yNC9N � O � O O C M I� O LLJ c N O 0.0 Q a) O•O N > H m O m .= (B 0=t N m (qO NaNwQ 0v I- Et. o 0Ye a 0 0 0 0 0 cm a) .� N O N tA Or N U-UZO o >, O E M M N e) OJO� co m m N m F-F- O a) N O _ > •- • :D (a > O m 616 O CL�- m `p a) 0 O O O O V a N C C 00- C � O O O O 0(/) C m a) - a) C.0 w c0 (o Z •? O N a) = m m (6 cn (V �~ N @ C '6 O) m 'cc .D U X a •c m ccs °� 'n . N a) 'm m i d d N N N 04 m •f0 E D a� E N m cro m N c L 0) c � 0 m 1� :0 " N N M M M 0C14 EQ (D E a, 0 0 c m U_ m 0 m c a) cc .2 m C 'a to C. O.0 '13 C 04,;5 N N O N CO ca 0 c0 tD (O O t0 0 a E y U C 0 E O (a N m L m a E O O c07 Or- O E - -- 0 E v a M d' � .m. Q C C N w V a) Q 0 U U a O Z .� ON O C 0 U m to U c (n C a) 0) a) N m V C y3 a � Q aiZ m �' Q omc F o m CPI c UW a) fn +�+ CF. rn0 > � m SE v, a�iXy a) ca O C E .� O N Co m f� 2 C y � c x a)M F- 0 m Z0 _ 00 w a) 0.2 W. me-0 � om ta- a) a Zp n Oa m c E mH cv cn�� Ha� ccc2 vv v O E 0 > CO c w 0 C c n O o 0 0 0 m m m m c - m Q m tE/) E o W C O OinHO 0JLL2=- 22 C a rn� w U >, m a W m j c LU w"O E c o E � E (aE u. > a) N .- Zc� E20 Vma�'i � �' y E Uo a16 HO .>_ c � W'cE� intoU �� EO � cm `mai p, E to w E rn N a) is m m a c=p c cin �'w o f m:_ � s - Q 0 aFL- L) O`a -2H 2 E ° uXada�UUa vOi>mn. (D012 00 rn r M CO r o r 3 O p O 0 j Op N c•) N n N U) C 07 M r V C •C (O N a) Q o *0 a NNS L f/J )to CO) CO $ 3 CO O l i d 0 0 w N E N C LLd -moi O a O C O f6 U r LO F r Z �N r O C C 3 N O O 0ca E EO O O O OOa) .� Q o 00 O O 00 M U air Na0 O LOO a _ of d O v m LO co EaiN c+i M MM m cc c d C o O� U LL.} p +L+ o H C % 000 0O OO OO 0 O Z CO of 00 O O Q V d a ca C j, OO O O O O O O (7 N •O -OO ,w ca N r N M M M O to V a m: >o Za 3oO o OoO � v c y le O C O 0 O_Wc O o o rn 0 oC r` n to c - Z ti L C N U) N H E `or, U R 0YW0 o Ha c 0000 O o 0 00 0 zoU) Z c ca 0000 o O O O ow a) ���jZ 3 > 0) CL � O_ON_ oOD 0 o m o0 a 00 L�OZO c c •r E rn � O ~1-:Ld f� o r rn h _ ca = o ns I- o t` OJOQ 65 rnrnd) �- mF- L � � a ac e� F-DQM moo@ CCU °) Ua�O Za) w 0) > O o O O O co OU) O N pj U O O O O O O a a O LO 0 U)Q m y N E •E er co a (O U U _C N N Z C U ,O •� w O U N m 3 U IL a CV N > C U a) �' a) O (D r O r r N (6 cC0 .0 7 C.� E r N r r O r• "a C V O C A ` N O O O p O C C a le N N of E a) i N C M U a ca O` a L (av U a M a) ar c O y N C co Qi a1 CL C a CW ca y a .as o w m � �' U) a mr-0o� opo O o � r- :5a) a) a Ea+ r-N000 oro 0 0 � @ m 3 a E N (D a) E C0700Nm et NN(n V0• O a -L y L E N rrrr- r m N O r N a) a� o�Y y r r(o ao ( ao 0 E S C m O O C > O (a O .0 .0M 8QU a d UTai o 5, am aa) N c uj > ami 3y `moc CU fT yy (Wj ma as a mZ Q Q c—c° U c a o c UWrn v , � -o �, � (L a a� � O mE o A c w Y o M a) N (n o O a �(n W Z (i to N Z W O O � •N Zr- a) �+ W C !A O,pJLL. X ym �N C rN Q > p.o o w v o c w aci d ~ rja `FQ-�FT aci c o c2 v o o I- .c atv, aciN Qo E o � cc O x `0 :3 mcca o0 ` c V O fp u o o 0 :3 =__ CH C o c a) •C m C > d N m• cc LU cna cc 22 E Q'in as LL as Z c o O U m O c c E co av 8 No � a a � � ccw =Lw0 ito � cm °� � a) a O o W ar > o o Ot o m K m 2Q o 0 o O a� 3 o m C = J v it (m aw �� > ° waaa0Ua m>ma` 0AM o n � F O = � C _ N M CD 3 E C, Id- O O i O ZO O C , D) 603. E � d a) o �oo o a co p ` m C y w 0 C a- M c CO O_ O 0 a) m a '~' N .. Zi C N C .O O E a d Y V O 0 0 Cc r a) V O` U F-- Efl D_ Z N a) M U 00 .9 Cc Cc O h Z c CSO f6 'y N Lq o 0w C a3 O) cb N U � a a) N .D ui N C N a3 � T N LLt O = N d D A N Z �. O 0) Q D N a) D C O O 00 !� O)w U.O. N 73 C N r LO f` 17 r C CO a) w0 N a) a co Co C a) X_ a) L c C p O r c L 0. C a) U) c CO Z (O O _a Q C .O -F; )n Q R 0a. a; co C4 � +6 O C V ao0 o O Om :a N O �A O E •C Z a) L O a) � w0. v m ma � C •3 v Za o o m LO 00 IT v v O�- Co a O C to 3 N M lc Co to Fn w o N a°)) 23 as ) E a m F' v M Goo 00 coo p N N N N > v �� Nm 0> Z a$ p N Q W C Q U m 0` ca Q E T 3 F-� .. Qa) 2 0 � CO LL toD_ aLL a) D: UUtoU to 0 OYWa a) �i00 0) co v co ° ~ ~ L N M lc CD c0 �'•� Z O� ~ C L C cu L _ O)r c0 O to (/)Z .L_, Q U C >.C c.3 N Cl) co co co u_U_ZO a 'o C 0 .0 'm m O H ~ > -r- m .O O a3 E , Q� N E a a - C C to c � . oMm o corn o O o r a F- c r co N m of o LO co LO 0 Q.z Co 0: . a U N N [t Q) O CA 47 0) a 3 CU a) C ;�• N O O N Cl) r N Q C C O COQ h M -N h Z V m .� C �< CD _ a) t O) N N O a) ~ 0 O 0 C 3 O L -6 0. N > a Nco N �_O C N O `O 0) NOOCAN In Or Nm0CD Lo O On ca C U O C D_ E �(MrN V Co OON OOO)'Ct0 co a3 C O C @ L) _T= N cl cO cq pt O r v aD to to r 0 0 h N U U c O a) a) cc O OCR CD I- CD 'IT m OI-- (A NVO _ a3 � a) " N co - V-Oe- OCD O Nr Ln M r LOO r O a) m y C a ` OtO cr OO QI r0v ��Or r -0 O N � y 'C � N N '> a � O IO Co CA Me' NN V NNv� r' V = ,� O N Df O` E a O. N N (D 3 N .r a O Q E M d G ca C O a N z 3 rL 0m o N a) a) a C C U as C - U a) O : NCO O)N e- 00N 000 )OOOO r TL• 'a MSN M OON 000 t000� M a 3 rn,° 3a m 0)0ocOrvv_ orVoLgLr c( oocfl et Co �, � m � m ca E orv-rrno ovw0t-m ioo(o 0 a) as o c o MMrnN00 0w0U) 00 LO0w 0 � C O M c 0 0 0 !E6 Or(QC 0qI r0 V rtnr )1iMON cn -'a Y Lam = 2 LO MLONmM NNr N V r-: O) S ; 0 � .@ U ~ �.O y O N N m mT(` a c 3 a) Cn .y a .a m > �.�Co 0 3 om ° �W � m W T a a) > C E N ca m Rf ad. "= CD a) N U- C O` Im a co R O Z Co a Q_' ± w a m N LL c Q Wo cc Z a) m A c� c w c cdN aLLm + m Cl) c rnmL x 'a) D_ m n: E Xp 3xs� 0-6 0 o ° as ..� D0) rn c a)'a a) �oWZ LL ?3g NaE N a -- 4) a) c ca ° a`) a) _ !- � cQ Z�J � wLL Ecco a --� rm Z p ccoo � m c ZO in c ° W a) a)�QLL N oma a) ~ o�wa CL o -- o a) _ a) a) m ~ ca � LL F- casco °a !A 0 U� Q � '� a 3 c m � � o vi W� ooa)00w006cco= c c=3coo � 0 co - N W Cir i-� cc 7J = 3 Y .-. CL �+ C a a) T•3 Cm U cc .2 o p ° d N m•_ ° ° UlLLa c c o °c -a E E ti .o as as li d E c c E E�- U a) c U) N E Uo 3 t5 (D F= 3 aNi EL W'cE� inu� voi �� °LL -`o• `� f6a ••"Noc a) E N yL °) aY d mwa m o c•a)O c c ° 6=m c m m•- ct mw mra o Wt rno o c O c o ° c X o oL O d•. a) o .. c U) U oma = azo- � Q O E S -- WD aD-UUD cn>--00 D�m000SO� ( $ C4 Lo cli \ k c } .. / $ k a D of § k § 2 [ .. § 0 0 0 0 2 § S § S 8 a 20 � S &a LO �a. _ « w ■ z t % �z § 0 0 0 8 < • 0 © S S 0 to 2 Rye . N ~ 0 _kms � �U 0 0 E 8 ?/ 0 B / to / k � o \w k a a Wo ® 2 § 7 2 2e W 0 0 0 0 2 zO\I S 8 S 2 w >- � k o a o 0 2�m2 7e . 3 $ $ $ Q ±022 c2 0 Oto® $ � »=R/ mf } // C § k /% k { � k k k CD w %ƒ \f � n - - - ƒ� © (/ k0 /c f § 7 § 3 R / } $ / . § n g 2 g § # • 7 �6 § _ z Lq U m C ma a CD 6 0) . q . § � / & - / » a) LO ° a _> � I E \ aCLCO o "a 0 2 � ( 2 ƒ k k & « e « §" $ » a E / V/ / = % gcc 0 f § fe 0 mw 3: a mQ0 fRc §2 ° w § Jima) . 2z cu = E ® LL k / 2 ` r-IL �k§� + 55 0 ) Sgt $ kk §aLU2 I/ )2 c ; § ' 9 R< ' � _j CL B_\ 0 \ 2 � /j/ c\��oa)a. } \\/ e � RSI = cI �3= «« _ ® = gg `0 °-kms » _ ' armee we c m� � �� =3- m cc wLL0c o � ; E ; N , 222a z �3 2 �- U wS $- § CO E U � og � 2$\ 7� 2 �] @2ak »3 0 wfkk A0600 o§kQ § §e7fC ® Q ceccR w-ia2ool MONO =oob=LJ 00 Q C C 000 O O Cl) C O) Co 0 O 07 00 O 0 N O r-.7 O 'y O O ti E N a N N N O Cw V � fa° aU o0 00 OO OO4N N C O � O O O O O O ' m U O O co O CO LO O LO b g 0 > ` O a) O L (LO (p N LO (ii 0 C O N n. ca N O- C 0) Q G aJ- w (c 00 0 00 v z rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 U UJ Q N C M O O C O R C c O N 7 0o (6 p a ►� o U E v a ti cam -= ca M 0 o E '= C a) 'd -- p co 00 O O O 0 CNn ONN NLo O x " 0 N ) ` d N N N N N C b4L N N Co NE C LL c ' LLI E O x 0 0 0 o O 0 � c m z - a) N C) 0 00 CD Z m E o c Q w 0 - a _ W a a) r coNO co CNO CNo C CL O d'M h r- 8 O U W N N O a 00 > y LL 0 0 0 L f6 Z a ID La a`)) 0Z c m " E ° W a E o ( n W :. in._ w a� m O a Z p a) Z N N p WLL FQ.L > C O co (/)O N H Co CO n V LL OYWa 0000 0 0 00 Z 0000 C 0 C p M WO�" O C(D0vM M co O M W�:WZ w — w vC`)(Oti r N O O OUOO ° m 8 N m Oo 0 0 �- mPF-- W ca m c o o 0 HmQ�' C "O' m a)i a 3 000 0 0 c N 0 o 0 p O g ° - �, 000 0 000 00 0 ten. = m c a3 000 0 00rn o0 0 Om v N vi t` �� a O0t` 00vLO �Q p N � .0 It Cl) (D M 0 m C._ Cl) 0 U " 0 0 r N N Q ,a C a T a) N N r yj m p ON N O U L d N ° C 'j r •-d 0 CO f--CD e- N � Cn O a- °-� C F- N E M " CO� O chO c VO CD m O M � N U C. 00 V)Cl)co Cl) Cn t-- m V Cl) CA r O •� U O O U N hMC) O m � O) 2 CD C C O fl CD d N f` (O co M. 1� M t0 N `o ca a) N O a TN Co C CL .. cU '� o C @ d CU to to C N •C r.+ u) N o ° a �+ a rL rn . = C (a p... 000 Ih CDS r NN C- O 00 O r to C CO) O N 'p NOvCDO N (D COO O 00 O N C m .y-. C N 7 a N d V Co OM00 M SCO CO !� O O O M G W C N •N f6 E co h 0 m C70' C.O CV CD th O O O O oC$ a) a) C � p• E M O N— OO V 00 M h O V O 00 'In6 eu (1)= a) .O`-. �i C r Cd r r r O r Q L ` O a O a a O T r 7 0 c .O. Q G _ E (n C a O ° rn2 °� a y W (D W .a CD 'Cn s o 'c O to V a m `o C U ° a) c u W ru N _ _ c 0 U c ya 3 Nc N w �a a) LL, = c ° a a c O Q c)!n W Z LL — N a as '*� G N Z Cn M a) L r W 'C N.OJ � Nm F' m YLL a) ia Q w a pc a OCZc d ~ W VJ `F tLl_ o�_ � c@2 �c 0w� O Z E-U .N L Q 00 a) O a) O` W C'0'� y 0 0 �J _= C =_ ° C C d m F- V'c F ° m n �'-v v c W LL w a c C 0_ o f c � 0z ° vZ � c � �U o� a)M w cc yam o Lh E V 21 c6 m U 0.2 W c E v)in U.c c c N w W E u) o ma ° U) y o c d �O = °N O� ° o c �. �� mr� o Wt E �t M - X— � o0o Oa� � 9 Z C) OI- 2 .z -)h- rn.- 5 Wan.=UUa u)> coCL 002 00 00 =) I LO 00 00 0 \k } _cli § 0%c/ 2 »S § ). 04 o e w w = m n 7 m ® C00 0 00 a) k 0 0 0 0 0 § EE _© /S 2 22 ® o ITR 0 CD CO § �$ a) 2 UL ME \ 0 .6 000 0 00 / � 000 C _oo §� a. \ 0 G/ k Qc ° co \ k - § Gd 2 § \ � © \ \ c }2tm/ § CU ca co E] ® � ma _ x 0k ^\ m # c 7c° m ƒ Jed .6 (a o Z c L- CM E cc / § § ) 2 IL .2» P _ 2a 0 § 2w c $ w§ ® 65 g �% / a B § - >k k X2o 2§ 0 32 £ « r ) «ƒ ® 0 nU)/ E � U± § oCO w o //F- __ . 0SSSS 0 EB 2 nk = 0000 0 00 4 Lam¥ IT 00000 0 o0 LL C) \ 0 CN t- Co � \ § . o2ow a § § _.« /z _ �_<� k2 &\ ga@e . _ = z - m /% k� > / CL Z f %ƒ / 7f ƒ/ $ %3 - k � �� k $cr o � I � 2 }r � ® # 02 7 » § k 8 #& E ^ w Je 2 « 0 9 z #a 2E C � ca � 77 e » > E _ / » ® m / § § e2 =w 0e 00000 0 00 2 w 2 { // ) 00000 0 00 § ® co -« E 666 6o � SS _ ca %®%< 0 00 » e ■ � CNw N � C4 - k @ M o _ T � 3 2 - m f£ e0 2M ) / U) I / / c GLU m 7 U) L « f0 . )w . o E� � � a � m@ o omx � E $ ) �k 0 4) oewz U- W k i} z) � . � � ƒ\ � § -ixxmm ■ a 2= c o2 § t � � � A « � � r= �= m w > 0 § § � E - .. &� aC :300 q = ccu ca 70 « p � u « , a 2 Cl) 507= 0 © LLQ__ cc cc Io far a c -� Ww® �� ; ca ■ -20 � w� EnM 0 TT E ! �. o �I = cc 2 � ° U w "- ° E UEm � �® Ea\R � 2o WfR § kag § SSR § kf 0- r_ J�k2 )� \ Q 0 a§ _ mom . u=Ioo= U>cico2 33 / a O a (D .y O N C O r— a) p O r O O chi C N o N sf 7 > N c Op_ O E •• 00 O 0 0 C (n d O O O co a > = o O o 0 0 0 Q w o C v a v q g NN C N N M cl M o E N •C CL =i 'Cc cc 00 0 00 V w 00 0 o O F¢- 8 -6 r CO')O 0 0 0 Q N ma O N h r o co co U* cU o N •ptE6 OO o 00 V) O )d 2 O O O O O cn E '0 cm w O O O O O r- on � 00 �0 co co o.• E U � - LL a N N N N N U cc "O W c N a) y 0 0 O �- CCo o � 5 000 0 00 o Sz a N 000 0 00 '- a) 000 0 0 0 J m � N °°CDto v v It O w c c*> M oc M o E o U !L O o.w Z� o � � OF- c o > ° vi to Z ° ° W v W C co Z N �W tL Q (CO 'O'E Q — p = U)> U) EL- (OD v o OYW(L 00000 0 00 zU) 00000 0 0 o Cl) WOE— 5 ui a0o00L0r )0 0 00 Z c a) o mLX)NL0 0 00 �L C)Z O a) U "° fp, N (`M O r C CO 00 r r c CD O m < a) L C > n O UL- O 3 °) ' c a) Oa to o 'er COcu CL Z Z - d � E a) y Cl) ,. !n N Z M a) m a) O p O N w N Q E Y E d d Fo N O C a) d o O a� o_ � N E (0 E m N E M a) c _ d. O E p .�.+ Nco p 0 ` N N ca m �' ' cm o a ai 3a y E in o c (L aa)) o v a=i 3 3 N � a) ca N LO p o o a d >' N O c U C c a) � •0 00000 0 0 0 CL °� a) ° a) -0 m 00000 0 00 a) w '� a) m 00000 0 0 o Q o aci � m Of �� E o(O N � 0 0 0 O C p_ E '— ° m N .. N M O L CO o co r+ U t o v p O` (D �' p U N y U p w d o m o0- `er N Nod `0 m W W io U CD U M > f6 ate) 0 a) c �W o � fn Q ¢ r rn m E H �'c y Z a. p a) c O c a - o C0 C co •` vin `oma = H � cQ ZcJ � a)m �Nc �N J ea � Q m y Z ° c 3 .. W aa)) m 0< U. o v o Fa- > G" Opo. of:� 0 •N a) � � ~ LU 5 =3 - O~ c°i � C m= �� (D m e c O fN O a)•-LL m c ns m c_ I-- Z,•E p~, 0 C Q o UQ E IL N a)� o0c~ W)iw'0 == c == E C1 3 � N d U LL 2 > Zcc ` � 0 V a) SNS .g E V a) i w .� y o W'E E y y V v c ° �' c m E � °) d o Co � a) a a c�p c cin �t'�n p m� rr o O Wr o - m Xf6 . 000 0CD c U Od Qin .c "lr .0 E waa�c�c�a m>COo C7 U' 00 00 0 00 00 c o0 0c o Oo ra) - m co O o O N cco CX)0 CD O O M U N M a) �- a) m > C Q c fD g d a C N 7 E 0 LL GCJ c F- O O 30 U .0 � F 0 Y m cN O U - N rn Ca 3 m N w w a 0 tEa > - c o cr,to co o� N mac .E d O O ` N g Cl) v m z o N N } c w c o a) � x N Q cc m a > >. v LO J F- a o. N N O O E o E a t1 Z CL U o s O Z C LU w leN n N v �W m rn OW 0 F- •- o Z a N Cl) LL O m F- a U F- ea ZO Y W F. F-d 00 0 00 LLJ o w Z o 0 0 0 0 M W O}- LU »� m o 0 0 0 0" LLC-) M Y 0 00 0 0 m � r O—OF- r r }m-F- _ d 0 F—D<W 5LD-� . aci �n U O o _ J ° 2 co EL Z to c F- ZW v mt7 U N 7 o O N F- a) N C> �- a a = O d 0 -o U cV am E M o a) O U 2 c N C O Z N > . m Q o v a s c� c =_ c 0 c Elf 3 CL m (0 ra) N Z O O E N Q 0 00 O O O c > �'' w CD E O O O O O c a) a _ E c0 co t0 COO COO^ 0 a) w E t c r r r U o - 3 E o _ o a N i a G1 U a) m cm d a) > W {y j t Q a �1 c o � �Z LU p a (D a) o c•E N i- dN d o O Z C m m a m p N'O 9 CO LU Z L m to c x F- � cQ Z cJ� mm Na J td Z N L Z •+ WCF. a) p Q LL = a O 3F 0 = to amica ~ ca �F- LLF- �c��m as a ~ C1 a m F" � Wocc ? 0- U5cm cc a) 0 1= 5 c c Q a o U) o o .r 0 m ti m= m m c F- m . m W - w F- � Q 7 o T m a) o d to �� �� c WLLrn� � co =_ _ _c._> : moo U W _ cc L, E U a N N I- L W e > iniAV � U c o .4 -co CDw t0 p WL o fA � a �'�pccin ��'motcomLM : ss o � '" o X- o0o Oa) c �- U OF- a� n CO w�am0Ua u»ma`c7CDOI I j 00 00 C 00 J 00 N -0 .4 y �_ O Of O O O O O n R N a) ?i O p Lq LO O co co ca E U r 00 N M 'fit N a cn > w L ~ v c O _ co cE OO 000 O — a) — 0000 O O O U E W 0000 O 00 co N a O CO co 0000 O O O O N T 0000 O 00 zv p d•In0Cl) N N N � :3 CL co C13° a) n. Tsa 3 N N M M e'7 _ C 3 O .-. Co ) °i Y IL G C L Lo Q. ' co O O EO O OOC) O O —0a T0 o0 &D 00 Q M O W .E N r r r r U 3 c 0 f6 U) c ,owa) g E m 6 a -o v o E a N C N �w V cao o ,Q C = •• O tD r Q) E0 >; 3Ec dao E` O a) N .a ` N � U CimL am t }ci o cs c = 0 (D coEa) x_ o)Za`) .0'� co ca m -0 c Q cc°i J acct C .a Q a ca ° j= m E aoi v) c N N O yc a) Eco0Q Lr O M a c°) 0 " N cn Za R �`) 0m Nva) O f— cu3:3 m c W m ca Z ° CD L E w a) m L a W y •°) a� C7'o a) a o ow ao � = a aLE N > f-W = t xL ° ° U) UU o .. n UHU a Q OYLIJa 0000 0 0 0 Zou)2 ui O000 p 00 c") w0>-- m v, 0000 0 00 U-UZO Q o c t cn co m o0 OJOEco Q m o c L) os Q� E 0 U V O UaofO W c o O� Z m � CU a ZE V t .2 m L r O Q� W 85) � O > NN Vi O W U i Q F— L M 6N U) O c0 rn'— c O c N.� CD O = = ° £ t7 o m U 3r o N N w 3 � C N M 0 d G) L O O d .+ C CO O co N c ` E a C j N Q Y O W m E cD N N L O E 0000 0 00 0000 0 00N ..+ Y '� .. O O d 0000 O 00 3 f4 O 3 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f° a) a) a s E L vO to m n3 a D -_r l° oo mr o0 a O Ccm N O O m p QO Cj Y � a E ns °) co E a� rn a N d M .S y ° E LLJ W ns ° n as a ;° > eo .N (n U U d U O C y — Q '00 .: co 0 o 'x � c �W a) � CD c E E a E m o 0 - o '' a)-0 8co 0 W m ti m N a ° ; Q Z N a W 0 m ZNa) wW � m aa).2< c� {a@ rN d Zco ° c O'- w N 4? AD ~ ca U)ti -. !- a) cac2 as a d 0 3 0 1=uwi c o v, o N w c3i,c 0.°20 ��ti ca� m m c � � o m ^c LLQ ,N a) m Z � c 220 04) 0) _o cc ++ E U aci � c F'L E a w e nin ° c f0 a) r o W� � L m� .mmm X'00' o oaL) o ° mm= LL c r 0 o� c v ,r y 0 a ILUIELIDLIM1010a m>m6- o 00 m co a5 < N O p U 0 E O 0 0 O N v W C O t- N ul) 10 p 0 w C O a� c :1m CL E a) h fn a C r ate •- EID O co ca p N V ai 3 D 0. d a0 LLcc a (A W E '- O C N C Cip 07 U� p C U Vim. LLd Ow O N a) Co w 7 p y O O LL. t vi a `c- c'wa a 0 m 0 U caaEcc cN O o p r N 3 ) a) Ci _O N ZO a) O E t0 C a r C6 2 Q co O p O E N O d a O OUL C � a 'a L O O of e04 0- U 3 d > O_ O O LL. clt K O co O OCw � rO NhOO c) -p w co Z � > pC of O OO Qd0. OO Hr- O co p rOmLO M - CO TIt co Cl) N N O NN VP LON 4. C O 6 cNiaW W as °a3 0 '0 OF- c ca w � 2 c o 0 0000 0 0 0 0 3 co c u ca W.0 0000 0 o O �� HU W c 9 Z� � o c°c`rp000 m CD w �•- a- oW LL aa, U � ° � a� N r r o �� NHW � 03 Utica ZW2� O 0 �U)2 v, C 00000 0 0 0 0 0 ci Z (n2 c 3 �; 00000 0 o O 0 C W O>-- w a m 0ui0(oo .= 0 0 r 12 U)z E ca 3 0 co IT co 0 w c'> rn rn LLUZO ; O C O N ��� M r r M p r N N N O J O~ O` c6 C 0 F- m F- 310 76 —O UaW - � �'� —° N o0 0 0 0 �z o ° (D � c 000 0 0 $ U)Q �� Q as r 0) 0 0 0 Z= O 3 O N w cm O N r r O N C 5Q U -6 3 a3 d O a) E .0 U U O .a N a) E: U � N a2 = >a) Co moo EM v � aa3 " �. 0 E ?� o O C E U@ y O C0 N C O U •- m N v m 0 CsCD � o a M C ° = 12 a = O •-• 7 a) N at Nd w, a) C C y C V N r y a3 (� Z,-D o d 3 � cc c c -p -8 a) 0 = � �n 00000 0 0 0 p � � a c of (D a 00000 0 0 0 00 y ca - 0 3 m 00000 C 0 0 00 w m U �° ° o :? y E o v o a M v v m pf M w N a3 of E N N V_eF r- Vw N r 4'S C f-' C -p N N 2 r r C9 M M o Y o cin as d `o tm p a) N .6 O` a ^ U O W O . y Q C E a a) y toC N N = O 'C Cl) !E G1 a > U CL w c W W d awyC (D 0aci a av'iZ �' U Q a 0o io ns o as E c c U W a) Cl) Q c 0 -C) 0- m > L w y ?- M a) 0 — O cv E a� N dW S �- y a � p amia c�icnWO U� � N ,m p)� a 0 0 Z N E N .+ W C N Z OJTU. X Om ON •C rN d Da`niZ:, V Ow via a'CL 0f= W� cc �0LL-F- c�i � cm= cc � O C �a p c m Q — c c o to O p.— c ca cc E a Nd3 � Va0C a w 27 0000v�- = JLL =?- _= cl— ;p a) E y a) LL O U N C C O (�c LU LL' ui a) c O C C L E V ` m 0) E p ti W'c E� �0U CQ. yw — OW V p N o) a) a N NO C C y c.y O cc`v m'- tr a o 0 v o O ti v y o o T- d o 0 No C U j, t0 N O C N t� N U C t f0 � V a co 0 00 c N ,o� m OO o 00 p 'a CO 00 0 0 0 c VD 'D � .t-. = N N r CO C.)C CL "O' t LL O ma o (~j C O c O o 0 o O C 0 ca o Z 0LL O N O OO 000 CD w U N r 1� 00 O 0D O Z N U N N .� Q O E o0 0 00 m a �;° 00 0 00 -- O a) 't3 CMco 0 00 a._ 00 0 00 U) 2 D) LLILN N NN C o C Q N C tl6 a c+i OYER C } C L p U (6 (a w X O O 00 otmZ � a -o c y o 0 00 R i a 0 Z a) rn U7 o o 00 Q dc E t6 m c 0 0 00 4 '~ O Q N r fA O d, a) O w Z a a) za ¢ N .T L U O Z .0N c 3 C2 O W r W V 7 U) NZ N 0W Q4) r- Q LL L O a) O S A (n O N f tC V V Q 2 CC OYF- 0000 0 0 0 M z U) N 0000 O 0 0 0000 0 00 }Z m U 0000 o 00 w U) = Y � 5 r-rr o q LL0z0 N O FO- N N O N N N N O�OQy fC O) US Q O O N m a N V 'D C6 O V OO oyo ._ o NE m �Z QE a) Z� � �� V c NN 0 F a) > cu in d �rn 'oo � ° v, � a` o o_ � a) 4) m N yE o o c d 0 0 0 0 E o '� 1 O U EM OCD E O O O > iO O O y N i N o O o O '0 O-_ 3 Q N N N N C) p a _ O m N Q N 0 C: aa)) a` a E W a) U y C a) N w � O O L C N 0 'O C a)N d LO (6 00000 O O O O C C f0 t a) �~ O d 00000 O o 0 0 N C 0 +� E O O O O O O o 0 0 d) > c6 Sa 'y E N r r r N N O N G d O` O 0@ v N N O N c N N O cm N C-.2 U E ca E g O — • a >,!L- O o U YO- 0 0 a c W ,a OE � a W d io v, - - •� NtA U C 2 U O- U Z N wcc aNt Nc Od N m y � Xz a) FArnF- O O SnWL- cu JE r cL°) mm NU. a c (a 0Z a) W �-a U -0ai O ` o W Oo C: C13 c H ccpN Uo ~ J� CEN a � �� LLyo OT � CD W > m _ E (CD E - E? 5 7,U V O N C c6 C a) m W E Nyima toy am�OoOo O� o � m:r �r �� Z V OH 0 E m -I wa.aW-UUa m> COCL002 OOC9� 1 0,23 U') O 00 O O O C'4 w -O O 0) O L6 O l!) H O m O Co Iq O 00 c M N co CD Ip U) U) .� O co l0 t0 (p CD N m co O O O 00 c m O O 0 0 0 3 V . .a m •O - w N O 00 0^D co co r •�CO m Q ? O O Cd O t: U. LLyU r U co 0 00 d a o 0 0 00 Q � � Z N U v N N N 0 C.1 C.) N N NCl) ca . U t� Cl? c m O ` N fca a) C O r (0 N E LL d N Q QQ ` t4 m m Z Z O2 w C K I Z y L N Q Cd m a. �O r a) •o a W O Ur h .p > N O_ O d w a a) Za U oE � O F- c 0 m aci N U W ? Q O w O Z N (nom Nf- in 0 U m OCww F- F- 0000 0 0 0 0000 0 z0 fU) ° cmi � E c o000 0 000 M ���Z m Co � w 0 `O O_ vcoccooN 0 0 0 m > Cw « +i O)mWto M co M LL O Z O d CO m w 3 7 F0 IZ Ch r W Co co H z E Q O J O � 'O r` a m—Q o CW EW 0) 2 N E-:)< = O m Z 0 z y m Ud~O E � > cm in o > o E .L) m O� U E c Q 3 a a.Z .- o mom U)Q N Ccp D) w C N Q 0 Q Z Cn O O N N m Lu m U Q `L c afO n m C a O > N o m J om Q 3 m m �t C E 0. 2 (D c m -0 t E C) 0 �O Q C m SL O O m `' N E c E CN tm m CD -0 Cn U` N -0 •CO :c � cwc > wmo as <6 CL O Z W N V C U "O a _ 0) U mU) Z m c r w 'c N 4) a) oo > a) C-) o a E .0 U — Q 'COw mL 0000 O O O > c W C a c0 V N N O O O O O O O N 0 )C wz m ? E o000 0 00 C rn O. 0) Ny y � N n.N E �0)CODLO M Cl) N O c E 4) c m Y y N M M r M cd CO 0 L N CD m N LLT N N mtoN O a- 4) rn ° Z N Z C N >O d c = E3cL a) ofm C m ° c > Co >W m a) cA OmOZ C m w w U m E 3v m ton (D a) CD > Ny V C � d Q �� m � m 0 0Lin w c.E zavi cm) _ o m m m m e O 6. C c 3 - � 7 (D O` a C +m+ E m X m C9 c c v 3 coo O 0 Uinta Z LL m C U m N 'D W m O - U �- 'L CQ cJ= mm N-0 W J i a O 3FE w a)0 O y m a o o aoi ~ c-a. 0 U)U- 16 �c•0 c 2 v v -o fa' Q H � � �' 0Q Qacicm � C o in W ' cc ,'� O � � cco cc m0 c ` w c° Orn�� ��LLx=� 2m co 2 c1- L N V E w m a � c W LL ui'n cc , d "o Vl "� me LL m L N 0 N c_.c> i o U y m o c c C V ao D C O F" 02 0 a) m w e E� inioV c 02 m E rn N .2 E as L o. c_ - - cc ma`s 0 w E o m W -0 Q m m N X m �Q o 0 o O aLi 2@ = L c c (n 0 aP < �' wLu m .5 wa�trUUa cn>mCL (DODM 00 � 00 @ \ \k 0 q { CN o SS o 00 00 S \R R \R g ® � = % . tom 2 N Ce)04 � LO U) 2 » a)CN ® ° k� / 2 •' k k Ck0 $ § gam 2 S S SS® = » s £ 2 k � ' \ } R [ ) ] CL a § Cl) §ƒ C.) E/ A § I- 0 Co27 § k \ \ \ § g § J/ 7 k / § ] .. Im o $ E�/ k r 04 0 cc S ° ° = , cc CD a 2 L& ° w ceo = e x ( / o » _� » \ c CL �k � f k © % Fie \ cE . 0 k ca O � � f 2 % v m ± o � 2 � ^ �/ 0 69 E 0 ® ca o m CN� I k BE -2 0 at § > I c e% ¥ ° o = z-0 C4 E « &2f & 2 # � «7 ■ . Cf) / U)< S $ i § C.)L) 2 /k/ \ % m \ coo 000 k \ k ƒkU) k } § § 3 �// k \ k L029 . / c / C6 C4 ® W cm OziO ® a) _— « D \ o F- / § 2 } � Z k � � � 2 k / k \ > / k � ® / \ § ® C n eCL d � / D \ \ \ / k k rC e ) � � \ mcg k 2 \kk k \ \ 0o ) SgR 2 SS f \ a- ( § /� / L6 7 IgA 2 e � o 0 \ k / _� \ a. M . o § ems 3 w co Raw fn u e0 co Wi m \ / 2 .9 ?CL m / \ @ a e «x a) » � 6 = m= glwo �— � ttk 2 � � f\ » §-j § x82 �2 / « ® zo& ° \ Bk OF =f to t5 iw£ /7f 77 = e 2 o — .. Esc �_ o ; � � , mo ■ 2k ) �f � & e \»/{�oR=� ƒ+ fi » � ' 770 = — Qe a S;'t- LL Icy ■ ° c ® � E � 2�� 2a ° U � ° S �Qk zz $ / Skk � k �/ � kk\ 7f/ §/k \ k \\ k/ f ! O J D am)C k4 wE»±/3a 2$m& 262 33 / ) 00 0' o 00 0 00 y Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 U O O r 00 O 0 0 G N C •a O O N(o co N W 'n VM• O 0) O N 'a N N aN > y t0 M rc ao m o t- a? o Oo 0 00 V = o ,- a a) -a o0 0 00 U r 3 p` N .L... `O d - 00 O .�- y 3 a O M O N 0 0 Cc f6 y N N N r r �E > � 0) C c U. a (a E -a O Em c > o0 0 00 ac v 00 0 00 z o E m o 0 0 0 00 CD m . rn Us o �ti a va L) a •Ea Qm o N r � O to a y E N N O O O t 0 y C y a M OO O N L E O O O• U ly6Ln Q O O 00 ( a) 00 cr,O O C O O y N N w d a O N N N N TE to 0 C ma C N C0 03 - (a _ C Q p Cd C m O C LL} O w 0 v a cmLL E 30 K OZ y rn N CIO cc Q v d a F- V N a y Lo O w .o VC13 a) C Yo O O Z M U a 0 cr o O � 0M00N0ONyo V'00NZC E - cc a (O O O(o Cl) 00 V Cl) CD C F-U) O (a �- O Z y C N rN(Oo0 CD Co vv 0 wLL Q N CL•a) L 0 =o •"O' ' CO 0 WFL- 9FitiZ UU S ` zU)2 0-1 o 0YF- a 0M00 M 0 0M 0 M m `ZO} _ O L D U O C co O N O O N O N M ��ln Q " a �c�mm 0 (D Mrn 0omi O 0) O f6 N O N OD 00(0 (6 V'V' (0 (p w LL U Z 7 OD' h a0 O:2pQ = •aC d) m~ 3 L) u U) E w r Ua � O Ecw m0L 00 0 0 00 0 H a d (0 co -° E a) 00 00 0 0 00 0 CL Z C y Q U ? NN ONE M (00� ( 6 O U1 M Zy 0 .- C O 03 O O r QF- _ y m O NN D)E d 4) a N 7 O . F- r N 16 :L-• 2 -0 a �� O w L a N [n c o 0 d O o 0 0 0 ty- Co U c � Z E M N N N N m O O c- G c M= w O O N 0 M M (Ni N (6 ._ U U) Y c ` O r t w o o a C - O a a L C a•+ m N E � fl., Q p O (D W o c a N U) LO y 6 mF- N ,y (n fO- 3 L O O O 0 O O 0000 00 Q (_CO (a > y ~ d N0v0000 0 0N0N O 1001 NQ N O N C E (N'NN CDD CO0r 0cN O0co O ti N Q? y .a U C N 2 a) M 0)00(0 O> r (n LO COD 00 C> N d y 7 O N - E i r r 00 � 00 a' U � � � o L M 3: COO` O - o 0 ._ IL � � o m E CO) m m U c CL W W � d a rn rn m o m y N U w J6•y L O y 0) Z O` Q O ] U ti as N N 0 C U W a) y �+ U V) .y N CE Z d a) C �G O c c a) � y o (D< c� W O Li Adm U N +' R X c 3 Z c c i~+ W C y Z C-j:D x CDM CO) a Zdac po � o � � � ca W•�Qu. caCa -0 co (D FQ- � c - (a F-CU) o (D °' - LU = CC3~�F- 4O) C c:= co a0 F-� _ y QE 0 nm o to moo: �OoJLL nz=S col 02 cF- _ c a a LL rn •E y a N c•E'5'5 c~w U- y a c c 2 a� m m m Z c. " o U y N o C E O E V 0 F- y m � wcE��yV a!0cow is :? 0 O W U U ca y 0 a L a N N O C C y L y O .CL Cy.. L L aw 7 L y C .,.. K_ 0 0 0 O m o 2 C CO) V O� c �� 0 ca I-- wa0a v»mac7CD 00 7.� cr ; - 7 § W> k o C4 ƒ < o e 8 n Q £ \ _ � n m c = 00 0 00 \\ 8 co § ) © SR r ( r ` # 222 ƒ 2 § aq � 2C 20 2 LL a \ � E c m eel ° 00 0 00 v = 27g \S S SS ® m2J ^ S/ 2 ( r z % gEa 0 C E C Game § § /k 7 0 0 0 2 0 � 00 0 00 � 0 " cn o © S S co � ] / f )IL # # � Co � � ) 00 = L} § moo :cu C13 » 2 tmz war \ � Lo ƒ k �� f / \ k k : mom O � 2 0 - 2 a wU) E = > e k z k2 N-6 W 5k P � / 9c 2 k 6 \ L / / ] + { s § m0 0- U) U cl /�� � 0 / /\ / § 22m \ \ e o 0o 0 00 ƒeco2 � 2 3 $ Rg 0 00 ±U29 f � k / w nn 0=O ® f ) 2 $ R \ � �¥ e » J U E § § £ ƒJ 2 # n U) ƒ � \ ) / Ak 0 ) § E/ 0 a f § o m E k � cc E § § \ 2k e ) 2 :r- >; % � I E . § 0 -0 22 .cb0 j ] 0 \k k k k U 7c ] � E o 00 0 00 , E g 2 R 0 0 0 k $ \ . 22 • & C4 nn 3 @t tm 0 e 0 = a o @ © o a4 c & E cc Q0 CL E c / GZ e £ < cu Q ° g . _ .2 w e % m t5 ca§ \ k ) u �k kWLu § �\ _ \ © - _ = e ■ c � c-i a) _ a: zoo U . § � o« � Ar = �= � 2� CL Z= t oft 01.- `_ � s� enc = cI �_ _ oar p _ o . u � � � , LL a) , oc o0 # e« E «% ` e S �22t� � §a� 17 o0. f 9e E CL.(D U_ = � m� «% c w� �-0 ( 2 = ter ° G ; S 2c7 a2 ° U � � m3 \ ) § oa » ® e0E �e (772� D@offa § SfII qgp X/\° E §\ 0w = 22 - - ± ! U bell �± � w=a§ooI (a> IIo02 00 f 2 Cv C, � . � ~ � ) n � � ) ? �) / k LLI ) \ kk k k \k § ~ /2 w$ p2 2 / &R� �� § ■ § 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 00. " ° © 00 0 ® -R 4) R- §� z Lu-ƒ 226 00 0 0 0 000 25z 00 0 k2& © Bg w � R2 ■ � � & c - � w� . � ■ ƒ 2 v g $ a .2 t5 w _ S t [ z 0 . $ L kt x 04 § �z Q /�/CO / 0000 0 0 0o k L li D # £ . REE\ K E S$ : » LL0 Z 77 ƒ \ � 0 }\/§ w /§ 02/ f = 222 e a n n� » w ; 2 (D CC �CL� / � � � c \ � ko E ~ \ � 0 kjCDm a) � n � oCc \ �/ k00 2 o e § & § > » 2 '§ Z % f � L } 0 � k � o § ± � 07 � e = . 6 > e _ / ° ) 7 CL :E3 z � 7E / . � � - ) k } _ 00E8 0 0 00 / § $ k § � E oAoo 0 0 0R a � � � f § � k }k\/ �cli \k 0 a) cc ooh e > 2 ac = IL C � § � \ � f kR ¢ 2t � w m ■ a0. = J > u 22 2 EE2 > 0 2 �3 /a .. 8 c . 22 £ fE $ a ' E 2 � x� 2E U) 2 2 2 > -0 � e � o §7 :COLO LL § eec zfe = 5 � ■ 7 ac �z w_ �7 J E �� co �a Q � � ± > � � a (D2L § -= -_ r < 0--3-: r) g = = � - 32 �� ® ® © ` = =I = _ _ eta © «- ; cc e ■ 2EEt:: 0:3 Cc EG Ee LLJc-- U) � :� _ . \ ILƒ\ k ° \# k k ;-2« c LULL Q I I E ® B & 2 � c : 3 z:� 220 Um2 »�� 0 ±\ $ Poa = = w co _-a © § Luft DfEmm x/\� § §) 0{k22T \ k § U ce � o ne- I I lull a_ L)0= m>mI )o2 33 = § C 1 C) § \ Q » a ) / / c © # � { 0 } MR / � U � 0 \\ k \ k u ® E/ S SS q s � k /- 7C4 u / 7 _$ g © E 0 00 0 00 Ca ® e 0 \S K S« W o 00 0 00 f/ §Io ® E2 q 00 - 7 " \ \ / - � - > f - 5 00 0 0 0 0 kmz 0E -C S S SB f � § & ® 8 © // La / 88 2 § tee km 0 n n nn c = N o � O $ ( m ) 2 ƒ 0t k ±0 » /w \ uj / u� z c \ ow t m/ U) a0 z �� 2 » zQ kk kk V- 32 k \ \k R §Q SS ES 0 S SB ±km2 f 2 3 Cl) 00 0 00 2229 . 0 W) « L6 O-nOR 0 = » \_�/ oa �<0 laCU m /$ } � 20 f « n ZJ a \ k ƒ¥ ¥ ca @ e ec of t (L / & ; . - V \ } / k E J $ as CD 3 / 7 \ tm e2 fi « k a � _ { e ; § ƒ \ / E . m 00 00 0 0 00 � 2a > « 2 00 0 8 S SB t \ \ \ � - E v)\ // 0LO \ k \ } \ � / e * � § J \ J $ 0 \ mak } kj k k ■ m- CL £z ■ c ® f \ k \ 2 R. mE mLLJ k o § 90 � � 2 c % E ° xLL, mUL � 2 \ k�k z /� � w k\ k/� u.cc \ a / a zeEE 0 � E �_ U) f- c = c= 9 = ■ g % 00 Pk \ u2ccWoolL):3c m c � J ¥ 2 , - « t : w @£f © RW �� __� 7 LL ) � ƒ# k ƒ E z / § ° gLLa)—2 3 k ■ E 0C—L � � = I�\\ -- � �jE0 16 § 2f & [ qf\ xk\9 ( ( ) o�) 2 kk \ 0 c22co —1ee wIl� Qoo | a m l N a w LO o O r C, Cl) C m p p L `- O N V mOQ O Ob9 0 ~ N N C a) U Q (p N v Lca uJ m a ca . v a E o O c t -(5 c m g .p d N 0 m Q o m C C N = toO r � O O> Cw w Lb p LL (L Co C -cc m m a3 fA co a3 cc 0I U „ p U N 4? L H C Q ~ E ri m a) w a ` c tm 0 U EL — O .L.+ c N m a3 U m Z C c Q C w > C co yO_ CQD` O y '� Lo R 00 O 00 cocm N N '0O O ON O � Oc00 000 OCOD u1 O O C v d Li O CO w co w O) co E O m N Q Q � �' pdM4 C ON C R Z Z a p ca ca m O ` LL m 0 w O ca O •C O C .C K O O O O O = tmz Cop coo3 to 00 0 0o Q CJ d.a � C � :? aU c r or- ro. 30. y �F- '0 om E Q E a) _-'IT c N LO o O O O 0 O w o to C N Z a U a m o m = LL U- '3 O f- c 5 C cc (D uj w C c0 o m V5 :r 6i m E m E w w o m v �_� c Da03 :° � ZrnQ� N D w LL Q !� '> v Q'in E c CO NH ac) 0) UD cpiU O Z(n�0 G ZLLI (jIL 00 0 � C > 00 0 00 j O O t! >U)Z (6 m Cn C O0 O N LO W a) p Q N N O J O a) U ~ r r }LTIF Imo- F -0a � a) N C=D — _ Fo N 0 p Y tm � U �0 m ac wQ 3 `o Oc) a)— = omo N CL Z $ oCOL o �Q OC '@L Ca 04r Z w o � C H a) = a3 N N (D m m p cu m O IL a) c3 C a) O p N w Eg a m p rn _ E �3 v arc �' c`a3 Eo o w a) w o ami Q N - F- EU m O Cm m a) o m m a` a to L C cy N p a m CL o c m m m U n U as 2= •3 L °) N 00 f6 � cm w =3 a o0 o 0 > m Y Y cCc ~ m o 0 0 0 0 L J N Y E O LC) wLO LO O CD Cli Ci C ca D •° Cli •� •S Y aa) o 0 ,` CJ y v o F- µLm0, cLn a L - O y - o m fA N _ m LL o m y m LU uj N c OH rn Ny c C m Z -J tm Q CAdami t° � � o m c� ZOW. S c E y m y a) c O 'L3 c v o a) aa) C � .NL. p am)Q cmi�W Z Li cu to O m � � c Z c 4) 2!wLU h aa)).OJ� x ym �N c Q 0) a O Co a U N O U m a) •� •� H y W 7 C C `O LLi r—U C cC6 C C ami 0 O c a � � cc (Qj3Q " Q w m �o2 Lz t5LJ u ==_ = cf- tU E � Yc 02 LLQ � ca 0 N c c wmNm � cg E m 0U. 3 � o () 0n c CC U co � m y F a) te t . w'c E� m m U LY� � 0 V) t6 m m C C U) L y p cc �L U coo X m m6 0 0 o O m o m co:r LL c J U o � m' 3 � --)a .=_ z E waaLrUUa m>mac�C91 00 O < 00 00 _ 0 0 0 0 0 00 0o c o 0 00 a) os LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O a) 2 O r N O N N r O N O co O) � to p N o `t C O M N v a a U o 0 N 'O ri 00 0 0 O 0 0 cr 00 00 0 o O Oo 0 00 00 C. o O 00 o m t m N D ao LO U') 00 O O O 66 NN N NI O O O N dO a) N N ui = a) w E U. � � C N a O U O C 'IT V 00 00 O O O 00 Q CL � ) o LO LO 00 0 0 0 00 z O ` Z O O p N N N N r O N r N U N U V b rn 16c — ca c ca 4: o 8 3: CD v z E E 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 (13 > a) :° 00 00 O o 0 00 tm cri cn 00 0 0 0 0 0 OM T � Q .� .O OLS N NN N r r O 1p r N a) y O C d a N 3 a) >, ca 'O L Q Q ca a) H �' 3 d Z Z >> :F; c 0 LL} rV^ ++ O :OO C •0 x N O O O O O O O O O E E p N 0 0 00 O O O 0 0 O 1 c OGr00 00 O O O OO U) O 3 LO cn 00 C O C c6 N O N La 't o CD > C N N N = J H U 0 ( a! a) V) ,0.O• O cc CO c w a) 0 Za V y O (D -0 00 00 O O O O = a). e- O O C O O OO N CO c O LU.� O- ITMZ O N r >W C F. Ut5 Z'a to N r r W U. F L a) =L O m c4 (n O N H ai U OEr 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) �>�F-ZOU)� 00 00 0 0 0 00 Lijw>U)Z L C 00 0� M 00 0 M LL U Z— cn 3 rn O F- O J O Q a� ° C a a) UaFO > o •- m 0 00 0 00 0 �a = � � a) 0 C 00 C La O� mt O acc iA �� N ON N CL Z 'C N = E a) sT Cl) r r �Q Oarn O ZQ F O Z N C N N U cn p 70L I— 0) 70 a� T r — a C) NSU ca d N o E ( R o E _ O E N E S2 = N L N O C a) 3 c a O C N 0 .� o CON (LL 0 0) A a) o c c CD O 7 0 m C N O = N m V •° - C O O O O OO OOO OO Np OO O O 0 OO Oy .. OO OO O OO Cl O N a 0 N Q w lE6 (07� �N r 0) c0D c0 r r — W -° .� O 0 O L r r o c0 c fl O O O C a) c E — w L rn-° ° � :3 a U v - .o c 0 U) ;B a)_ E V N76 Qo ° aci > �W a� 3 D ° •v c O � cC i> 0. °°_ O tm N y C O Q O .0 N (/� N C = N 3 a N K N aS O (n •C > U U F- 2 CQ - C J= 0co N C -rN J 0 O O 2 as y= .. W ' N a).Q D XLL CU 0 r ca Q IL CL 0 0.aui �°) CL m ~ UJ=CCZ pa�.2 ccam c0 a c •E d 0) cca � V o)� m a N ns� •U 2~ W LL a) 0 �� E Z � c � � O U ° Oy -- �C E V a in 3 o w'c E N ;a U E ° �' c 0 � a) O W L '01 � E a) .y X to NO O O O O a) � E `° `a::. N a3 = C U OH CL �a ca waax0Ua W>mmo&C 00 D 0o m O O O f0 IM O O O GUO C O O O O o a (0 N f� N Lf) a) co r CT,4 W V O O O O O a) O O O O w O 3 C r M M (C M N L Y w O r r r r p) O C N (1) 04 LL o. m C M O O O O L) () C o O O O O Q O -o w n o 0 0 0 Z O rr r r r r O R O L) N r N CL 9 [a w �_ E o 0 0 0 L R d O O O O mCM to 0 O C > c o O O O O N Y =a p r r r O) LL ` N O C 03 Q ¢ 3 z z a) c } w 0 3 O O O O O C O O O O 5 c-d O a) o O O O O U N r0 O O O O C) W ,O 3 cu N a. C) cc a- M y IL U r6 0 00 o O oa) 000 0E 0 0 O 2 .6 Fn O co W i o o L Id b O co— rW 0 �_2 C �N (7 Z a.E N LL ~U) CO L =L R Zo U) W Z�cj2 aa) a'3 0 00 0 C 0) WOy — L ET Lo Oo to L Ld LLUZ- O- y OJOEa) ~ }m � = v E N F-IL 42 cc U o "�o� (D � _C 0 00 0 00 0 C N L cn O 00 O 06 00 CL Z R o 3 (q M O M M Q Y O Q r N r N r r N Q� f6 E a0 O N -Q N N O �N C ` r• N C p7 O - 'a N C •C C O E 0`D c!7 M O Cl) Cl) 3 > a) —O E N r r 00 O 0D 00 C) a oMg � N C)LO N ca O N o C d .n c a) R a .� :3 .6 aO) E o 0. m p) N Ca N N C N N N 'x d 16 E N N x R O O '6 O CO� LO M O Ce) N a) 01 f- CO00 000 w O (D 0 -O O E Or CCDM N MM N d CM C rnw E O r Q)r r E a) R E E cm 'C (a R R o C mL a. U aai o om _ L) 3 L) 0 d 2 = N N 0) W W Ca 'a) -aa) O` U CL < o mt 3 N uW m c m °) (a IL � E '� a�ilaC a) c O a v o D a) p a) as cn c a) m m cc o) C U W U. c o > o o F- � cQ Z cJZ mm Nv J C1 m Zo = O'3c � L � W aa)) R �QLL � c'a=-vm rN Q 0. c E +• CD cv �6F Ha) cocS 'aa -oH 0E `� hE •- o -o Wocc � LL- � � cas cc a) O Y F R LD Q �p N M a) O` N U O O.� O O a)J LL 07=c a3 a3 C f' c •p W C uj U- S S S dR O•L) LL m N d Z C c ` ` O V R y N C C 0 c C d E U a t H o- � N a W_E ' in m A U C 0 2 cu � � N a E W m o W!A a a) a c�p c c �z'� o r �s N 0 OH n �� aHn waM0 U00M N>m'a`ooC9 00 � n co t o U, Q r � o ON o COWL o ui f/1 LL. -C r� v of CD O E m o c N a c .o co Y 3 V CD a- > M .y N = O w w. d p p N um LL cC 01(O > > O 'C U V E co X p (D N o r O N 01 N V C o N = O CN c` a fd U b CL yamm 0 E Qa) co a a ` N w V O o uO O CV V' O N p �a N Q Q o M 7 n = ai 7 d Z Z c0 vq ` u-� O "' O C O NM N O)Z w m rno cc d a c (a 0 a NLO y_ JP N Ems` = N a3 a3 N • O ma c6UmwpN Z a Co L N = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O F- _ ri o o ui (nz w N � O� W oho co 0 (o m >2 C n Co m ( Z r OW U_ Fs � � � o 2to (q rnF- 6 .564U U D 0Ywa 00 O o 00 O 'a 00 0 0 00 0 w��Z -CL= O0 m O coo m L11 a:a 6 0 tiUZ0 m a > c OJO_QIm- C L N F- Q 0 3 (a E O O Co r O O Ua�a N m f6 O 0 0 0 O M 0 O O( COO CLZ Er 'a ti LOLn ti � mcoo n Co Q o M �' M 'cr' ZQ' NZ CCN _ _ N M O y F-rn ami c d > � rn ) N 3 c all > m aoi rn O N U ` £ N r r O a) N a ` N W t o a Zr ~ � ,co tL c L !i O O T p y R O 00 O (D CD M� O C m= a E o d m o0 CD 4m 0�oc~o ooi d mo o cps s E E °' �cD co.- �� V a m o D O Q. c p prn > p d Y U = O N w 5 ta5 W W U + N U (D Z co Q fa .-� 3 0 = U w N O Q U W E N a a) c a) V = o aXi > o c aci o a`�� ui4W� li f6mC o d Q Z cc cc cas E Zmd F. c � aZi.�Qt=i � cpu am N F �... d n p > U a y N W e C c `~o-- U � c m= c c N O N o �O r Q- •D o lIJ o o O -,u_ o= as m c F- as 3 a) c W c N�- 2 2 2 N = do � Ucn m a N `m• L a c WIi �c o c c r o �o m °� o LLin Zcc ? 2p Uo `� � o Cl) £ V N $ o 1-ch m W e vi in U W-_5 N E w m U) c cco�Q o 0 o O ° �:- tt c Z ti off o o c �z a� waa�UUa v» ma c�t� 00 Cl) '2 § k Cl) § 0 / ƒ Z, 7 co § c § k U. LL \ § \ m 0 co ) ] � k { �) 7 / § 00 0 00 < C 5 " oma Sg 0 00 ; c 220 n # It 04 ] < f [ 2 cc � z ca �f kr � ( \\ Ct \ k / \& ƒ\ 0 S� R 2 § o U) • • 04 E Jam . 0 2 C 2 (7 ?z § w /w § jM k U) U) / ƒ § 9 /k/IL 22 c SSSS 0 SB k 2 m� . ca – 0000 0 00 ƒk¢ LO 2 I } / 3 – Cl) Q 0000 LO \ � 2229 fi § « f otos % a) cli ?\� k / \ � �/ cm OILo ± m &f f � © ha.% 2 { A — . , � . �� %I / R = f 20 � n 2� - a = <R § �« ° CL § � /0 2 ) 0M $ k 2 Eca &® � � � – > – En � § 8 / �£ � k ~ § ) ) / cm n e ) – $ a)= c � I 2 » � 7 £ e = oe _ I m ¥ MX 0 kd 2 0000 0 00 ) ) \ / \ ƒ u E – cl) 2 \ LO @ § D 0 � -0 ` Eo � e \ /f a) / / k a. % Z ) E@E $ $� 2co a) w w _ 1 . 7 (D (0 \ / 2§ m = � w 6a » 2 c £u o F 38 » n >1 . o g– . 2. CL " e ° o 2 ' E3: 7 ; q 2 )k a)U) Uca — E � � 2i z%$ 2 � w k\ » §� § x §��^ 7 _2 zEf o= � ¥ � « U)t5 °°° ° _ » E . _ = w eccc= __ _ � ® 216 3 � �2 § 2200 LL,– .,p C= EE e0 U � _ o w ���� � e ,� =I 0 I> j � 2g= \ § § §� �2��/ \ � [ | E Q &22 ® �Ao � wa (� � –o �§ § § aa « – $ § LU CL Co 0- /\� k (\ q¢kCx eK §. k} § | 2 U oe < a » �� £ £ w�=wool A>=acol 00 = _ 0 0 0 0 0 ` r O O O O O Cl) 010 tq M O PO '7 O r0 O � � O t` o CN O th t M o O O O O O O O O d O t!7 M O M ti 0 r N C 'p a ) LL M O p� O O 00 O 00 L) o O 0 0 O 0 C Z O O LO M O M O ~ ` cc L) M M N N t0 ti M C O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O lr nC O 0 0 M C O -a LOM O M n O N N d d N r r U co Q Q = 7 d Z Z OU_ p lL} U O O 00 O O O OZ OOO O OOcO Q V d a O _ O to Cl)O Cl) � O U U O r r N N 0 (L LLLL V Z a- N � � C O O O O cz O O Z W O N N NW > C Z U) N WO Q = Q C U)O LL cn m L.)U- i OZ[WN O O 00 O O O F— F- O O 00 O O O m Za O O O O O O O O f6 m O LO O w Ltd O O of CnZ v w .�+ O N CD LN r M LO LL()ZOF Lp a •� ` .r C O m O< C O` S U X N F-�Q� N > LL _p a a H U a 3 c 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 LO U d c cn � ° >, o M cn o(Ii M O corn > N W ••p.- 0�0 O 01 tfJ M 01 Q.Z m N w C • 'et M r r Z Q -0 O_ O U C H G r O _ N to O .- N N N (0 O U N i 0 to d Co CD L6 -a 0 N a N o ac a v m rn CD m rn m m a� c ' u, oa __ E N o C C 0 { p C N U �O � w O O O O O O t. N r r r r Qcm 04 ca m O c >.c ao o a m ' m 0 -0 y a a •- c chZc = TO o > _ 'o •`- a a) o OM Orn Oa) a am e a CD O o m o CD o co m a) O c a) C O d O Cl) O M O M O M ) N � Q E N co O) � N� M 1, O N m U cw IL a ;5 N y C C ` > p c C O O � U CLCL w Q c U 0 A) o t N N o E -o U Oo OW m LV � w o c y V a� y U cc N a� a r O Q c a E R w c if CL to u2 UJ a) c4 c .0` ca E E '� o X 0 c a� N ' > m m 0 `ma 0ww0 Ii, R 6 v of cc CL � g cQ ZcJZ omW❑ ° J O ea 3 c Z d - '� .. W - 0 0 7x �n 4 = Q Q a Z ma O o (D y m � F ca U)•6Q �� ca a 0 H to O d .- t m - w �F'ti_ m = a CO as a C ° o F= a�, rn c ' o iA o o OO m c'ti 0 c m c O 01 0.� m U = � � o LL W cc t5 22 E o c D N c _ E �� ui m LL 5 > > Zc•� .�� «10 �6o � �� o cc � 'a ow CD N ~ 0 O 0 W c E y y U c 0 c o N a`� ` E cn o c c Ln a a� a t� CL ='�0 c c to DL to p m st '0 o L" W ON da = X� � 00 o Otu = c $ m v ❑� m - = a .� waa�c)0a Ln>ma. 5 00 :)1 1 0 0 0 c~ 0! . 0 00 Q o ; C,5 g& C . / k Cl) VCN \ 00 k \ § k ° _ Cl) U')& 0 2 § � k k cm LL2 \ \ § 0 \k 0 0 0 C15 a w 96 a § k k ° S § 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 ff .. occ n 0 c L6 w . m, C-4 z }� ( / d . - 0 00 0 R 0 . mz o 0 0 0 o f « Co �: m Cl) o& W) LO U) Er =- J 0 CD . � E / IL . 7 w k \ k %\ \/ 2 w n -& / 0w k k U. m® § § /o/2 C 00 0 0 k \ k ƒ\co2 ° § 06 p2 0 S § 2222 0 72 j OSOw » q »_�< % f / m 7 0 0 0 00 0 .� 2®a- ° 8 S k SR cl 2 > . co / w m oa m Z E0. } � C. k // § b } '3 � 2 / E E § k k\ K / 0 \ . C, k ■ $ �2 $ 04 _ 0 a \ a CL n @ > E G 00 o 0 E CD 3 0 P E \ // k �\ k 2 J E °_ § cc © cm § g 0 / a e =� w ) / £ w L) § « Ix f . E /u e £ \ y k § E G §X0) $ ( \ 2 2 � E � ■ §J ®fez LL a= ■ . – c zR . m ec _ _ _ n � zee 03: � e � o �.2< � � r= _ m ©= w , � _ _ _ t5 emc = c7 '0= eo= oE > � E > . ; � � a �– o , � m � cc o � eo ' � ( m LIE I � Ek337�� :3 3f ff 0a » ; o © � @ § u � wU— mac of E � � _ � � zG� 2 ° L) IDr–.0 \\ » } E S /� B/) aE/# #\/ §\= ° f£ m & ft » ° o tea © �_ £ xco0 oege � @ _= = ! L) 0ee neo wII»oQI m>=�30� 33 0:51D = ! 0 00 0 0 ` C=) O 00 0 0 N NC v co N N N N r--: a )O CD C c Q N � O 0) 04 N m to y a) •C U y V .f6 O O O O O O c y c a) •• O O O O O O m 00 Y a c F U O ,a C co N N N N CCS- N a)D O O O O O O V � aE � > 0 00 0 0 0Cl _ �C L -¢p 0 r IT coo N U) In LO Z E C O O N N N O 3 0 0 06 O N fE N a _ U t0 CU Cfn r MA) E o 0o O o 0 0 00 0 0 0 Uy W Cl) E O 00 O O O �- (D C w cc d• O c0 O O C 2 - -O - � •p � - v co N O O O N w C O � d a 0 N N N 3 m as a � N a) c c m Q ¢ c p c m o z` z o w o c` tL LL>,' E t o y •- C m � x 0 00 0 0 0 p Z a� o 3 a) O O J.O c O c > OC11 0 n $Q _ r C4 L v 04 (D L C E O MUnO a a 0- ON U c Uw :E 06 Z a (1) cu f m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 00 C o 0 O F- c Z N O W O It COM N a0 co N W V `o c E (D o.y 0 r - r F aa) y N Q U N LL ca U)O N FL- cn c 3 U F- U) OYWa ''� 0 00 0 0 o r"Ea F-Of m e o 00 O O o a�LU U)Z w m so. `m c.4 N 0`p � Cl) p T �, O r LL C)z .a E c .� F O J O Q 0 m N N a�0 ami m � 0 00 0 Oa - '^ cD chi ai 0 0 0 0 0 0 (/) p a E E oM N 0 C CIS° ° a z cm ZQ Otf cn 6 mmE > � coc 0 > N C In w P- 9 U CO @ i O N U N In a a 7 Q) y a) N E ;n E a`� 0 E w C N O C E In a U a U m N o m E a) cm (D p c N > cco aai 0 >, 0 c o a o c ai not cca vcj E D)U y N CD G m y aa Q_ m 'a O 00 O O o E T y O p � d O O O O O C L O C ` U m E NOD LO COO O O Q. y ? rn � Nc E N r� cc ( m ca O) y ._ tm cn ffi o z w E ECCU: w m N C10 .0 o m o Cp ad cc 3 N - W c y N 0 (D F- rnp o a) oZ c co y a U W o +� _ (a p L 0 U Ul c.0 i> a CO a) C O E u m co ~ tUi m r `o v coi cn W 0 0 m CO CIO � > CD In ayi F � cN Zo.� :) x NC a Q cc Z .r o t`6 .. W (D o:rQ1, m ca �-0 m a)a F cO a Oz3 o Oo cD 3 aUiF= W � �FLLF- oma ccco cc oNa) 0 E ._ < > o p O t%1 c c O (D V LL m 9 m m o c F- _ (a (4 Q >._ N > L W C 0 0 N F 3 2 Zi - _= O` p L' d `m tf V- L a. m.- U U c W LL y a c o i d E Co a u o o c Z c c 2U o y y yw m c c ya o E Vy �'o E rnp W'cE�iny v� Occ a� � � � a� 4; E tAcn � myaya K ��O000 OaLio ° mm sc mrc = U p� F �= cca ° m WdamUUa co>m:, L56200 C50: O 00 of O a m C0 0 LLJ NCD r IT Cl) 1 o m O Cl) z Z 1� N U� > d M r NV Q F p to O 00 O O O > c E LO LO O O O O t ui a) r M-liM 'tl' m 0 C N 3 v c V Y C It a Lu y co 0) H Y c Q c 0 o 00 0 0 U - Zc U*) IQ Ci o O o 2 p w. w r NM 0 0 0 Z O N 0 O m •c -0C r N U > >"�U O _ t0 w C6 a to C 3 3 0 mAcaN `p) Co C1 O 00 O O O .T. 0 3 E LO �0 O O O t0 w c .. O r co M le IT v am a � N m p p .0 r 0B 0 - - ap z z C T Lu- 7 UO OO OOOO 0 OCrZ 10 to O O O O _ Cc C d ca to v N co O O O m •c C c M et tY• iCJH aoV 3 O O c� o 'a10C( � yN ID co U4. 3 a'�m ZELm c .2 c O 00 o O o is co mom - O 00 o O o p� O m — m m 6i O C 0 O O o �Z r N ',fA .. ."O W M M Cl) M (.0 co U Z N w H U rn m Z2� UH f� Z . U 0 z��2 m 0 IQ O o o M W�jO>} m Lo C.4.m+ N M0 N N N >�Z c .�.. a) m E LL U Z O N U C 2 N U O 0zio a) c > 2L) c ~ m }mP-� E a� c az a) N i_-DQ > .�; o mrn'� O E m - a.0 u� I o O O O O to Za pa m C C OCO) N M tM9 O C07 M w Co O m Co a) O N a w~ c� 0 Q C '6 l�E O ~m w N m � 'a) 'p 0. N O C C m Q0 a N a) € N ma00 co co m O_rn 0) O O) N O r U p U .T. N E N CO O M O C'7 m 'CY y C -6 N — N M c M (fl O C C O .gyp. N cu N co CD N 1-- 0) CN E O to T O p tm C U, c .m asi a"iU a 0 p •p Ta m aa)) o 2 a ca to N•a N w O to C y () O� a) •f0 C a m w Cl)0 co Cl O 0 0)0 O) cm2. E0ani m Mo rno M C C Cl E > a) -0 ° E co o co m to co o O cc � o0 0 o c E r tN LO tto co n 0 t&0 rn m � o flwo > ia yoco m 0 a .0 ° N (D O d (� > m Q O. w a U C O 0 0 m a N O. tri a) _U rn m N N iei Ef6ac 0 oCm W W 3 N w w 2 N C Co N .5 p. N Z m w Q o @ aa) UO c 2LLJ N +� O c L , , o ., m v c•� y aZiK m ~OU) p 0 o cE N > .� o 6 O- O m " a`)a �(n W 0 CD li m p� d) A aa) 2 CL 0 Z cc m ami > ~ .~+ W c m CD.0 x U) c .—N Q rn rn - a) m cp JT a O °)cA cc- m O •- w c H ffi r- m ~ Lu 3 c c 2 ~ 0 H U p c m c m N C O CO f = m H c Q % p m W U O o N JLL 2 S 2 CL oC w V •� C d N N lL U y C a Z c C O V N y C y � C C E O U O N _ cc E u) w'E 0 N y � c N CL 6 c c in M:E-V5 a 1§01 r a n O W L CD 3 o O •- 3 o a) x_ 0 0 0 0 a) 5 - .. c F- U aF- 2 m m = n v a wo.o.�UUd cn>ma0101 00 : w O O O Q Cl) NUO O i O O ._ p) N N N N .. C CD CO CD CO v Q - N 0) ti04 N N ._ M C p > @ O O O O Go N N N N Qp CD t0 CD t0 .d cn 0 7 3 N 7 c C c C LL a W O D CL O O O O U a) o H ND CZ) CN CD Z o N 0 0 O N O N U) O t0 N O O O O w E O O OR O CCO N N N N N a, > a C E O G CD to (.0 CD d E _ �N Q Q V Q {L} Z 2 N -p O41 O O O Ci O O O O N CL N LO 04 CM CN 04 O CO O w 0 0 O N H p p C O �teao a �Qcato smC i o o O o Z CC Q O (D 0 Z ° Tm W r NN W CD w CD co La '0) Q N W l ' c rn 2 (nO NO o V L O�f...a > O C= O O O 0 M W O>>} L c a) a) E r� >U�O N > O .O� M M t7 M L-UZ— ° Lo U 3 m a ami H O m O F- ca to a a) a) a) CD a o ._ Uaf'O 0 aci LO c '0 v o 0 00 CD pa E @ 's p o m 0 o NOOD 0 m o a� c m Q) m — my CL Z m m 3 �- �- C C) Q a) Q•L C Z E 2 0- v � .S N N C ~ CD 2> a) Q O O O ca ` 0) ccw Q O Q 0 L a 0 a) O a) O N Q � N O a) oN0 o O 0 p f5 a) N D7 L U > N y y 3 p t` LO M M M r' C O a N r N O to Q O CD C � a) OL C a. CL_0 o o O is > a c N o m v to c. d c 5 > a) 0 v co V O tD O U m •d a) 0 C O U N U) aD N O O O O 00 O 00 O Q p- E m .M` d o O SCA O COy > en ... E h 00 w h00 O CD O oHa w a) (0 vi E vCD v � a L a) () rn > F" a) to y L i > . � F' c cU tm o > a .2 va) ocE CO N U m m N a) 0 o c aa))Z a:0) m W F- Q m-0 0) ca c a`)) E c.5 Z a o c O 16 c _ cz ca 3 0v o 0 d Ea 0U)WO U- m to M o 0 O � cc `) w yooa F- 2 c� ZoJzXcc LU dm �Nc � N Q O a Za y Oo a ° Q m ~ cm U) 'OD c o c= 'Ov -o ~ Oo � oEm ~coo o N Wv00EOp� �tim= � mm c � c c N U a) S .� c aL N to 'j'0 c~ wti yCD W m o c c N E V to d m to F- w ' W.c N rn c a) a) a) o O E U) a Q o E E 0 - a) d a m'�p c c m .� o m m c r i p wa) o — @ ._ Oo L a) K— � c0o 0m7 � d 0 0w a � -p �g 0v -0 wdn.OfUUn. m>coCL() ; 00 o 0 00 0 0 < o aci o 00 0 0 C14 a) n U5 6 N O M M M uJ co ca CC E N N N of r V a) y O 00 O O O T N O cc O O O E m N M M M m U 3 N w LL a U a F a) O O O O O O F tP to O LL) C O O Z r N M M Cl) U 3co N a) p N cu M CL O 00 O O O UO 00 O O O cm co Ld N 0 N T Ld M N M O d a N Q Q N C t0 Z Z U- m 2 O K O O O O O O am Z C O O O O O O ,v J H N 0 W) O M co0M Ur 'AO N O ea IL rn U Zc 0000 0O ° o W m (a ma a) ui L NL M M CF- Q M N Z N j IL �<- QO. EO = fn 0 �YWd o00 o O o 0 z U) 0 0 00 0 0 0 M w co z E U N M N M 000 000 000 ar r r N E O OJOQ >C .~... N O Q a E w > N > _ rn U O (� � � > — f6 O O O O O O O oa 30. Q 4) 0 00 0 0 0 �-Z c T> cn Lo N� M M N CO M Z� o O N () r p E • c N ~ ; N a a) > ` �.-0) T fa O. 16co Q. r O T C m> A a N Co Coc .y. t E E LO to o 00 La co CC -0 U .� O 0 00 O CD OD C OS -0 C O y E N O O O O O r O r V d N N r LO CO r Ncm cm r r r m m O c cu O C U a C Tm� O O/ N V N V y 0 N yfn.N. Q/ ' N a) E rn 'p O co O co O O co N moCO > x d o 00 0 00 0 > d _ _ C a N 0 m E M Ln M N COO CO N O C C p- N M N M H O O E 0cc Im T N m LO N fA a9Ec 0 O = Q O v o 0 c a m CD > as m W O W o � rnv` m cE mZ Q La as v W d N c Eoma`) ie E v, maU) a) c O C > c pin cV6 o- O a)vU In W a ii cca R 0. C 'L Z W 2 .2 cc CL Cp a+ W C 0 OJT X NM C N Q r a Ec O m M d — -o U)16 HOc .0c2 "D 'D -O = O' O F-r r W O c c LL— U 7 c Co c c C O c IL co Ei c ~ Uma W � o o��O �JLL 2= E _ = c ~ O N p- cO N LL C c O. z C C ` 3 c0 V LL vi N C C O C C E Uv_ E 'm m t= o W e E�in v,U _� o yw m L °-' +d-+ E Noo � O Na ac'dOccin �tv, pmmw � t V Ga` ca ncn �9w waaOfCUUd 0 M=a` 0012 00 :C) Q O O 00 O O 0) C O O O O O o w un vCD c M a v a •v oc*) N N n v f� NIm c N m a c V 0 00 0 0 0 g C o0 O Oct d Ci co LO M M 7 w O a .' Cl)a)) I- C N O E O 7 LL a -�, c N O 00 O O O U '0j v 0 00 0 0 0 1a- c� M r M M 'ct �f V Y U N Q a3 O N U a) a w N � m wE 0 00 0 0 0 y o Oo C o O j M O N 1q U) N a O , N N N N N U LL a N Q Q cu N > O 2 2 .y (6 } X_ O O O O O O owo a•_a) Z y 0 0 0 0 0 0 =a aci o ui C,4i C6 C 0 0 Q V m > r N M Cl) V) O C7 U) a) 3 N O to n` 0 g 0 LO Z d V 3 m OF- _ 0 00 C 0 0 Fn Z wN V O W C N Cl) M M M _5; C �.O Z;� N U)0 wLL �"' Q N = N R (1)Q w L) °�F-Ui CLw N 0 00 0 0 0 Cl) Z ( n — _c m co 1- W0 (0 t0 Z = r N r N N LL(�Z ai D ai H 0--:3OQ m = N O U c V a�-- O y c O O O O O O CL N C O O O O O 0U) m N O O0 O O ILZ in :a C N t7 M M Q0) m 0c r m) m O Q Qo a) N N N C t Q 01- m cn 3 d CD N N CC O ?� tL df N N N - N M m C co -CD E N (0 w V E � L N 0 . cn N O Q O > O c O N .L- m m n. N m U m C c 0CD m m N d O CL C � QN7 E C ts, -Fu ..O U O N O O N0 NN G V 'O CO O O w O f0 w O m ct O O le O d• eT OO fwd M 00r M M M c C r N N N 0) U1 O 'D CLm U) C E Co > w 0 O v 0. a U m a � � d CD a a (D N NN U cm .2W N D C Q aci oE` m c y it CL � p c N o p .> Q O NQ U(nW= ii m o J C Q V N = Z Q H C N Z o J LL X O M r, c .- N Q 9 E O ._ ._ f0 w W O N._Q O N d a Z'- coo Oc m ~ c� � �FLLH � c � c2 p � v i OE H;J W � cc O- � � cm cc ' o LL f- m >' a) Qm moo20 a) � m= � co m c_ H d a o 3 c o U@ d M.c o~ULL N m c o E v E 0CL Ny Np WcE� --L) �v � O2cm - - a) E tgwt � tAQ a �'m6m0N OrycL o � m :- � s m V �tL- °'C7 �¢ waa.OfUUa N>mo- oo� 00 22 = j 2 / % § cl / / a)c a cl § $ � kk $ \ AG »« ( . ac 22 a Go k �k M / / m 7 k LL Ii / n 2 £ § EX $ \ § � � ` � 0 ez2 a § ¢ ƒ >2 0k N § < & 7E § o -,.ea) � ° ƒ� § cc It - E = E a) ° ■ $ « o ƒ E @ .. o co zzn k / } / � k\ k e * -a = cm �/ ) § / Lt B k � 0 0 \ © . E _ § k 2 7 f ? g a) ° � tf £ e> §, 2 m CL 2 § kJ / a) N _ ®® a) 2 � � \ E . O 2 m § I ca �� � - c 7 I e � E@ ƒ wz2f \ \� § - k\ �k CD 0 t $ ƒ �fao =< 0C e ■e = g Q o ; o 0U3UJ ƒ 2 ±® x u >- w ) 0 LL 222 2 % £ § e - k 0000 > 2 ] 70 o _� / [- ° ° © f 2 E$ a Ec . \ \ � } � 0 ~ \\ � % J \ � % = # n � � 7 $k 0 § k / C � c \ \ 0 0 W - a) 0L) -r- § 0 ° n E a S 8 ) # tea E = R 0 0 0 0 0u3: 8Q6 § § $ $ ¢ $ / $ k\ � J\ cm 2 ) fes = ) e II irk o3E § 2E = EE - m § f} 0 � � EL S BS§ gfr 2 2 CL E k m m E \ 7 \ 2 k \CD � \ \ £� � / J § fcn ± $ @2 > e E 3 cwm 16 e ; & a 22 § 2 ) / « k U . E2 = � o . 0 w w C ) #2 £ c 277 22 ci, § « § E § f f � cr. £Q E Emua0 2 § ƒ § ] E § $SCO e o o ' o = r o m o �nu � ƒ U c oSc $ ® 0-0 e ■ §< » �� z m a7CD 2 oma) z � c & • - o = x � � � « 2 z � � o@ ; © ® � ) e cf COt51—# 222 =_ _ � o2e �m � -2 § E . & 222 �_ o= � _ , = c so c � © a2o - « e -9E e � 77o _oD §. c � m w omm � = go o & w- Lu ■ ' a � mg �� E c = z 33 ; �a wo er= g ooc w� � = §_ § _ � [ U � � « o o � z7- = eo 0a) ! § k� / kkk B% /f a §f7f\ §/\� �k« ] z U 0 o/ ca 00) wƒƒ}33CL 2§mƒ \\§ \\ \ $ �O O O O O a _ 00 _ o O Z � (D 00 000 0 0 ' 3 C >+ cd O Cl) N N N n 6 m La O r r La c, n d N V N N r N U vi fA w O > cc O O O (q 2Q OO O O O O C co C• � d LO Cco CD Cl)) r r C E2 of w C 3 E Ln > LL d cn 0 v O U N -C m o0 0 0 0 U F rn p L� r r co M r r r Z T O r r r O N CL V N U v 00 N Ln O O J -OO N C C O E 00 O O O U E 6 i O O O C O co cm r' .0 0)y .a O` CO N N `O m d a. N O) L Q Q O E r a) 3 d 2 2 Q m Y LL} C t J ~Z 0) J K O O OTr TrO TrO O Ca) OO O O cd to(p CIS N N m N rp O r y O O C cc o d Q �` Q C)m U >, rn Z a 1° 3 jE cu o 0 0 0 0 0 N o a O z p >+ C W y_„ T OD tC1 O O O N m 0 O.- O O O LU 0 O r r r �W LL' � E = 7O R (n>O vN 0 U LL N m 0 0YLU > 00 O o o ° Z��� v = c o0 0 C c Cl) ui a) � _ ui > c d � � � coo n r-- U) n Z o c `.g Ln r o 0 co (n0 'o (1) o a) U O LLC)zO JOS .QQ N c H U? c M F-F- m'y m w a > aO mr- m cum0E 0 0 0 00 0 �a m -oo E .. ° ° 0 c O o Z ° cO Ln ac) v '") 0 Q 'O a) c U CQ r T ZW o 'V ca ` E ui (D N N < mma) mIM o m V O6 _ C a) cu O) E 'O ON n. m to 'O O "O d r r r Q. C w — N Ln cp Ll•) Lq V O U 0 3 C t`O C. d' V O O N fC6 O ... O O N n 12 a) •9 O c Ri 15 m o N E 0. d O � U U cum U a) O C OU C Q) N OOw O f� Q r p C OU C v) O y LO O to Lf) Ln N) Q 13) N Qa N> V N N a) N . OLxf E coo r 00 co co d a m C y > "" w a) O C N OIm w N 0) y O Q p O- (D m'2' C a) :3 Q. IL Z -O N .0 ) N C m m a) y N atS -o m — (6 a) o w 5 W W C ami () rn.o ° 0) a) E m Z d Q vc, a`Dicm -o•TZwm sW a) E a? No ��- cZa) Uc H c•c NZa � 0 O O C CL vo a) o) in p 4) a (mi Wp Iica J CL C _ Q Z N a F) mrnEU) Z•yca � mm ~+ W � Ln a�ioJpco XL�nmr N Q ns Zm a� c Ox o '3 .E � CD cOO wU� -- wL - acicZc2 c� o ~ d a O g o m F- a) rn.. "0 y W 3 c c E LL-6.2 :1 c m c c m0 1="= 0oui Qo m LL o W oo 003JlL =2 == cF- ++ N D V to v w '�- C a C C .0.0 c W LL u)N c C 0 U 3 W E C N M y c Ln c m Z C. > O V d a) � _- E Uppv_ Co f-�, m � � WcE> ininV �� c wc� a`� d a) E w� � orn U)-cu X��O000 Om � om �_ p. v pa c ate' 'Q 0 Qom waa�UUa to>mo C�c9� 00 OLO LO LO C, C 'O m OC a; o " N cw - cyano 04 04 me c (a 0 m co "ao O o 0 m o- m o 0 0 0 0 F' c o 0 0 0 m m L2 N U C N C •O� O Y m c C w tia � v ° 3Ea) aa) m o 'm m � ~ arc CL cco 0 o 0 0 0 0 U — N a) 0 L L m to n ui U) U) 0 zEN U cc N U 0 0 � 0) �C .) N 0) 2 O c .5 a M 3 o x c c E o 0 0 0 O m o m o 0 0 0 my 0 m 0 0 0 0 C to to U In A6 M O y +O•, Na ddp r r r f6 Q C y 0�.`p •a ` N m e 0 ca � a) acai z cm a) a) tL} e c °' � � '°'- � E N 0 0 0 0 ° occ r�Z c > Y 3 0 0 04 12 _JF- w E C a�Cw -0 0 0 N La N N w m y m U) c a N y Cc Vo. - LW � c� oUo Z to _° 'L3C U)m .OO JU m Or rO OO U5 .4:,1.; fV3 c U O oO 0rO nW ° C LLI 2 o ' � o Coa ZE N CU e a)yjC Q E QO w LL 3 -0 ZUCD NH ca UUS LUQ 0 OYwa o O O o •° 0 Z Cl) m 0 0 0 C 0 0 m w •• _ W 0 cn u� a��Z y aEi D rn Go co co M � c_ m E `.� ao ao au co U-UZ� > to Ta cc a) m H ~ m y ON mOFa•- ° o o y cw O ch HpQ� v UaO Ecce c0 Lm. � o 0 0 0 0 w as 5a oL -0 m N m o 0 0 0 O(n 2mv°ia°'i � i6cu 0 0 0 0 IL Z c T CN C4 UQ �' mo .3a) � M � y � c aF- -'' Ncffim QUEM NN N F-� mmrnc co I8) n` O m m CL a) y to X d N macicco crosE E v v v " •c m ca Q_F- E N N N N N Cm o E C "0 L• E G CD to 0) In b CD O m E 0 y ca = o m N C cn° CN C m C U c m ° o o Z-5 d o m 0_ Q. > m m Ea y m e a CL to a o o me w n ca m U L C o 2 .2 -0 c ca rn N N N N fa O cz j .@ o c N d N N N N mN -p '0 •° y N 0) m E E Obi N O C m C 'm0 O ` C O w E O OD O 01 7 7 � 'D 'C y ` ImE c c m m ca y o > 0 a Z rW o amid .0mis y o • V fA fA L.O m 0 a0 U n a W W d id w .. c y d - ay yy V O Q ° o 0 0 E( E O c 2 Z m yQoE U- m y � - y .(L me O c ° 0 > is 3 cY oLm. o o ° 8(Aw0 1 m fn OF- '0 `° a Z m m C�.L-. C �+ W 'E y Z o J O X y m e-N C N Q d Zad3y0 -Cc - � m ~ ca � �FLLHmc•0C: oa � ~ 0E m C 0 0 0 W :3 :3 U- .2 = cm � c c a, 0 U I- Em � m Q� mmo W Coc00yP0 =-, == cF- t6 a o a ° E V a) c E •m y d C. 6 c WIC N a� c p c E • to m w LL C m C C E Z C U m O y N G1 E U a 0 o m F= n o 0 W'c E y in U C N E d1cnvna `m cnE0c0o amdOccv, 0t'yoccamw tz v Q 0 GF m o �U Ew u a waa�UUa U)i>MCL (D 9� 10101 i:Sl k S C.) 04 n 2 » § ° § m § _ � § ) § k LL (L C \ k > . ^ k m 2 k 0 Q � §2 � z 2 kkk / J / \ K ) \ CD § � E Cc a. d ZOLD / 0 \ % Rz § / L # 3 o S o 5; a / E 2 k 3L LL �) ■ $/ co 0 R zU)/\/ a k\ C k2 E ƒ ¢ o o 3k o LL Z!2 \$ 2 OtOe 2 Q n RQ/ 2 Q ? 0CL 0 \ E 8 E 8 �I e k o R0 / \ m \ K �2 & _ n <� C � ec { j } / . ) _ � 2 © a « >1 E # {\ )CL § � k # ] \ Im C-4 e � § _ @ a kCL \ a) a) m \ ¥ E Eco c $ ® 2 © = m co ' m = m � \ k E Cl \ / 0 � § (L / .0 > E e <� _ = c \ > . = 5 $ / k ; \ / 2 \ � v £ ® § « / { . \ ƒ c ;3 }Ca 8 § C (D a %k klw � U— 2 3E a) / � $« 2 =� z m/ �£ c 2 as 2 � = u ' $ �°« ecu ©= �= m �^ § 0. z » m oche fe = =te _ Q� � � � _ 0 - .. i , Cc � 0- o , � � . _ _ /o c � /m © % § /2�®� � 5:DU—m a a. CM Ute , a qCPI �. 22c w� 0= Eco § o �_ : �_ � zcf e2 ° U � ® 2 -� = 77 $ . E Qa = �] a �a (} «=� �2 ° ° ®® � > E ■- 2 � c � a ==0ca � m f c o & § o moo : x3 � , 00g oe ; e@e w Q off = -73 = w=�wQOI cnl>ICD a- CD CD 10161 151a eke \ \ / \ © = 0 C a w U, L / ea ( % � \ 04 � § & 7 [ .. S 8 S 8 § y2 = R o : 0 ) Neo , kf�! / N a LL IL ) u § S3 § S 8 E S § a § 0 LO 0 c f LO 10 z ) moo $ e3 , o 04S - C » = 9 * _ S kk 7 00 2 § k k \ m C cm o � e2 2 < . Wco 0)( m < ¥ ) f / ] § z eo ' = z ] k ƒ} ) ) § \ k k k < § •& Gee m 3 a w 772 § ? � ( j � E0 . U § § » 2� @g § � S 8 E 8 k3 2 / § \ j $ qe 7 $ $ LO 51 \ � � & E £ z § 32 L 42- 0. « n> 0)± B & § § § O �2wƒ . 0 0 0 0 z�\ I E E § S c ƒk¢k c / ƒ / / LL Z!2 uI E J Oto® _ � E »=R/ E® / @o<w @m �� 0 � 2 S S� E S . 0m o 0 o 0 2 � 3 m 3 %ƒ 2 § § vQ ƒ \ ~ E ka/ ƒ ® � % w o &2 £ / \ � q E 3 $ 3 2 # 0 \ E ° R R aC CU co » I r- � m CD § e 0k 2 � k / § j7 § \ 2 \ k \k 40co aO» E 2 c w csr 0 < E \ § eco \ o « ° - o § z § } p 2 a 2 k { % w w o ) ] to § C �co U � kms \ / � 2 C� /a .• 8 ee0 a7 a a)= e � o f . ° ° � m > o / aAw � I) E oaE z § 3 � � g� c z a2 « z— - m o � me a l)t5 § �= m ƒ 0_000 ° - .. = 22e e » c = cI 22 = � E - LLI L- o , c � § @o �� ƒ2 « 2o @ � fo2 ��o ='-jLL = m w Jc a. CO m � o C (L U) Cc G 6 a wU- w-0 c =_ \ X20£ mea zc& eeo 0 0 --o ±± f 0 k § C K:a I\/� fi� §k� ° ) kms = c x3T9 , , , oege ! @. 2 | Q DERcc —1e , w=Iwo0no w> =IooS1618-L = ! rn a ctsr 1- O to N G O N v Z Q N I� N UJ 0) (A i7 r V M y C L C O a) ~ R E C (a a) 0) pp d X a) O O ._ (a 2 = C .O a) ) :3w N 7 L � .�-. N )Z U LL a - 0 0 r U U C f- O C N C C M Q N •� w 9 U O p Z C i l O) N O c in .c U o C E a N O U O a o O O O O O N O "�" U p L O C O O O O C E •(b CL E o M N O to 00 O O O Q co NO 0 O OO N U aI a COa N r r Q 'y a) > N O C d U Z p@N ... > p U. } a co o c >< 0 0 O o 0 U °' ro o ao 'u) 00 0 0 Cl Qo +ras - E o0 O o 0 � ca z o o �' m . o U 00 0 o O Ct w q CL a00 0 C3 CD cc CD 0 CO 04 40 0 Cc � ci C a) N Z a V a) G 3 O O F- _ a) m E N CL n Z C L) 0 o to It W :. N rn._ W w a) >2 V U 'C Z o o C N W 7 Q,a) N a) Q U N w -' LL O N > w �0 yn :3 U) o � D O zU)�a OYWa o0 0 0 o M ZnU)- m o0 0 0 0 Icoz o 00 0 0 0 LL co v o 0 0 O� OUZO �[ _ •� N N N O OQ a) o a M mQ a m a) L U O E)a�a � U) N O Ir -e LO O Ct O fn O () m oo) c0� IM M LO Ln Ln a-z E m v; N CO Q °' D7 N ui c N N Lo = .. Q� E (D Y a O a o L m a O 5 0) 0.co C 4f O) 6)�fM ONoOO M M N O C C 0 C E M O) N N M co O)(D N LO LO 00 � O ` L) R N Il- - O CNaON L00 c3i O O _ L O = U Vl •O .,.0 _� tm p ` co r C} r N Cf N caoa NE La V' o U a) U a c p = aw a) L= m rr m c rn c m Q -_ N l6 N U a a) rIM15l• M 0NNO CO O M C y Od U m NNMO 001--0 LO O co Oa) E m U d O cc 0 VMMLO M O O Q U5 ma oa o E v vaoInv vNmai 00 o v Y a) U 0 0 c E CV C) W r r N O a w � ea (Q N 2 N ' a L N N N N a v moa`) amici ° o ( o)a) o E > n` Z U ca) > oa N in a) a d a) t 13 a > .r W W > ea 3 Oi a) a)' � to V CD co B-3 Q (6 lca c �W m O C o c d E a c N ZIL m e v O O a Q u)W U- W N _j U .Q Z N LA W C to pCJ � X ymrN� NN Q C Q m QLL. Ca a @Q. '� d ZO� co O. cc m ~ Wocc �F- -~ (o) zc �= oc � O o m u Q6 a) a) o W coo �000J- c �= cF- = 0. N (n c U a) E E d N (a•— c W IL (n a c a) o m LL o o > Z c.c ` o U m y uoi ' o �- baa o WEE� tz Q' Ucowca) a) > a a O c c S 7 L'� o - t a a N o Wra = �� a) x!2 000 Oa) o C S J V DI- 'v, E JF- Q u1aa�UUa v)>mn. 002 00 _ . )CIO 0 - o o ! cli @ f G o co 1 co E 0 00 0 E § 22 e o o %04 M om J / 04 n � 2 n 0 00 0 Co \ E f8 o S § \ a , © Cl)R R S Sco Lo m 2 0 a a- m n m § z. 2 a) , 04 � �0 < \ co 0 k \ k z ° 0 S SS o { § 04 C4 04 CM u E j E - E ■ / $ R 2 22 0 0 � _ � cli o , § 3 ƒ ] 20 E2d § 2 5 = MZ 0c § 7 k § § 73 © ■ ue Co 0 E c k \ " Z _ Ow � b / �/k w _>/ } / § k z § $ LL �f } i ■ U) �e � Q z Z>0 o z�/� § � � 0 00 C 00 k kk w0»- . 9 2 § 0 00 0 00 22 L_/Z0 / \ � 2 k \� K § § o�o< b7-5 ¥_F/ e . £ 2 \ co n %/ \ j \ Ek 0m f @2 / \ U)< B ƒ = (D ƒ/ ° u0 k � F- 2k - � k / \ Eu) a \ e f0) u) 'o » > E J a � 7 « E ® Eao2 ek C) \tCn e ) / CD -0 ; '< a) - = a- o § U) \ 27_ 2 § m 2 � 2 CL n �0 'a 0 0 0 0 S 8 e D E \ 77 \ \ o C m « § Q E = 0 0 00 U) f .2 _ - e . - y n © r _ R ! / ff >,2 tm 04 m nn a (aa � p70 2 @ E > E 2 33 a) _ , _ e = £ 5a2 U) U . � S « \ u u < fQ / � � �� u nCo CF. 3- E \ : , § E EtxU) mr- - k E �ew � �- k � z§ � � / � � $� 2 § �§ xS� q E � 7 $ osecue « w \ § ) t5 _ -_ � o� � � _ - , = maw e § c = c= ■ R7 � a� � � R ' § § - iz0ow2 §f = EE @0 > ' §- / goo = n w Cc t5 =� I , - II « ; o ` � © § § a LL - c - � ■ �� _ > � z �3 o U � � a_ o � § $ � � � < e weER � �o 0: (D �� k E 2� E Co 2 Cc Cu &/k6 § (7 R\\ e § §e (1) CD f = � &=I±QOI m> == =off 33 = ! SECTION SIX APPENDIX • Abbreviations & Acronyms 6-1 • TIP Adopting Resolution 6-2 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS The following list defines the abbreviated words or acronyms used in the City of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. ACP Asphalt Concrete Pavement ADA American Disability Act BAT Business Access Transit BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BRAC Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee CBD Central Business District CIP Capital Improvement Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CTR Commute Trip Reduction(State Act) DOE Department of Ecology EB Eastbound ECL East City Limits EIS Environmental Impact Study ER Emergency Relief FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMSIB Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board GIS Geographic Information System GMA Growth Management Act HOV High Occupancy Vehicles ITS Intelligent Transportation System LF Linear Feet LID Local Improvement District LOS Level of Service METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle MOU Memorandum of Understanding MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NCL North City Limits NB Northbound PMS Pavement Management System Precon Preconstruction Engineering/Administration(design phase of project) PS&E Plans, Specifications, and Estimates ROW Right-of-way RTA Regional Transit Authority SB Southbound SCATBd South County Area Transportation Board SCL South City Limits SMA Structural Matrix Asphalt SOV Single Occupant Vehicle ST Sound Transit STP Surface Transportation Program TDM Transportation Demand Management Program 6 - 1 TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act TIB Transportation Improvement Board TIP Transportation Improvement Plan UPRR Union Pacific Railroad UPS Uninterruptible Power Supple WB Westbound WCL West City Limits WSBIS Washington State Bridge Inventory System WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation H:\Divisions\TRANSPOR.TAT'TLANNING\Juliana\TIP\2014\Publish\ACRONI MS.DOC CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, UPDATING THE CITY'S SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2019. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has heretofore adopted a "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program" pursuant to RCW 35.77.010, and the plan and program having been amended and modified from time to time as authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after recommendation of the Public Works Department, held a public hearing on June 24, 2013, after notice to the public as provided by law for the purpose of considering adoption, modification, and amendments of the plan and program; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on June 24, 2013, due consideration was given to the proposed changes and amendments for the purpose of updating the plan and program; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City's "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program" and the City's "Arterial Street Plan" are hereby further amended and modified, all as more particularly shown on the attached Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION III. The plan and program, as evidenced by said Exhibits, shall be and constitute the City's "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program" and the City's "Arterial Street Plan", and shall remain in full force and effect until further revised, amended, and modified as provided by law. 1 RESOLUTION NO. SECTION IV. The Administrator of the Public Works Department and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to file this Resolution, together with the Exhibits, with the Director of Highways for the State of Washington and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2013. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 12013. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1601:5/10/13:scr 2 t;.FIFY OF REN T ON June 5, 2014 JUN 05 2014 City of Renton RECEIVED Atm: City Clerk C(TY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental(SEPA)Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project#LUA14-000241,ECF, PP, dated May 19,2014. As a party of record for this project,this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented,and mitigated by the City and/or applicant1 m the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. —-- Thank you for taking the time to consider this request,and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community,I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Stan ' As an adjacent landowner,and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a previous Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this project(Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`h Place/ 156` AVE SE intersection,my public health,safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEPA,has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests,as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons,I believe I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration- 1 Until such an analysis is completed and made available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process,it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets level of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the May 19`'', 2014 Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE 5`'' Place. • Once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed,reconsider the SEPA Threshold Determination for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination.. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5`'Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—R. Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit B —Request for Reconsideration (April 16t`) Exhibit C —Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D —Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E—Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F—C.E. Vincent Letter Exhibit G—ERC Meeting Summary 3 EXHIBIT A March 22,2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENTviaElectronicMailtoAvoidDelay@Min,o(a-)rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project#LUA14-000241,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south)from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and,are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at Ro gerAPaulsenkcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 EXHIBIT B April 16,2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241,ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project,this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented,and mitigated by the City and/or applicant--all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen,I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens,the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner,leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end,I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request,and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely,health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community,I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected,I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner,and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A),and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5`' Place/ 156`'AVE SE intersection,my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 1 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project,absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA,has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests,as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons,I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project,and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern#1.Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27,2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically,this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant,and relied upon by the ERC,the author states as follows: `The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Kenton Policy Guidelines for Traffic ImpactAnayl sis for Nese Development': By relying upon this report,the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project,as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development,attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this,where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20,a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed,and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M.Peak Hour conditions,among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy,and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information,and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious,in addition to in error. Concern#2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page#7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D),the Committee states: `The Traffic ImpactAnalysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Service(LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity..." This report goes on to conclude that: ...the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service(LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156` Avenue SEI SE 142"d Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156th/ 142nd Place intersection. Thev did not. In fact, the 156th Ave SE/ 142nd intersection is the ONLY exis�tinintersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project(SE 5th Place),the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally,by only analyzing the P.M.Peak Hour(just 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17th),the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156th at SE 5th Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern#3 Transportation Ironically,in light of Concerns #1 and#2 above,when one digs deeper into the March 31,2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156th, but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may "..impose left turn restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D,Page 10 of 11,Transportation Item#3). This already contemplated"remedy"identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156th/ 142'intersection,but also suggests that the City's "remedy"will 3 force this traffic to the right,or north,onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156''/ SE 5d'PL intersection,and other intersections to the north along 156d'Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156`s,the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC,and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern#4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting,by reference,the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer,we find that,other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31,2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `2t is not anticipated that theproposedprject sign cantly adversely impact(sic)the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements." Unfortunately,nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156`s/ 142ad intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law(RCW 58.17 &the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true,there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156b/ 142 d or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern#5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15,2014 from Steve Lee,Dev. Engineering Manager,it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)...". This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15d') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 This e-mail serves to document pet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC,as well as the City's development review process,and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From; Stave Lee sent Tuesday,April IS,2014 ILI4 AM Tcr CityClerk Retards Cc Jan ftiian,Jill Ding;Neil R.Watts,Jennifer T.Henning:.Rohini Mair Subject: RE Near Public Records Request-PRR-I4-085(Paulsen) Attachrtterar. TranspoConcPolicy140415.pdf Seg attached files that are related documentation on the City processfar concurrency,standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-5-070. 1 believe this is tate information Mr.Paulsen is seeking; The information,as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan,provides Mr.Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance,or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 4-6-070 A.I,or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted(if any)(ord.5675, I2-3-2012.1. The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement,*Within the City of Renton,the steep topography between Maple Valley highway and the upper plateau(ani(on to Cemetery Road)makes it in feasible to provide additional access.widening 1-405(ANch the State is pursuing)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 1SG th SE to access Cemetery Road-' Thanks. -Steve Lee,PE,MS,CESCt City of Renton D v.Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 Slee(Trentonwa.r ov Concern#6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A),I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short,the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24,2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22nd. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 until April 22nd,the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed. (see Exhibit E"Notice of Application...") As a result,the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22nd,and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting,once again,to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns,and as part of this Request for Reconsideration,I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour,including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5t"Place and 156''Ave. SE,and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156'' • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process,I request that,once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed,the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE 5 h Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A—SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B—Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C—Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D—Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E—Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 EXHIBIT C - INJFG A,11C THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE xxx_ ;.._. �'.� y__�.�:f.+«.-c-'=4v _{�-.'�ua99��•n�s'—_aG+�'�:�::5�'. -:.ir— `�=(=�� _ f _ >` . 1 �+.q ag 'R i .CA' i �'!�� '�` t��i.$�_nl`t t � , - `' -•ice i - 1 a - -: � i 3• � 7 t .�.-• "_i.. t _` t ezr�� i.: I�c-,fs r �:�� T t tl tSp�aWAM- .HIL` J -•fit," d ,~A � ..% .•'' � �#�--�,..r i i i�y .. s.., �';�'' 1 ��r 1 1� s +�i' r � P.-gaC" '� '-Qfi ity :els^ .p, ...gs m � , ►� � gs � • �a a ���E� Si n— € sk 1 00 10Z RTTA � tAJill 1A g i° �F a ��H s s • ect � a # Az € gF EF .. �� r EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by APAW rra?, 7-RA AT-IC EXFER TS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 AWASW 11410 NE 124th SI~ #594 Kirft d,VA951134- rraffmy Phone:425.59,4118 Fig:425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 h PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge queues were observed to back up from the 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5 thPI/ 156th Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142ndPI / 156th Ave SE Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5th PI./156th Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/156th Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge r1ra 2m PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142nd PI. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th PI. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th Pl. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT 5 P 156 AveSE WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) 15 North Site Access/ NA NA WB (C 15.2) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access / NA NA WB (B 13.3) 156th Ave. SE. SE 142" PI / Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) 156th Ave SE (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142"d PI. SE/156th Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ' SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately$21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vinceCa)nwtraffex.com or lar[yOnwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, AL 025 fw t Uhf Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 EXHIBIT E PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D ��nan (0 M E M O R A N D ' U M DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes;Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142"d Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne ofcmbayne@gmaii.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C=4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis_ This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer: Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h:\division.s\transpor.tat\oper.atlo\ron\tom\toM9645a.doc EXHIBIT F Denis Law Gl Of Mayor ^15 � a Community&Economic Development Department May 22,2014. C.E"Chip"Vncent,Administrator. Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton;WA98059 RE: Enclave at Bridle.Ridge Preliminary Plat/L.UA14-000241;PP; ECF I- r Dear Mr.`Paulsen: As part of the review of your Requestfor Reconsideration,the.City conducted an independent study of the 156th AvenueSE/SE 142"d Place intersection.The study concluded that the 156t' Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal.The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection,the City's Environmental Review Committee(ERC) has decided to require the developer to.pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of,this.project,but would occur at a later date as additional funding. i becomes available. if you have any.further questions on this:matter, please contact"Jill Ding, Project Manager,at. (425)430=6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. . I . Sincerely, C.E."Chip„Vincent CED Administrator, I Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton,City clerk Justin Lagers,Applicant Sally Lou Niper,Owner G.Richard Ouitnet,Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hal) • 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057_.rentonwa.gov Denis Law- Mayor EXHIBIT G Mayor G tr of. �� Ii T .0 Community:8i Economic-Development-Department May 19,2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator'- Roger Paulsen 5517 SE5th PEace Renton,WA 98059 SLibject, RE5PONSE10 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION' .Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary.Plat/.LUA14-000241, PP;ECF . Dear. Mr..Paulsen.* I The Environmental Review Committee (ERC):held a'meeting on.May 19.;.2014 to consider . your Request..for Reconsideration, submitted April 16,.2014..Please:find attached to this_ i.etter a copy of the dt:cision of your Request for.Recons deration'signed;by the members of the ERC including.one:new.SEPA mitigation measure. If you have any questions, please contact ttie'proj.ect manager;]ill Ding; at(425 .430-55.98: or via.email at.jding@rentohwa.goy. Sincerely; Gregg.Zimmermarl Environmental Review Committee,Chair. Attachments i cc: Bonnie Walton;City Clerk. : lustin'Lagers/Qpplican# -`.Sally Lou Nipent /Owner. I G.Richard Oulrriet./Owrier Parties of Record. Renton City Hall 11055-South Grady Way • Renton,lNashington X8057.. rentonwa.�gov .. i . i Citg of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19,2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee(ERC) i FROM: Jill Ding,Senior Planner i SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee(ERC)reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study,prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5, 2014). - The DN9W-was-,pulslished or Apri4!1--20T4 With an appeal period°tllafi ended on April=lS = r .Y 2014.A request for reconsideration of-the SEPA determination was received"on"April-17; = - 2014 from Roger Paulsen.The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TrafFEx(dated December 27, 2013)relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the$EPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item#1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment:The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service(LOS) analysis.After the receipt of the request for reconsideration,the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014).The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 155 `Avenue SE/SE 5t' Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis.After conducting the additional analysis,the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system.The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed hAced\plannin_g\cnrrent p1anning\projects\14-000241 jilt=reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx Environmental Review Co_ .Eaee Page 2 of 4 May 19,2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. j i The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the i existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the i installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal at-this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve.The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection,staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection.A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips 0.00687 x$500,000=$3,435)shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS)Analysis for the 156th_ Avenue SE/SE T42' Street intersection; it slid riot include a LOS an dor fhe` •:r.. . . _. _... 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item#2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the"study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5%increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development".The proposed development would not result-in a 5%increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SEISE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision.The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds,the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project.Therefore, according to the submitted addendum,it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the i i h:%cedlplannin&urrent pllan�lprojects114-000241.jilllerc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx. ' ` EilviroomontulReview Cm^ Aitteo / Page 3of4 May 19,20I4 ' 156th AvenueSE/SE5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that nofurther traffic , mitigation is warranted for the subject pr 'e ' 3' Public notice for the proposed-subdivision was misleading. People who didn't � submit written-comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment � period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. | Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RIVIC 4-8-090.The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may beprovided atthe public hearing. |naddition, any party who requested tobemade aparty ofrecord i � would receive the applicable SEPAdetermination,which provides a 14 day appeal period.The notice'is not misleading as anyone receivingthe notice would � have been notified of the public comment period,the date of the hearing, and � has the opportunity t become� partyof record and receive additional information onthe project. Recommendation: In fight of the additional information provided in the independent traffic �vvcs1udyconductad6«theCi� hichstates that asignal iswarranted atthe 15G~' � nu ' Avenue n,staffneoorn;nendsthat the ERC�tainthe ' � ~ ` , .�` ' ;, `= �` ' [`�� iD�N�K4�ithonehem�n)�kzatiokrneasureasfbU""�� mitigation '~ 1. Project construction shall berequired to comply with the recommendations | outlined |nthe submitted Geotechnical Ene^�nee�n�Studvprepared6vEa�h / -^ -' | Solutions, NW(dated February 5, 2014). / cm 2. C/ueto�heex�tingLevel of3emice (KlS) deskgnabonofFatthe 15" Avenue SE/SE14 "" ZP|aceaudtheproposa|toaddadditiona|tripstotheexisting situation,the proposed project shaUberesponsib|eforpayingtheirfairshareVf the cost ofanew-signal tobeinstalled atthe l56th nu Avenue SE/SE l4I Street intersection. A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PN1peak hour trips=O.DO687n$SDO,OOD=$],435) shall bepaid prior to i the recording ofthe final plat. Appeals mfthe environmental determination must be filed imwriting oumrbefore 5:0Op,mm.moJune G, 2014' Appeals must befiled inwriting together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RIVIC 4-8-110 and more information may be ' obtained from theRentonCity Clerk's Office, (425)43O-65lO' '! -000241reconsk&Tationneco=endationmemo.dotdocx ................. Environmental Review C, -,ittee Page 4 of 4 May 19,2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 signatures: Gregg ZimmVrYa,rj,�Admini Administrator Mark Peterson,Administrator e Date Date Public Wo epartment Fire&Emerg rServices Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Date Date Community Services Department Department of Community& Economic Development h-\c,ed\planning\,-urrentpl=uing\projwts\14-000241.jill\=reconsideration recommendation.memo.dotdocx Denis Law y CIt Of Mar f_J e June 9, 2014 City Clerk Bonnie(.Walton Mr. Roger A. Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Re: Enclave at Bridal Ridge; LUA-14-0241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Paulsen: Regarding the referenced land use application,the City Environmental Review Committee issued a response to your April 16th Request for Reconsideration on I'v1ay 19, 2014. OnFriday, June 5th, you personally filed the following in this office: 1) A letter dated June 5,2014; withdrawing the pending appeal dated April 1 h6t that was being held pending the outcome of the Response to Request for Reconsideration: Your check#9443 for the appeal fee was returned to you. 2) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014,serving as a new Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination. 3) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014,serving as a new Appeal document, accompanied by your check#9490 for the$250 appeal fee. After review it has been determined that there is no option or availability at this time for another request for reconsideration of this matter. The Response to the Request for Reconsideration dated May 19th clearly sets forth the option for appeal;however there is no option at this point for request for reconsideration. Therefore it is necessary that the Request for Reconsideration filing dated June 5, 2014, be considered.invalid and will be marked void. The appeal process, however,will now go forward based on the appeal document you submitted June 5,'2014. The receipt for the appeal fee is enclosed. Our appeal notification will be coming to you by s2par ate Letter soon. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me: Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk Cc: Gregg Zimmerman, ERC Committee Chair Jennifer Henning, Planning Director 1055 South Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057• (425)430-65101 Fax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov qLo nn i i m CAR Commwiy AlUavice `to Reach but & UAgage P.O.Box 2936 Renton,WA 98056 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examine City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 June 24, 2014 RE: The Enclave�at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat-LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Olbrechts, This copy of my notes is provided for easy reference in the record. We offer a few attached exhibits as well to which I will refer in my remarks. Thank you, Gwendolyn High CARE President CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 i - �AA • AR• Av[ nno Covv\muhi`fiy Alhomce io 2eack bLki 0. Ev.gage P.O.Box 2936 Renton,WA 98056 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Gwendolyn High will represent CARE in this matter. She is co-founder and President of CARE and has led CARE's previous participation in these comparable Land Use Actions in the community: Evendell Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DDES file No. L01P0016 and L01TY401) Liberty Grove Preliminary Plat and Rezone(KC DDES file No. L03P0006/L03TY403) Liberty Grove Contiguous Preliminary Plat and Rezone(KC DDES file No. L03P0005/1-03TY401) Nichols Place Preliminary Plat(KC DDES file No. L03P0015) Highlands Park Preliminary Plat(Renton LUA-05-124, PP, ECF) Threadgill Preliminary,Plat(KC DDES file No. L05P0026) Heritage Preliminary Plat(KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Cavalla (KC DDES file No. L06P0001 and Renton LUA08-097) Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L04P0034 and Renton LUA08-093) Heritage (KC DDES file No. L07P0009) Saddlebrook(Renton LUA12-077) CARE has represented the needs and concerns of the East Plateau residents since 2001, as a group of concerned and likeminded neighbors. We incorporated and were recognized as a 501c4 nonprofit in 2003. We have an email list of over 400 households. CARE households own properties and reside in the community surrounding the proposed project. There is considerable potential for this community and the environment to be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is permitted without adequate conditions to mitigate increased traffic, light and stormwater. CARE's participation in this matter is in the public interest. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible land use decisions in this community consistent with state and local laws and regulations. We bring historical experience and familiarity with the existing conditions of our community as well as the detailed understanding of the potential negative impacts that must be adequately mitigated. Our intent is to facilitate the appropriately thorough consideration of the facts that bear on this proposal. This document is not a formal legal argument, but documents the concerns of the community and our requests for adequate mitigations to properly accommodate the impacts from the construction and eventual occupation of the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision (Enclave). GENERAL ERRORS: Staffs Report to the Hearing Examiner page 3: "E.1.b. Sewer.* Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE." Contradicted on p.12 of same report. "E.1.c. Surface/Storm Water. There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 156th Avenue SE to the north of the project." Pipe is to the south of the project and an open ditch is to the north. TRANSPORTATION: TraffEx TIA page 3: "156 'Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions." CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 This is a true statement, but it is insufficient to fully describe the situation. SE 142nd PL is not straight at this location and has terrible sight distance. When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 156`h Ave SE, any vehicle waiting to turn either right or left from SE 142 PL onto 156th AVE SE will not be able to see. This will be particularly dangerous when vehicles is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project. The driver will be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of the stop sign and the southbound car, and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street. In a scenario with a southbound vehicle turning left into the project, the driver will be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation. If the tractor trailer truck that lives at parcel#5336700015 is parked where is usually is—the driver will see that truck and very little else. Please see the accompanying Sig htLinelllustration.pdf. TraffEx TIA page 4: A 3%per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period(for a total of 651o) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3%per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years." There is no citation to support these assumptions, we therefore ask that the following questions be answered and considered in evaluating the reliability of these unsupported assertions. • Where did this data come from and by what standard is it justified? • How havg the pipeline projects being built and occupied now been accounted in the analysis?? • How have past and proposed cuts in transit service accounted in the analysis? • How have the effects of the improving economy, and the resulting increase in people commuting to work accounted in the analysis? • Did TraffEx regularly measure the traffic rates over"the last several years" in order to be have this data available for this TIA? ROAD STANDARDS: Report to Hearing Examiner page 10 under Streets section: 'As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet." TraffEx TIA page 4 and on to 5: "The south site access is located approximately 250ft north of the 156`h Ave. SEISE 142"d Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard." The southbound stop sign and crosswalk for this intersection is located about at the center point of parcel# 5336700015 which is approximately 70 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Figure 2 of the TIA shows that the stormwater tract is proposed to be 95.24 feet wide and Lot 19 is proposed to be 94.59 feet. This yields a measure of 189.86 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site as the proposed location for the south access to 156th Ave SE. 189.86-70 yields a measure of 119.86 feet which fails to meet the intersection distance standard of 125 feet. Please see the accompanying 156thAveSElntersectionLocation.pdf. Therefore, we request that the street access as proposed be rejected. The original Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit—B --Traffic—Impact—Analysis.pdf) states (bottom of page 2) that 156th Ave. SE is a"minor arterial". Based on the traffic volumes Renton reported as a result of the citizen recommendation to investigate the need for signalization earlier this year(and which Roger Paulsen graphed) the road segment including this intersection should be classified as at least a minor arterial (12K Average Daily Trips). The table in the code indicates a need for 4 lanes and 91' of pavement to properly accommodate such such levels of use. If the project is permitted as proposed, there is no indication that sufficient right of way will be required to accommodate the eventually required upgrades-particularly considering this is officially designated as a bypass corridor in need of arterial improvements in the attached WADOT 1405 Corridor Plan (1405MasterPlan-052808.pdf). Report to Hearing Examiner Page 9 under Streets: "The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements." Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Public Services: No comment recorded from Fire Department re: cul-de-sac. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 There is no evidence in the Exhibits made available to the public that the cul-de-sac meets the specified standards. Therefore, we request that the street plan as proposed be rejected. Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Schools: Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately.06 mile from the project site at 156th Avenue SE& SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide safe walking conditions (exhibit 25)... Continuing on Page 11: The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 15e Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 15e Avenue SE and board the bus. New sidewalk from this project will only extend less than halfway to SE 5`t' PL. The crosswalk sign is obscured by vegetation. Kids will walk along this arterial, in the dark and rain, in the shoulder ROW, and cross before the bus arrives in order to be there waiting when the bus arrives. Without a lighting plan the public has no way to evaluate what lighting improvements will be made. There should be some improvements to the crosswalk, such as the flashing lights in the pavement on the nearby Duvall Ave SE which is also and arterial on the same 1405 Corridor bypass route, to ensure students' safety under normal conditions during most of the school year. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: Carlos e-mail.pdf From: Nancy Thompson <Nthompson@rentonwa.gov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject:Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast To: "cmbayne@gmail.com"<cmbayne@gmail.com> Cc: Chris Barnes <CBarnes@rentonwa.gov>, Ron Mar<Rmaranrentonwa.gov> Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic volumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. From the MEMORANDUM of 4/18/2014 from Neil Watts (PRR-14-085-Memo.doc): "Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat." 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program page 5-25 (TIP sheet.pdf): "(h]istorically, on average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed every 2 years. It is our understanding that funds from the developer for the project's impact must be used for that purpose within 6 years or returned to the developer. Since the available evidence indicates the signalization cannot be expected within that time limitation, we must expect the mitigation funds to be forfeit and an even longer wait than the 18 years as a result of this loss of funds. This project should not be approved until a plan for the required intersection improvements are programmed—planned and funded. From 4/15/14 email from Steve Lee responding to Roger's Records Request(Public Records Request_1_Reply.pdf): The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1- 405(which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SEto access Cemetery Road." CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 These statements contradict everything we have ever heard since 2001. We have been assured by WA DOT, King County, and the City of Renton that there is no option to provide additional north-south access to the East Plateau from the Cedar River Valley. Additionally, while widening of 1405 might add capacity, we are not aware of any even preliminary plans for such activity. If such work has been done, please provide copies. If it does not exist, then this is irrelevant speculation and of no use in evaluation the impacts of this project or the appropriate mitigations/improvements for this corridor. What is not speculation is all the other development activity in the area. • The Enclave project at the 3 Way stop, Hearing on Tuesday, will add 31 houses. • Alpine Estates (Alpine Nursery) is in pre-app for 29 lots (which requires two access/exit roads. It lies between 160th Ave SE and 161st Ave SE). • The 4.5 acres on the west side of 156th at SE 6th (SE 139th Place) is in annexation (the plan is for 14 lots with a through street between 154th Ave SE to 156th Ave SE.) They tried to include the 5 acres on the west side of 154th in their annexation also, but could not get the required 60% signatures. • The Burnstead Co. is putting 14 homes, Maplewood Park East, on the parcel at 6101 NE 2ND ST(SE 132nd and_152nd Ave S). • The paroel`at Nile(148th Ave SE) and NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd) is slated for 7 lots. • There is also an 8 lot parcel in pre-app on the east side of 160th Ave SE at SE 1401h St. • There is 2 lot short plat at 156th Ave SE and SE136th St. • There are 46 homes planned for the Copperwood project which is slightly southwest of Maplewood Heights Elementary. The listed address for the project is 5001 SE 2nd PI. The project sign is on,SE 2nd PI just west of where it intersects 144th Ave SE • And there are 4 plats being actively developed at 210 Duvall Ave SE 31 + 29 + 14 + 14+ 7 + 8 +2 +46 +4=155 The Highway manual standard is to calculate 9.9 vehicle trips per day per house so: 155 x 9.9 = 1534.5 new trips per day. Most will travel some portion of the 156th Ave SE corridor, but each project will be considered independently. The cumulative impact will continue to accrue, and the infrastructure deficit will remain for decades. Virtually all of this traffic will traverse the corridor from the intersection of 154th Ave SE & SE142 PI (the first intersection at the top of the hill—Tom Carpenter has more detailed information, and there is an email from a neighbor at the end of this document) through the 1561h Ave SE and SE 142nd PI all the way through the intersection of 1561h Ave SE and SE 128th St. The proposed new connections to SE 156th Ave SE from this project are at the heart of this vital regional corridor. The travelshed is already over-burdened. We are in the midst of a new development surge. This quality of life in this community and safety of thousands of daily commuters in this corridor new, and it is the City of Renton's responsibility to provide infrastructure to meet the needs of the development it permits. STORMWATER/DRAINAG E: Report to Hearing Examiner page 11 under Public Services at the bottom of the page: "The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of the maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development." Despite the garbled sentence structure, it seems clear the intent is for the HOA to be responsible for maintenance of the pond and stormwater system. It was our understanding that the code had changed and Renton was taking ownership of all new subdivision stormwater facilities now. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 ERC Report page 5: "According to the TIR(Exhibit 9)the upstream areas are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible." Even though this community is on a plateau and not in any flood plane, there are historical drainage complaints everywhere (Drainage Complaints). Even this project site itself has experienced flooding due to a plugged culvert as recently as 1997. The site is directly north of the major groundwater induced landslide in 2006 that blew out the side of the cliff above the Cedar River and filled several houses with mud and debris. The vast majority of development on this plateau occurred in the 1960s, well before the first King County Drainage Manual (the basis of Renton's stormwater regulations)were adopted in 1964. It will take many more decades to slowly address the systemic lack conveyance and water quality. The system that exists is poorly maintained and chronically undersized. Our homes exist is a state of fragile equilibrium. Every new development pushes the system CARE has the longest and most consistent participation in land use applications and project implementation in this area. In every single project we have participated in (see list above)we have won Level III drainage mitigations. Nonetheless, these measures have consistently proved insufficient. We have had to participate repeatedly when these mitigations have failed and neighbors downstream of those projects have suffered serious damages to their homes and properties (list drainage complaints and list properties affected by the different projects). Due to our highly compacted Alderwood soils, surface flows are intense to begin with. Since the major wave of development in the 1960s, existing homeowners have implemented site-specific mitigations to deal with this situation, but every time a new project is cleared, new measures have to be installed. Level III drainage mitigations should be required here, too. LANDSCAPINGITREE RETENTION: Report to Hearing Examiner page 6: Proposal to plant Heavenly Bamboo, which is an invasive species with berries poisonous to native birds and should not be used in a plat landscaping plan ;' ;f2QQf ii'w2 C_7 I11Ii l?Vf0/IfldnX.S j i t ' _�bi'i r _ _ _-- �,a (Heavenly bamboo .htm) V -- RCP Policy CD-17 (page 7 of Report to Hearing Examiner) "Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density." But on page 8 of the Report to Hearing Examiner, staff say that installation of the required 15 foot landscaping buffer around the storm drainage pond could not be done because it would cause the loss of at least one lot, even though the project is proposed at 4.45 lots per acre when it is zoned at R-4. In the next paragraph, staff removes the specific requirement of trees in the on-site landscape strips along all frontages. Not only is there no justification for this, and it violates RCP Policy CD-15. In repeated surveys of our community, the trees are the consistently reported as the defining characteristic of our community. We are already losing over 300 significant trees in this project. We ask that this exemption be disapproved for this project. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: To the condition requiring a tree protection easement under section J_5, please add a requirement for prominent and permanent signage announcing the protection of the trees in order to prevent accidental homeowner or HOA removal. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 MISSING DATA: This Hearing is the last opportunity for the public to participate and to ensure that adequate administratively and legally enforceable mitigations are required of and implemented with this project. Staff has allowed several documents essential for the surrounding impacted community to evaluate the effects of the proposed project to be prepared and submitted after this Hearing is concluded. This makes it impossible for meaningful community input on the following: 1. Report to Hearing Examiner page 8: City of Renton Arborists report promised 2. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Landscaping Plan 3. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Retention Plan 4. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Protection Easement 5. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Street lighting plan 6. Report to Hearing Examiner page 13: HOA maintenance agreement If items 1-4 are not required until application for construction permits, the trees will have already have been removed during the development/site preparation phase of the project and the issues becomes moot. The trees in our community have been consistently and enthusiastically identified in every single one of the land use actions CARE has participated in since 2001. Without item 5, the public cannot evaluate the adequacy of the protections for school children walking to the bus stop on 156th Ave.SE or the potential impact to the privacy and enjoyment of their properties. Community members on SE 4th Place had a months' long challenge of emails and meetings with the City and Puget Sound Energy when new lighting meeting the new standards was installed just 2 streets away. The new lighting was a huge disruption, and we need to ensure the new development does not make sleep at night impossible. A statement from an affected neighbor is included at the end of this document. Renton has a responsibility under RCP Policy CD-15 to ensure that this project is`reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architechtural stypes, and/or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation," etc. We understand that new development will be more dense and the housing styles will be different. Further, we appreciate to beginnings of plans for the tree easements. However, we have repeatedly heard lovely aspirational allusions to responsive development during past preliminary plat Hearings, only to see radically different realities built in our neighborhoods. Cavalla was supposed to save and replant giant specimen rhodies and japanese maples. That didn't happen. There was supposed to be no road in the 162nd Ave SE ROW, but the bulldozers plowed right through—stream and all. The only things we have a hope of actually seeing must be conditions by reference in the Hearing Examiner's report for this project. Given the intense concern about and established history of drainage issues resulting from development projects in the area, the community needs the opportunity to review the"maintenance and responsibility"for the "stormwater facilities"that the HOA will voluntarily take on to ensure adequate measures are in place to prevent off-site damage. We cannot do that without item 6. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:47:46-0700 Subject: Re: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda From: m.rollinger@comcast.net To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com You can also add that nobody goes the speed limit up/down our hill. Ever. Well, unless it's crawling that is. -One neighbor requested "a light"outside of their home (date unknown and I believe the request was directly to PSE) - Nobody, including the requester, was notified before PSE installed 4 extra large cobra head led street lights (large roadway type) on our tiny cul-de-sac(7 houses deep) on - Residents had light pollution/trespass everywhere; in backyards, bedrooms, etc. - City was notified with a list of the issues they caused on 7/22/13 - Didn't hear back from the city on the initial email sent until 7/26/13 (after emailing them again) - Petition emailed (with pics) on 7/30/13 with one signature missing due to him being gone on vacation - Completed petition hand delivered 815/13 along with a chat with Mr. Barnes at City Hall -The issues weren't resolved until For two months, the residents on SE 4th Place had to deal with overly bright LED lights that were completely inappropriate to the neighborhood. This disrupted people's sleep, made yard use unpleasant and in some cases was a safety hazard(blinded while backing out of garages). Neighborhoods should have a choice/say in the types of lighting used and a study of existing neighborhood houses should be considered. Lighting should also be appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood with minimal light pollution to disrupt the natural world. Marsha Rollinger From:johnson.k.b@hotmail.com To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:08:14-0700 Gwendolyn: I live at 14506 152 PL SE and regularly come up from the Maple Valley Highway to access my home. That involves a left turn at 154th Ave SE and SE 142 PL. It is a challenging enough intersection with limited sight visibility, no left turn lane, and long waits during commute hours. Under existing conditions, the traffic can back up already from the 3 way stop. Frustrated drivers finally decide to go for the left after long waits for breaks in traffic. Unfortunately, I've seen too many oncoming cars slam on their brakes because the left turner didn't really have a big enough break to pass through easily. The Enclave development will increase congestion at our left turn and make more drivers make a left turn into a too- small traffic opening. As the development increases in the East Highlands around Maplewood Heights Elementary, we are seeing an increasing number of people who are making that left turn to access their homes. The increased traffic from the Enclave and its odd street layout will complicate the 3 way stop traffic, increase the number of cars, and back that traffic problem back to our already dicey left turn. I realize that the Enclave development will go through even though I question the wisdom of having its two streets funnel out so close to the 3-way stop. Seems like it is almost making it into a 5-way intersection. But I doubt the County has the appetite to force the builder to change his site plan. For us left turners, a left turn lane would provide some welcome mitigation and straightening out the curve -even just a little-would give more visibility and help safety tremendously. Not sure you can do anything with this but thanks for trying. Kathy Johnson CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 From:johnnanney@hotmail.com To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: 1000+ new trips, Wild Babies, and Meeting Monday Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:39:25-0700 Gwendolyn, The 111 bus line which goes out to Lake Kathleen is scheduled to be truncated in September to not go east of 156th but rather to leave Maplewood and go directly up 156th st. This would only happen during the morning and afternoon commute hours as there is no service other times. That will be another major disruptive factor to the 156th st corridor. In addition to the bus traffic along 156th, there will be the bus commuters who will drive and try to park along the bus route to connect to the new stops. This will impact the residents along this path plus adding the congestion.An example of this type of"staging"for the bus line is in Kennydale where the entire area is parked up along the 111 route as it heads to the Park and Ride. It adds a lot of congestion at the worst time of the day for it. Not to mention making a number of us no longer have a commuter bus to downtown on weekdays. It also will affect the kids at Liberty who need the bus to get to the Running Start program at Bellevue College whereby they take college classes for both high school and college credits during their high school years. One of my points was that with the bus stopping all along 156th.....traffic would be disrupted greatly at the worst time of day at a point where many trips are being added. The parking mess is true all along the Kennydale section of the 111 with people driving to park at bus stops instead of the P&R. John Nanney 16921 SE 144th St Renton, WA 98059 425-830-6525 Alyssa Nanney 16169 SE 146th PI Renton, WA 98059 425-226-4726 CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 iaa 4-1 � 3S 31ld 1i1OBk' 353+�F t(ll8} r�Y '� 3 to H.Ulv- 351,,H1S%t '- r 4S i 3 =a ro ca p° Y1115TAIEs^E. d L. y =: ��,. '-+3` r �- � :M-MY,lit YPATR1�?T�5A1 t 18n M A4E 3 c 2 az 3s3v �~ J ~ Ly; m�E r — N 11k: :�'' C9' a L: � LI _ E N O e -.y. 4 ,.StJI lir:} c`9 f -'•'i 1L�1 �' _ Y o-.. O �'_'sL Li rL A y _ f-stilyr:}_ Lrk :� (4-0_ _.- r i �•7,y1y: � � Y .3y�rn Lu} Cy r`-O m m Y r. F y 1 [y m = m 6 = Ll j i cC.LVs`h V, 'N �' jet C C. mL o E C t'_ _ �'� C � -^f- O rc1515r 3 C7 rG en ��ma _r, c :mt N C v 1rc .r,t:G' vc = l wr m `n m c E aci u W - Ll - 00-2.-0 7 m Q e: s.1.*!9�'-=r y°- . r c� 7 N, 0.2 a ) 7,-C 5. s a Hoar E u CD r I;h`p.:E•`E Ali - L•• r ,; �� tj = O= UC 1- r� - ••'.tri`-. ti .. .m U 0 d fit,;AV 11F'J'.n(1 111����1k� 7: Y� � � �E o E 7`'Y r,sI L-F.._t' y tJ� - -q v c C CO ID E E E...:E to 0 C)LI'd1�"J ':E'Jt n to tw :� 'K a•^ °�cTi `o Zj U t, ,J ,IS y'r; t. L m mn c O m 2 NQ U }L' 4+ E N=a c Ll L"- 1' M Y m m Y -A--,.vk=r`) ma=im u 'p 4� � cl rri C' x 'rq iri a `o y C i:e o C C L tb tb C m— _ rnV oxWO c '-� is ,. ` .. '� • °"' }Yka co =c TlS1r�t°t*iF 1 in m O rt V ; C R h , R m C �Y" C E 0 n�c`, G ;fix c CL E�JE Yin ca Y Hev YAM e�s.� 15 3AI a g ■� a 3ry �, w_gs. � � ��s� u ` a1 € .x-�' r✓53 P +�.Cy''� � s s `+ k''-•..ro„. �t3,�'`g.X; E!��•a ki *� r€ � ,� e•fig rS Q e- K s s'i a p Y I IV T 1 �• C D M • gg 4.0 3 O V c i7 Y'T W m N - ,n � tcar•: C C H C_ E o ny o N C n yyL Ewo s cwm. �W C Uy� O w U y O .D n y� C T _U • Q C C O.>'. 0..8 C L_°°o cML) O dccc J WEmo UU�C ���p . L l �N zA �( K C E E r y Cc a 77 7 d L R N LM { 0-4 U-o 0 ID o no r��y r,.� '•. , 3x 1 �^^l C...O E h0 EEE a N U cnmC v kv 5r3;x Eu;a_o nD +W- W. 4 a ` �•,}�^ y 4 :rr '.ef:.c 1 }s �'9^ "L7 L W L C W r.� t ' a as as AV- congestion Relief&Bus Rapid Transit Projects The 1-405 Corridor Program The 1-405 Plan What is the 1-405 Program? (MILL CREfX i The Interstate 405 Corridor Program is a broad term for a (Nj `i program of more than 150 individual, coordinated projects to relieve congestion and improve mobility for motorists, transit and freight users along the freeway's 30-mile I length. The full name is "Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects." The master plan for fixing ®7 u �' 1-405 traffic includes all transportation modes, adding up BRIER ® �jr" to two new lanes each direction to 1-405, a corridor-wide SNON96SN ETIIINIY bus rapid transit (BRT) line and increased local transit KIN°COUNTY .-.-— i ,—— — — — —— — t KENMORF Vallrm 5� DDD,"�I�E service. It will fix bottlenecks such as the SR 167/1-405 OFEST ` interchange, improve key arterials, expand transit centers, PARK ''� - < < - and add about 1,700 new vanpoo-Is and over 5,000 park ° and ride spaces. J. KIRKU D �----r W.yn REDMOND + The 1-405 Master Plan will ultimately: 2 Add up to 2lanes in each direction in 1-405 52 Develop a Bus Rapid Transit line with stations along P 405 and expanded transit centers SEATi(f teuu '. �. EllEVOE • Improve key arterials " SAMMAM,SN Accommodate an additional 110,000 trips per day in the corridor MERCER rsu"° Reduce time stuck in traffic by over 13 million hours per e„ year-an average of over 40 hours per year per regular IssAOW user NEWCASTLE Produce travel time savings valued at$569 million each DNG year f ­41-^�\t2 ° Added Fremy finest Connections in Save$42 million each year in decreased traffic accidents { 51�\ -;, R ��R' AW nEWINIGS M/dld Ca[II IIIIGCtl1nM 99 �s :- _ 1-405 and key • Create 1700 new vanpools-a 100%increase s 0 s _ RE MON .... dwLTom6 fOadat SR 167,I-9D, kkanddBotheff j 518 S: 69- SesRapi t(BRTIServin Increase local transit service by up to 50%within the fj�SEA.7fc Nembarapdtand sfudyarea :AIRPORT f I System daplo* Transit Service Build 5,000 new park and-ride spaces 50%TnnRsermre increase t iv. 19 (.. 16 wrm Nwbne&rd direct ne 1 5t ac=imprm'Rents Create eight new pedestrian/bicycle crossings over 1-405 Arterial Improvements Enhance freight � bsr 6 mobil' throw betterinterchan es, a i �� .. LoWarhria6imprerd O NOV lane Access Point travel time reduction,and updated and technologies l X516 i i ORT Station { _ Ten neviRRTstaAen Provide much-needed economic benefits for Washington I' ® Ta°si``°°"ry Nine ransitanrers State-for each$1 million spent on new construction,an f5� iia Park-and-RideLnte adddional30jobs are created S,A'Xl newpart-aM-ride spaces Washington State VP Department of Transportation EXHIBIT B THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by AWAOM NDRTHWEST TRAFF"fC E"XPERTB 11410 NE 124 ' St.,#590 Kirkland,Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 rraffo, NORTHIVEST TRAFF/C EXPE/7T8 11410 SEE 1241h S #590 K WA.9W Phone:425.522.4118 fare 42 .522.4311 December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 360 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge- City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156t'Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156th Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge T/s�ff TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Trip Rate Time Period Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting Average Weekday 9.57 148 149 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 25 0 70 17 23 PM Peak Hour 1.01 20 63% 371 31 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation. for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156 'Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142nd PI. Residential Access Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tralffy 156th Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156 t Ave SE is strai,ght and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" PI..has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156`"Ave. SEISE 142"d Pl. is an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156th Ave SE or SE 142nd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156th Ave. SE and the 156th Ave SEISE 142"d St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156th Ave SE/SE 142ndPl. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst(congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS)for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control.delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rrd 6—ftY TYPE OF INTERSECTION '4 B C D E F Signalized 10. >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. 0 <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 Stop Sign Control .<<Q >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for.traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%)from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156th Ave. SENSE 142nd PI. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The_Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft.from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rlafi#, - approximately 250 ft north of the 156th Ave. SEISE 142nd Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of$75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X$75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE.. Contribute the approximately$21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince a()nwtraffex.com or larry(c nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, pc� A L,0 r-` ire STLa Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P,E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING INTERSECTION 203 2095 WITHOUT 2015 WITH PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA =WB2) 1560'Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd pl. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 lvaRTHWEST "" �% TRa FFJG EXPE"RT5 _s£grid Pi SE 3;Th S? r SEJ. SE 136th Ln ° SE 1311h St ra . i Terrace S;_ N > 47 SE 137th St SE 3rd Pi, SE 3cd Pt SE 4th St a 5E 5th St. SE 1391h PI C S£141stPI : { m Project SET 42nd St Sit@ SE 132nd St. �1A2ria p1 o SE lLIT av int 5E1d3tdSt ro. . u3 SE 1,44th SI S£1 i On 5E T44th PI — rn t m 10 i SE 1451 �Sth P1 yr . rc M The Enclave at Bridle Ridge- City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map raM7- NCRTHWEST CX1L TRAFFIC EXPERTS f367HAYE SE 1 (p r'--- - - --- w� $ g� � i + ------------ --- - I l i 1 ♦ ,�r rsc rya-. }C-� i^ `-�l J.zv 1 � j. ir. 1 ,R 1 ► ; I I � t. fi The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Figure Site.Plan 2 r oJrrevff , : S NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXFE.47S �' SE]39th Pi au c Project _ rl Site a Q; S£141 st P! - o M t n p fn M m - t SE 142nd 51 �p°1� O SE 14211t1 St 11 d p1 cl5£14 s � o A S£143rd.St is O I'N tfs t� t+ } `. 4 t rr2 v M N Access/ 156th ave N t� L t rr1 CO M S Access/156th Ave cv .- 4J� ti PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume L=/ o', t Legend Enter 20 o N Exit 11 15% Percentage of Project Traffic Total 31 158th Ave/SE 142 P! — 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume The Enclave at Bridle Ridge- City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution 3 rrrafK�,i j m rvrJrrrt,'wE sr -u TRAP-,P-1,C EXR£R7-H o SE t 391 Pt 0% �- o c 1 Project Site a Q- SE 141 st pl - o ry � - CO SE 142nd St Qo{o 03 SE 142nd St J t AAW, s 3E 741*11Pl �C CD � �. SE 143rd St 1 i ty, rn n Or I Future Project Future Existing without Project Trak with Project M `o � � 4 t 4. r r � c " ro c t r 2 t t N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access(156th ave N Access/ 155th ave N t1 d �L0 + �`o + `k-4 `". 4 C,:, �M M S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access!156th Ave S Aecesst 156th Ave SCD UI) LO CD CD J l O ^ N `- M ti 309 328.E J { 4, ' + 332, + . � � 100 , t 1os�, t 0� t,r M , + 106-1 1 ! m G1 t� 6l cc O N CO. O M CO 156th Ave/SE 142 PI 1561h Ave/SE 142 PI 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI 156th Ave/ SEI PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 i TECHNICAL APPENDIX 1'trparcd Ger: Traffex Traffic Count Consultants,Inc. Phone:(253)926.6008 FAX:(253)422-7211 E-Mail:Tean@TCZinc.c= WBEMBE Intersection: 156th A,,c SE d SE 142nd PI tate of Count: Tues 12717,1COU catlon: Renton.Washinguin Checked By: Jess Thta: From North an(S 8) From South an(NB) From East an ONS) From Wast an(EB) Interval Intenal 156thA=SE 156th Aw SE 0 SE 1424d Pl T01111 .Eadine at T L F S. R T I LS R T L S R. T L 5 A 4:13P 0 0 _ 16 12ti. q- 32 11 - 0 0 0 0 1 D 0 70 - 0 28 2S3 4_30P 6 0 13 172 1 14 a 0 q 0 0 0 0 -to 0 27 308 4:45"P 2 a 18 156 0 2S I5' _ 0 D 0 - 0 0 0 --99 0. 29 345 5:00 P 0 0 18 179 1 2 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 20 328 5:15 P 1 U - 19 148 1 28 17 .: 0 0 (1 U 0- 0- 70 () 24 306 5:30 P 1 0 20 148 0 19 10 0 0 0 U 0 0 72 0 28 297 5:45 P -a 0 29 IS]. 0 - IR. I') 0- -0 - Q G 0 0 93 0 N 339 6:00 P 0 0 24 144 2 IS 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 74 0. 17 291 6:95P 0 0 . 0 0 0- 0' a 0 D 0 0 0- 0 0. O 0 0 630P 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 &45 P 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00P 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 1 0 F 12 D 157 )224 6 179 1.17 0 0 0 0 0 1 61S D 202 2497 PmL llour. 4:13 PM - .to 5:15 1'M - - - Total 9 0 68 655 4 92 1 63 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 309 D 100 1287 Approach '723 155 0- 409 1257 ,/.IIV 1" 2.6% aP na Ivm P1IF M3 156th Ave SE (� t095 Q 31t- SE 142nd P 655 69 1i- o P'd 147 Ped Bile D 1156 309 409 I 4:15 P1,1 to 5:15 Ph1 100 PEDs A­ N S 5 W PcdL 0 92 &3 1380 LOPIIF Pwk:rlaur Volume INT 02 i 0 Bike;--0_ PIIF%t1V INT 02 .. 0 SB MIA 03.. Q i66 13S Check WB ILIA D 0;T D4 1n: -1257 NB 16<.,; WIT D5 0 323- Out: 1297 SB.. 121 a4T 06 NO PERS 0 156th Ave SE T Int. 0.93 IA`„ 07 0 BlWalee From N B E W SB Queues INT 06 0 04T 01 n 5.8 INT Us 0 INT 02 INT IQ o arras _.. ._.._ ..__ O I5; tVTtt _ tl 15= INT u--__.._.. ...__ 0 . ____—0 9.10 of 0. ___—_ wro6 1v0t3tKLS `-_ _ 0 8-10 5Perm at= arT a7 1 o R-lD Rolling quay headed SB-at most there INT oe 5$ u, 5.8 vehielet actuatl9stoP1'cd- rot os IS+signifia rolling yceae as Farces 1 mold ace 04T 10 .....�. __..._..., ....._.. : 0 INT 11 __..__.0 NT t D q 01 on o 0 0 0 T14A13184M O1p Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE # 12/26/2013 4% f l2yErriet12.: BF3 NBL, NBT. SET 77, Lane Configurations *T 1� Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 309 100 92 63 68 655 Peak.Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 332 108 99 68 73 704 frec#l�tr.. #_ CERIrl 1 SB 17777777777 - w aw Volume Total(vph) 440 167 777 Volume Left(vph) 332 99 0 Volume Right(vph) 108 0 704 Hadj-(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree Utilizalion,x 0.75 0.30 1.12 Capacity(veh/h) 572 526 679 Control Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach LOS D B F ntrsecti�r Stirrtr�aryi; Delay 62.9 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE # 12126/2013 uu._ ;SBR_. � � �. Lane Configurations , Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 328 106 98 67 72 695 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93L 0.93' Houyrl�y flow rate(vph) 35{3 114 {:105 72 77 747 Volume Total(vph) 467 177 825 Volume Left(vph) 353 105 0 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 747 Hadi(s) 0:03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.3 Degree Utilization,x 0.80 0.33: 1.22 Capacity(vehlh) 571 518. 665 Control Delay(s)' 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach Delay(s) 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach LOS D 6 F Me' Delay 85.8 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity.Utilization 90.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 1 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1. Future With Project 3; SE 142nd P1 & 156th Ave SE 12126/2013 4N t tayet eni. E13L._ fy18L: NH1 _ uHT SBFT.- � . Lane Configurations +T T Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 Ristior,,-ate#. _ E81'; N8 i. Volume Total{vph) 471 180 828 Volume Leff(vph) 357 105 0 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 749 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.4 Degree Utilization,x 0.81 0.33 1.23 Capacity(veh/h) 571 516 662 Control Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach LOS D B F nti"ersec�ion-surntary - Delay 881 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 4..- 4- t `v. ." ,..a#ir� .��,,.�`�1tffB>i:.�.-irt€$f�s,IUI�T`.•p�lBl�_"_;�S,81 .�<-F_SB�� M.� �.:;�,�' w:. ��� �- � _`..�::. Lane Configurations Volume(vehm) 2 4 177 3 7 774 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0°lQ Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 2 4 190 3 8 832 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare(veh) type Median . e None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal"(ft) pX,platoon unblocked VC,conflicting volume 1039 192. 194 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2;stage 2 conf vof vCu,unblocked vol 1039 192 194 tC,single(s) 6:4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 99 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 256 855 1392 are—CE ri "taa .x YBi 1F31 513 LL: Volume Total 6 194 840 Volume Left 2 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01- Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 12.6 0.0 0:1 Lane LOS g q Approach Delay(s) 12.6 0.0 Oa Approach LOS B �clionSttrnmar�t-- �`' Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3% ICU Level of.Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 Future With Project 7: South Site Access& 156th Ave SE 1212612013 Moven V31 B NI3R SBI SBS. Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 1 4 176 3 7 769 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 4 189 3 8 827 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ftfs) PercentBlockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC;conflicting volume 1033 191 192 Z,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf'vol vCu,unblocked vol 1033 191 192 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 99 99 cM capacity(vehlh) 258 856 1393 # ..°1N1 1..'. 564 r.. 77777 =a Volume Total 5 192 834_ Volume Left 1 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 585 1700 1393 Volume to Capacity 0:41 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 11.2 0:0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B #ifer"echot-;5aremary - — -�_ Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service 8 Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 3 Heavenly bamboo: The red berries (-- this non-native shrub are deadly for loca1 birds Page 1 of 2 REGONLI E Heavenly bamboo: The red berries on this non-native shrub are deadly for local birds nandina.jpg The nandina bush, also known as heavenly bamboo, has bright red berries in the winter which are toxic when consumed by many birds in the Pacific Northwest. (Jerry W. Davis) Special to the Hillsboro Argus By Special to the Hillsboro Argus Follow on Twitter on December 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, updated January 28, 2014 at 3:19 PM This story has been updated with more information on Jan. 28, 2014. It can be fun to try new plants and shrubs in the yard. And every now and then, a particular plant becomes popular and is widely introduced into an area where it's not native. At times, the newcomer settles in well and simply adds to the landscape. Other times, however, a non-native plant can cause trouble. Often, because it has no natural 'enemies' in the environment it can be invasive or difficult to control. Occasionally, the introduced plant does far more harm by actually poisoning native wildlife. Such is the case with a plant recently brought to the attention of the Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) by Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University Extension wildlife specialist, who reports that a common landscaping shrub may threaten local bird populations due to its toxic berry. The shrub is commonly known as nandina, sacred bamboo, or heavenly bamboo. Nandina is found in the landscaping of yards, parks, hospital grounds, and other locations across the lower 48 states. Planted for its bright red berries and contrasting dark green foliage, the shrub adds color and texture in residential and commercial landscapes. Some homeowners planted nandina with the intention of providing food for cedar waxwing, American robin, northern mockingbird, and other birds that depend on winter fruits to survive. Nandina berries stay on the bush for months, attracting hungry birds when food is in short supply. And that can be a major problem for the birds. When dozens of cedar waxwings were found dead in Georgia three years ago, investigators at-the University of Georgia found the cause to be nandina berries. Bird autopsies revealed the berries lodged in the birds' crops, as well as hemorrhaging of several internal organs. The root of the birds'distress is the cyanide and other alkaloids contained in the berries that produce highly toxic hydrogen cyanide, which is extremely poisonous to all animals. Sudden death may be the only sign of cyanide poisoning and death usually comes within minutes to an hour of exposure. file:///E:/CARE/LandUse/Enclave/-1earingPrep/Final/Heavenly%20bamboo%20.htm 6/23/2014 Heavenly bamboo: The red 1,erries on this non-native shrub are dea("-,for local birds Page 2 of 2 Worse still, nandina is a non-domestic, noxious, and highly invasive weed that displaces the non-toxic, native plants on which local birds normally thrive. Nandina has been imported from China and Japan, and has invaded many natural areas. Homeowners and commercial landscapers are still planting this toxic species, unaware of the risk. "Over 220 bird species nationwide are in serious decline, including our most common birds. Birds are being killed on all fronts,"said Jerry W. Davis, a certified wildlife biologist from Arkansas. "By working together, we can eliminate this toxic and noxious invasive plant. If you are not doing your part, the job is not getting done." Consider these simple steps to help reduce and eventually remove the presence of nandina in the local landscape: 1. Avoid using nandina in landscaping projects and opt for beneficial native plants with a similar appearance, such as Pacific ninebark, red elderberry or red huckleberry. 2. If you have nandina already and aren't ready to part with it, take care to prune the bushes to remove the berries as winter approaches. Planting a variety of non-toxic food sources such as serviceberry, snowbush, or red twig dogwood will help fill the gap. 3. Currently, there are no control efforts underway in Washington County for nandina, but sharing this article with the landscaping company that handles your home or business may help. And report sightings to the Invasive Species hotline at oregoninvasiveshotline.org. For more information on identifying invasive plants, or learning about native plants for your landscape, see the SWCD website or contact the SWCD at 503-648-3174. -- Jennifer Nelson, Tualatin SWCD © 2014 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved. file:///E:/CARE/LandUse/Enclave/HearingPrep/Final/Heavenly`/`20bamboo%20.htm 6/23/2014 Page 1 of 2 From: Carlos Bayne<cmbayne@gmai!.com> To: Roger Paulsen<rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 4:53 pm Hey Roger! I have an email to share with you... Read below, please. Carlos "If you're trying to drive me crazy, I can walk from here..." Forwarded message From: Nancy Thompson <Nthompson(c)rentonwa.pov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue.Northeast To: "cmbayne ccDgmail.com"<cmbavne(cDpmail.com> Cc: Chris Barnes<CBarnes(a)rentonwa.Qov>, Ron Mar<Rmar(a)rentonwa.Qov> May 14, 2014 Carlos Bayne cmbavnena gmail.com RE: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast Dear Mr. Bayne: Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic volumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. If you have any further questions about this or any other transportation operations matter, please call my assistant, Ronald Mar at 425-430-7297 or me at 425-430-7220. Sincerely, Page 2 of 2 Chris M. Barnes, Sr. Transportation Operations Manager cc: Ronald Mar, Civil Engineer TOM Record#9645 File COMMUNITY& D. �ciryZ� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18,2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots,with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.1)as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation.Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130%of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 32,743 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Proiect subiect to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by proiect?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton Transportation Concurrency Test- , Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18,2014 The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required:A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required:Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to - approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page X1-6.5 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 Sandi Weir From: Steve Lee Sent Tuesday,April 15,201411:14 AM To: CityClerk Records Cc Jan Illian;Jill Ding;Neil R.Watts Jennifer T.Henning;Rohini Nair Subject RE:New Public Records Request-PRR-14-085(Paulsen) Attachments: TranspoConcPolicy140415.pdf i See attached files that are related documentation on the City process f cro process standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. 1 believe this is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeking.The information,as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan,provides Mr.Paulsen how the City administers a:multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance,or within a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per 4-6-070 A.1,or a financial commitment is:placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City: Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord.5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement,"Within the City of Renton,the steep topography between Maple Halley Highway and the upper plateau(and on to Cemetery Road)makes it in feasible to provide additional access.Widening 1-405(which the State is pursuing)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road." Thanks. -Steve Lee,PE; MS,CESCL City of Renton Dev_Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 slee@rentonwa.gov From: CityClerk Records Sent:Tuesday,April 15,2014 8;05 AM To: Steve Lee Subject: RE: New Public Records Request-PRR-14085(Paulsen) Thanks Steve From: Steve Lee Sent:Tuesday,April 15, 2014 7:21 AM To; CityClerk Records Cc: Chip Vincent; Neil R Watts;Judith Subia;Jennifer T. Henning; Debra Mikolaifk;.Jill Ding Subject: New Public Records Request.-PRR 14085(Paulsen) Chris, i Can you send me the original public records request? I was not cc'd on the original request(therefore no attachment) and wanted to respond appropriately to what was asked: 1 i' Amended 09/19111 and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time,the traffic:that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability. Level of Service Policy 1 Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service(LOS)using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,National Research Council,1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along.a roadway segment. The degree of lay -e�rsecdons,impedance caused t comfort includes such factors'as travel time,amount of stopped delay In e e- esiz by other vehicles and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined u I—et toe r designations"�Iag etter designations—A,B,C, D,E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions andlbS F the worst LOS 3 represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At.LOS C,comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D,speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS,E,speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow,but-there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995,the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity forsingle occupancy vehicle(SOV)travel. However,because of traffic congestion in the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets- In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion,the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people,not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three premises:. 0 Level of Service(LOS)in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; 0 It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle(SOV)travel;and The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. Renton's LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto,transit, HOV,non motorized,and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; Encourage a regionally-linked,locally-oriented,dynamic transportation system; Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level-of-Service Framework Polic les; Re-quire developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs;and • Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region der-ides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate.Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto,HOV and transit elements of the LOS standard are based orf travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting mufti- modal goals of Renton and the region..Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections,and it provides a mufti-modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi-modal travel. The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide 2 system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following- xi-is .......... ................. Amended 49/19/11 i. • Determination of existing travel times within the.City of Renton; I_ • Calibration of the city of Renton-.traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and HOV travel times for the adopted Land Use(described in the land Use Element)using the calibrated traffic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit.acce ra-Renton travel time to i regional system,and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard(in. using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV made splits, • Development of a.twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and.standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system,including State-owned facilities;and I: • Selecting a plan that maintains the established LOS standard. Other elements of the LOS implementation process include: • Monitoring the area to re-validate transportation plans; • Adjusting transportation plans asneeded to meet standards and/or address other i environmental/coordination issues;and • Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards overtime(if needed). Level Of Service Standard r A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the.City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. 1 i A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sura of the average 30- { minute travel distance for SOV,HOV,and Transit as follows: 2002 Average.PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HGV 2 times Transit LOS j (.includes.access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* * Rounded i As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle(SOV)could expect in 2002 to travel approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes;a high occupant vehicle(HOV-carpool,vanpool)could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes;and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002)is then weighted by doubling it(to 6.8 miles)to recognize the advantage that the transit made has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger-carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49,and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard,presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995;was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995,this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton(1990-2010)transportation model,which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 200.2(and 2022)land use data and examining the raw data;the 2,002 LOS index was found to be-42. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: i)reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton;especially in the Renton Valley area,as a result of regional funding constraints(e.g.passage of Initiative 695);i)limited implementation of - i x1-16 } i 1 r j !• Amended 09/19/11 I Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects;and,Ili)higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990—2001 The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2:.022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is- forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2,002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or i transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. { With the 2:002 LOS index as a base,the City-wide 21722 LOS standard has been determined as follows- 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 LDS ns.lt i (includes access time) Standard 15*miles 17*miles 10*miles 42 ' *Rounded This standard will require that the travel time of SOV(15)+HOV(17)+2 T(10)orthe sum of these.three modes(42)must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years. The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV,and Transit Sub-Elements that are designated i for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development_ To test against,the LOS standard,the 21022 planned Arterial,HOV,and Transit improvements identified later in this Transportation Element are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traffic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV,-HDV, and Transit*.modes along specified travel routes(which have been broken into segmentsof known distance)including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV,HOV,and Transit travel distance indices equal 42. *Other factors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index inciu ding frequency of service and access time. I I Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton's LDS standard is provided in I the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation,September 1995. LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance(HSS)(Le.1-5,1-405,SR 167)have been adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)_ For urban areas the adopted LOS standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways(non- HSS)in the Central Puget Sound region(i.e.SR-900,SR-169,SR-515)were adopted by the Puget Sound.- j Regional.Council(PSRC)on October 30,.2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges from LOS E/mitigated(pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E)to the traditional LOS D. (Further information on LOS standards for HSS and non TiSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites,respective€y.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton's modeling estimates of Renton's projected growth,and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities. These state-owned facirrties are also included in Renton's city-wide travel-time based LOS standard,which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors,as well as travel time,are elements of the traditional LOS concept(A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Renton's Transportation Element has'identified ) X1-17 Amended 09/13/;1 i SOU,HOU,and transit-oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton,as well as the local roadway system. Arterial Plan I- This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SW improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system,and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi-modai concept. Also,the improvements comprised y the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as-i provements that protect or improve neighborhoods,improve safety,improve business access,an re economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements i. uded in the Arterial Plan are fisted in, Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7. The Arterial Plan(Figure 1-6)includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also,several Tukwila,Kent,and Newcastle proposed I_ improvements.are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system- (These improvements have been complied from the Tukwila,Kent,.and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element ofthe City of Renton Comprehensive Pian..These improvements,'along.with.the Transit Plan and HOU improvements identified.later in this document,provide a.transportation plan that will meet-the 2022 Level of-Service'standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned.by 2022_ I 4 i i • - i f ' y+hTB' - • i Amended 09/19/11 � ` ' . ��n���n �����n�������������� Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document. Adevelopment may qualify for reduction of the$75 per vehicie trip mitigation fee through certain credits | / for development incentives,construction of needed transportation improvements(arterial,HQy,transit), through public/private partnerships,and transportation den)&hd.manaQementpnograms. Specific credits ' ' and the amount of reduction inthe mitigation trip rate fee that could result from such credits wU|-be determined an a case by case basis during the development permitting process. The Mitigation Payment System provides flexibility to modify the basic trip rate fee as needed to rgs�d­io the effect that credits , may have ondeveloper mitigation asafunding Concurrency Management System � The Growth Management Act(SK84)describes concurrency'asthe situation where adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur,or within a specified time thereafter. This des&ptionindudeothe concept ofavailable public facilities. The GK&Adefines"available public facilities" � aslacUhieporservices inplace,nrafinancial commitment inplace,tuprovide the facilities within a specified time. For transportation,the specified time is six years from fimeofdevelopment. City of Renton policies that support the GMA's definition of concuirency have been identified inthe Land Use Element and inthis Element To address concurrency under-the GKAand City ofRenton policies,a i ! concurrency management system has been developed for the City of Renton that is based on'the � following process: / ° The City of Renton will adopt a multi-modal Transportation Plan thatmffli be consistent with regional ' plans and those ofneighboring cities. Improvements and programs of Tr`ansportatipnP|anwN � bedefined inthe Transportation Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan. ° The City ofRenton Transportation LevelofSembe(LOS)Po|icy although itdiffers from the ! .traditional LOS for arterials,is consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies and will be used-to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Pian, ° If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities,then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. ' | i | Amended 09119/11 | '' � As specified in the Regulations and Guidelines and Procedures,aconcurreincy testis conducted by the City of Renton for each non-exempt development activity. The concurrency test determines consistency with the adopted citywide LevelofService standard and the Concurrency Management System,using rules and procedures established bythe City nfRenton. The concurrency test includes technical review nfa development activity by the City of Renton to determine if the transportation system has adeqqate or |. unused or uncommitted capacity,orw/iU have adequate capacity,to accoUmmodate vehicle tripsge"erated. � by the proposed development,with t causing the level of service standard to,decline below adopted ' standards,utthe time v/ development orwithin six years. *written no i theCity h to the approval of the��| � f� ' ' concurrency test,the City allows the development appo alternative data,provide atraffic mitigation plan,orreduce the size of the development project-1,order toachieve concurrency. � / ! Monitoring,and evaluation of the City of Renton's Concurrency Management System and Transportation Concurrency Regulations will bereviewed aspart ofongoing transportation work. Sunset Area Community Roadway improvements ' The City of Renton studied potential infrastro,tun,'bnp,nvement needs to support growth anticipated in the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS in completed April 2011. The planned action neighborhood study area isgenerally bounded byNEl1st Street nnthe north,Monroe Avenue NEonthe east,NE7th Street onthe south,and Edmonds Avenue NE. Capital improvements identified inthe B5 | would 6eneeded within the Z011-I03Otime frame. The improvements identified inthe EIS are estimated tocost$I7.Zmillion. The,prnjectcosts and funding sources for these projects are iJcuUficdiothe Sunset Area Community Capital Facilities Plan found within the City's Capital Facilities Element. � -^ | |. ` ! | 1 | ' ' i - { U F 00 en �� � pca CD Iy� O C J-° � a v m m fl �m �� ^ vsmlm37 a=^ �3 ?m O -o o'er ARD N c7 o c c o.* o ° n a atm ° m. N ° m80- 3 4 = c m '0 - o o N O . o > > > m l� c c� m Q'� o o"" f m N c� . : CD � �mu, as 2oncm ���� cm N oma- a ' m -f C7 D a-(D ( m a a�Im �ac� m o o c a o j 'i o 3 25 r ° �mm x Cro yf° m.. m o ° v O Cl) J atv (mom Zm= �I DSI �' q �z .Z v C m ° w o o CO m MM f�17 NN m o mo m -min D K m m m m n a y m n� Cl) n Z j m m to aCJ m0 O rO O N m N O �• Cl o o mal not 3Q � ° CD N) m Z_= o ^s o 0 0 00l o ° ° � �,• O I io � az3a rm C4 -06 ID 1 6y � m 3 CA m N m O co W"a Q 'p '. O o y�• CD a m m CD a 2) 03 m ao � oo .c°Gp m m � O O 4 N 1 n x O N m m @ m =. C4 I y 13y < D 1 _ a o < � m -i Ca W 'a .0 �• D O O W O O 3 =a m z O I I I of o 00 0 a � m a �� Ji w m CD znrT y ° Z�0D�_ A. o mm oD �-C- `p Z7ULn mOrO N0 = w m O00 m O oio O QCD °cmCpm =r7{ 4 m �c7 v ' c�O <(nn z m J N m y m D '� C ii W w Nw c� o :z � mm � -1 c Ilio c N N oo N a m y 2 w o C �� S o' m— 0 0 0 00 0 m m `� .. 0 z O O OIO O n N y 0 U! ""�O � w CD CF^Jcc) cn Q z Af W O O n (It, p c � cNn N m as o a o 5 ? y p q CD o rno p c D3 Q a -� r 0 0 o 00 0 < m � q o a a ojo o fn m _ O O O O O X CnID � y O ? 7 tm m m m e o. f roc m T CLr z z o c a, c a s p cNn cNir N@ a o CD M. O Cl O 0 0 01Q° - a S w 0 0 0 0((0 0 m 0 o O o I o o � N m Uj �• m to fQ !V O O coN)UN1 '� O O r m CA m O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o V c a m OI O CD O O o N A l a y C Cn T m m of N N .� C 3 ND Er G O 0 O m 0 A CD m m n 0 m o O O oa o M �= d 0 0 a o0 0 CD ° w m mCa o m m y9 N v CNA N N p < O o ' O I O O I O. N O O A fp C O O O O OI O C j,, v td.. -S k 'd f • -�• _ T'� .'+'aid , 'a a� Y � ` r' { vP YI k 4M '- f r PAN t o i y- �i �f h l c vz �$�'4r q ,r,._-� d •a { � d ; r °;.� } srt� r � ..dam'��ar ,. A, `43r nmrZ 07 lo t l {��� fF y p qq .�1 - �v 1 t i �� " _- I ki- s 8 4v, p it 4-. i ts •2 - s a ?� r ��,, "SFp�'•�` 'ice;k �r ,�y �� �<�- y �+ "VIN, � S=S I"iY Kls:� I �� `�'�� 1�. • t. z iV� S� �1 $ W 90 t �y.y'•Y I j.` 3 , ..}v 'K+"5= + {?tµ- "d�Sry�' ]�.+✓�......1 w-y �'�}g' •A'K� .y!'�t Of c .iz r Ail a f fr Owt ^� d i �`y a�arN ".rI• _ . a. f Y� u�FZ,�X96 v � t '4 #� (, r✓c < ! t R r _ Y 11 Y •� t� 'tui\ ., �d d -. s `3 {, }_ ,�-a ,, ¢' , IL IF +k r�'- ,•�T'' � `r ��-�.'j 1® - .;s�"` 4=r ,.wr� ti '�'� � �i g -'w-. , ol t k µ r � • M � �aF CE r a ve ►f z If �dcy Y R y ' VF s� "�•s-tea I r. t . r J' yq � jfix -GS fiP , "s' ^�" A �S+e7'"�ky, •'�SS' -_ Y � V,4 m y € w ' d a'�`` 3 -t 41 '�•a' �t'L b�� . r"� �. . _ _Fao. ..:�5 tai `� ,:-s M:r--$d.'! '�5'ii�.�.•tn�_ .� _��'.'1'ef�.r..� :: . ltz- 35 a d W69 i U Id 41191 z, v 3.Id I'.LP91 t c t•1 33z,Wy1S9i x;, LW I G y 4 J' II ,I + - c � 1 v � � -Id41r:St i 3=I..1 41 - 3S a:.tr 41951 - o _5 U'. '2 a C st ! wll is F r. ✓r .. �. _ F5, ulnb CL LA 3N Id aIIN uy 35 W411L'1 it 1 4ri3pt n i 3S — '� rt a' elf 3N a— z!9N anti oy3uaa^':47bW1 pp yt� 2 ` F'-16.��; cl I 4. no;} 6 Y_ r + � o L' w ,R • a a � t s =( s CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 17 day of June, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Hearing Examiner Agenda, Report and Exhibit documents.This information was sent to: -` .Name -.' Representing Phil Obrechts Hearing Examiner See Attached Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ���, SS _ COUNTY OF KING ) to I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the usest+ Qk;( oses mentioned in the instrument. Dated: I q r N t'ry Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print): -- My appointment expires: \ , ,'���;.--5 f ���� Vii✓! � � rte% roJect a 'e. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Protect Number LUA14-000241, ECF, PP template-affidavit of service by mailing t T dn-dod pjogaa a ja anai tuawaomp e Aa3/1t/-O9-008-1 i �w I I, a sues ®09L5®A213At/;!aege6 a!zaswin wog tiane nnnnm ap ul}e amg�ey el a zalidab p- ; Ja!ad a selpel se�snb!�� M.H. Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI '*I�ade Willoughbv 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE 5TH PI 6512 SE 5th PI Renton,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulson Gwendolvn High PNW Holdings LLC 6617 SE Sth PI CARE 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Renton,WA 98059 PO Box 2936 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Renton,WA 98056 Richard Ouimet Sallv Nipert Jason Paulson 2923 Maltby Rd 14004 156th Ave SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln Bothell,WA 98012 Renton,WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98333 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th PI Renton,WA 98059 ®09 5® fid „ue6P3 dn-dod esodxa jaded paaA T @o%s ajeldwal®fuaAV as0 o;cull 6uole puce ® V i siagel®lead Asea DEPARTMENT OF COMY..�hwATY 0Ci- of". AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT r REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DATE: June 24, 2014 Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Owners:. Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156th Avenue SE, Renton,WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet,2923 Maltby Road, Bothell,WA 98012 Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC,9675 SE 36th Street,Suite 105, Mercer Island, 98040 File Number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Project Manager: Jill Ding,Senior Planner Project Summary: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4(Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.The site is currently developed with one single family residences and a detached garage proposed to be removed. No critical areas are present on the project site. Project Location: 14038 156th Avenue SE Site Area: 328,129 SF(8.8 ac) ® g 'gjj 20 13"328 1'A2•. i392fi taGOTafU 1400 01, 14065 j ta0 � V � c „y " 'T412G 45 p. %'• at 9 1 }•58U6 1 1 1 1�• 2 :5 40 � �'�. 1 2• ��' _:R, Ta3G2 Y 305 t 241 ,4? P a I 5r o52tn }�8U3 t 71 1'Sb t }5 5 asp � � Project Location Map HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL, N OIY PLAT , LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 2 of 13 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Staff Report,dated June 24, 2014 Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Plat Map Exhibit 4: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing(2 sheets) Exhibit 5: Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 6: Landscape Plan (5 sheets) Exhibit 7: Topography Map Exhibit 8: Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 9: Utilities Plan, Generalized Exhibit 10: Road Profile and Cross Section Details(3 sheets) Exhibit 11: Preliminary Traffic Control Plan Exhibit 12: Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Northwest Traffic Experts, dated December 27, 2013 Exhibit 13: Technical Information Report, prepared by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated February 19,2014 Exhibit 14: Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated February 5, 2014 Exhibit 15: Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc., dated February 18,2014 Exhibit 16: Wetland Report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.,dated February 3, 2014 Exhibit 17: SEPA Determination Exhibit 18: ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Exhibit 19: Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 20: Comment letter dated March 21, 2014 from David Michalski Exhibit 21: Comment letter dated March 22, 2014 from Roger Paulsen Exhibit 22: Staff response to David Michalski dated April 9, 2014 Exhibit 23: Staff response to Roger Paulsen dated April 14, 2014 Exhibit 24: Drainage (Surface Water)Standards Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation, dated February 4, 2013 Exhibit 25: Safe route to schools exhibit Exhibit 26: Transportation Concurrency Test Exhibit 27: Comment letter from Eloise Stachowiak Exhibit 28: Staff response to Eloise Stachowiak dated May 22, 2014 Exhibit 29: Request for Reconsideration of the ERC Determination dated April 16, 2014 filed by Roger Paulsen Exhibit 30: ERC Response to Request for Reconsideration dated May 19, 2014 Exhibit 31: Affidavit of Mailing of ERC Response to Request for Reconsideration Exhibit 32: Letter to Roger Paulsen from CED dated May 22, 2014 Exhibit 33: Email from City Arborist dated April 30, 2014 HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development. Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL RY PLAT LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 3 of 13 C. GENERAL INFORMATION. Sally Lou Nipert 1. Owner(s)of Record: 14004156 th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Road Bothell, WA 98012 2. Zoning Designation: Residential—4 du/ac(R-4) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density(RLD) 4. Existing Site Use: Contains one single family residence and a detached garage. S. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Single Family Residential(R-4 zone) b. East: Single Family Residential(R-4 zone) c. South: Single Family Residential(R-4 zone) d. West: Single Family Residential(King County R-4) 6. Site Area: 328,129 SF (8.8 ac) D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5099 11/01/04 Pre-zoning—East Renton N/A 5254 01/17/07 Plateau Annexation N/A 5398 08/11/08 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities a. Water: Water service will be provided by Water District#90. b. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. c. Surface/Storm Water: There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 156th Avenue SE to the north of the project site. 2. Streets:There are no street frontage improvements along 156th Avenue SE. 3. Fire Protection:City of Renton Fire Department HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Commrtnity& Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL ?YPLAT LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 4 of 13 =F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE. 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070:Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations b. Section 4-4-130:Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 3. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060:Street Standards 4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan—General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets—General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks—General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots—General Requirements and Minimum Standards S. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. Chapter 11 Definitions =G- APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element H. FINDINGS OF FACT., 1. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat in order to subdivide an 8.8 acre site into 31 single family lots, one stormwater tract (Tract A), and one open space tract (Tract B). The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 du/ac. 2. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on February 27, 2014 and determined it complete on March 10, 2014. The project complies with the 120- day review period. 3. The proposed plat would be located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143`d Street at 14038 156th Avenue SE. 4. The property is in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Residential-4 (R-4) zoning classification. Lands in the RLD designation are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4 du/net acre,to its inventory. 5. The project site is comprised of a total of three parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and 1423059057. A Lot Line Adjustment (City of Renton File No. LUA14-000250) was submitted concurrently with the preliminary plat application. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat. HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Comm,inity&Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL CRY PLAT Noe LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:lune 24,2014 Page 5 of 13 6. The proposed subdivision would result in 31 lots ranging in lot size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet, one 32,174 square foot stormwater tract (Tract A) and one 490 square foot open space tract(Tract B). 7. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. 8. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 9. The current site contains 303 significant trees of which 57 are determined to be dead and/or dangerous by the applicants Arborist, 46 would be located in the proposed roadway and 35 are proposed to be retained. 10. The site is rectangular in shape. 11. The following table identifies the proposed approximate dimensions for Lots 1-31: As Proposed Lot Size Width Depth Lot 1 8,190 SF 70 feet 117 feet Lot 2 8,190 SF 70 feet 117 feet Lot 3 8,986 SF 76 feet 117 feet Lot 4 12,566 SF 70 feet 123 feet Lot 5 8,346 SF 70 feet 101 feet Lot 6 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 7 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 8 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 9 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 10 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 11 8,051 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 12 10,479 SF 101 feet 105 feet Lot 13 11,170 SF 94 feet 115 feet Lot 14 9,266 SF 82 feet 114 feet Lot 15 8,398 SF 73 feet 115 feet Lot 16 8,625 SF 75 feet 115 feet Lot 17 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 18 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 19 9,251 SF 80 feet 115 feet Lot 20 9,264 SF 82 feet 115 feet Lot 21 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 22 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 23 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 24 8,683 SF 75 feet 115 feet Lot 25 9,533 SF 82 feet 115 feet Lot 26 9,158 SF 82 feet 115 feet Lot 27 8,683 SF 75 feet 115 feet Lot 28 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 29 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 30 8,050 SF 70 feet 115 feet Lot 31 9,539 SF 82 feet 115 feet Storm Drainage 32,174 SF - - Tract A HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Comms pity& Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL ,2Y PLAT Nme LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24, 2014 Page 6 of 13 Open Space Tract 490 - - Tract B 12. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avevnue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. 13. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. 14. A wetland report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (Exhibit 16) (dated February 3, 2014) was submitted with the project application.There are no critical areas on site. 15. The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6) submitted with the application includes the installation of street trees within a proposed 8-foot planter along all street frontages. A 10-foot wide onsite landscape strip is proposed along the frontage of all lots and a 10-foot wide landscape strip is also proposed around the storm drainage tract A. Vegetation proposed includes: Red Maple, Flowering Pear, Katsura, Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, Vine Maple, Himalayan Birch, Maple, Ash, Rockrose, Euonymus, Orange Sedge, Dwarf Ft. Grass, Evergreen Huckleberry, Lavender, Heavenly Bamboo, Oregon Grape, Pacific wax myrtle, Evergreen Azalea, Blue Oat Grass, Maiden Grass, Emerald Green Arborvitae, Heather, Kinnikinnik, and lawn. 16. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) have been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. 17. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 14) infiltration on the site or individual lots is not feasible. 18. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA(RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on March 31,2014,the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M)for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat(Exhibit 17).The DNS-M included one mitigation measure.A 14-day appeal period commenced on April 4,2014 and ended on April 18, 2014. 19. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measure with the Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated: 1) Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5, 2014). 20. A Request for Reconsideration was filed of the ERC Determination on April 16,2014(Exhibit 29). 21. The Environmental Review Committee revised the Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated (DNS- M) on May 19, 2014 to add an additional mitigation measure (Exhibit 30). A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 23, 2014 and ended on June 6, 2014. An appeal of the DNS-M was filed on June 5, 2014. 22. Based on a review of the Request for Reconsideration, the ERC issued the following mitigation measures with the revised Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated: HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Commi—ity&Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL �6. ,Y PLAT LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 7 of 13 1) Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2) Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 23. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development.These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report. 24. Staff received two citizen comments during the 14 day public comment period (Exhibits 20 and 21) and a third after the comment period had ended (Exhibit 27). On April 9, 2014, April 14, 2014, and May 22, 2014 staff responded to the citizen comments(Exhibits 22,23,and 28). 1. CONCLUSIONS: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated Residential Low Density(RLD)on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies if all conditions of approval are complied with: Policy LU-147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for ✓ residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. Policy LU-157. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 ✓ units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Policy CD-12. Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along streets in established ✓ neighborhoods, where sidewalks have not been previously constructed. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic and, where practical, match existing sidewalks. Policy CD-15. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and/or responding ✓ to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. ✓ Policy CD-17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. 2.COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION: The subject site is classified Residential-4 du/ac (R-4) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. RMC 4-2-110A provides development standards for development within the R-4 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are complied with: Density:The maximum density permitted in the R-4 zone is 4.0 dwelling units per net acre. ✓ All fractions which result from net density calculations shall be truncated at two (2) numbers past the decimal (e.g.,4.5678 becomes 4.56).Calculations for minimum or maximum density which result in a fraction that is 0.50 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Commi-ity& Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL 'Y PLAT ,� LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:lune 24, 2014 Page 8 of 13 number. Those density calculations resulting in a fraction that is less than 0.50 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number. Staff Comment: After subtracting approximately 79,419 square feet of road for proposed right-of-way dedications; the net square footage of the site is 303,707 square feet (6.97 net acres). The 31 lot proposal would arrive at a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (31 lots/6.97 acres = 4.45 du/ac), which falls within the permitted density range for the R-4 zone. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-4 zoning designation is 8,000 square feet. A minimum lot width of 70 feet is required for interior lots and 80 feet for ✓ corner lots. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 80 feet. Staff Comment: As demonstrated in the table above under finding of fact 11, all lots meet the requirements for minimum lot size, width and depth. Setbacks:Setbacks in the R-4 zone are the following: front yard is 30 feet; a side yard along the street is 20 feet; interior side yard is 5 feet;the rear yard is 25 feet. Staff Comment:An existing single family residence and detached garage are located on the ✓ project site and are proposed for removal. The setback requirements for the new residences would be verified at the time of building permit review. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a demolition permit be obtained and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed building lot coverage for ✓ lots over 5,000 SF in size in the R-4 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 SF,whichever is greater. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 55 percent. Staff Comment: The building standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. Landscaping: Ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4-070. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Street trees and, at a minimum, groundcover are to be located in this area when present. Where there is insufficient right-of-way space or no public frontage, street trees are required in the front yard. A minimum of two (2) trees are to be located in the front yard prior to final inspection. In addition, per an Administrative Interpretation (effective date February 4, 2013) (Exhibit Partial 24) a minimum 15-foot wide landscaping strip around the outside of the fenced stormwater Compliance detention tract (Tract A) is required unless otherwise determined through the subdivision review process. Staff Comment:As proposed the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6) does comply with the 10 foot wide on-site landscape requirement along street frontages.A 10 foot wide landscape strip is proposed around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A), which is less than the 15 foot wide requirement. However, if the proposed subdivision were required to include the 15 foot wide landscape strip, this would result in a loss of at least one lot. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to install a 10 foot wide landscaped visual barrier around the outside perimeter of the stormwater detention tract in lieu of the required 15 foot wide landscaping strip. The applicant has proposed to install Red Maple trees in the planting strip along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, Flowering Pear trees in the planting strip along the east/west frontages HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Comms -;fy&Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL. ,Y PLAT LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 9 of 13 of Roads A and B, and Katsura trees along the north/south internal access road located on the east side of the project site. As such, all lots would have trees along the frontage, therefore staff recommends approval of eliminating the requirement for trees in the on-site landscape strips along all frontages. However, the requirement for a mixture of shrubs and ground cover would still be required and is shown on the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6). Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10 foot landscaped visual barrier around the outside perimeter of the storm drainage tract(Tract A). The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat.Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two ✓ vehicles. Staff Comment: Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. 3.COMMUNITY ASSETS:The proposal is consistent with the following community asset requirements if all conditions of approval are complied with: Tree Retention: RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. Staff Comment: The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, detached garage and associated gravel driveways. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or ✓ replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. The trees identified for retention are located along the eastern boundary of the project site. In order to retain these trees, the applicant has proposed to curve the roadway which terminates at the southern boundary of the project site (see further discussion below under Access). The City's Arborist has conducted a site visit and concurs with the applicant's arborist regarding the trees that are available for retention (Exhibit 33).A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application that verifies preservation of the all trees identified in Exhibit 4. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final tree retention plan be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 4.COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for the subdivisions. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with: Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road.Access may be by private access easement per the requirements of the street standards. Partial The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall not exceed nine feet (9') and Compliance double loaded garage driveways shall not exceed sixteen feet(16'). Staff Comment.Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road(Road A and B). The driveway width standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Commv-;ty& Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL, _,,jY PLATLUA14-000241,ECF,PP Age- Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 10 of 13 building and construction permit review. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are sold as individual lots, each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in a tree protection easement. Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees. The 23 trees proposed for removal (identified as trees 5406, 5408-5415, 6181-6185, 6234, and 6229-6231) have been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 15). The City's arborist has review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 4))and Tree Inspection Report(Exhibit 15) and concurs with the with the applicant's arborist regarding the trees located along the east property boundary that are available for retention. Staff recommends as a condition of preliminary plat approval that an easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. ✓ Staff Comment: There is one block proposed and it contains two tiers of lots, therefore the proposed preliminary plat complies with this requirement. Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Staff Comment. The following street improvements are required: • The current transportation impact fee is currently assessed at a rate of$1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. • A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City Partial code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53 foot wide right of way, with Compliance 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking.As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. • To meet the City's complete street standards,frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section,five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. • Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Comm-pity&Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL RY PLAT LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 11 of 13 • Tract B appears to be a 'spite'strip to prohibit any new lots created as a result of the future subdivision of parcel 1423059057, located to the northwest of the project site from gaining access to proposed Road A. This is not permitted, Tract B shall be required to be dedicated as right-of-way. The applicant provided Road Profile and Cross Section Details with the application(Exhibit 10)which shows the required frontage improvements.A street lighting plan was not included with the preliminary plat submittal,staff recommends as a condition of preliminary plat approval that a street lighting plan be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer.Staff also recommends as a condition of approval that the plat map be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of- way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing :surrounding uses. ✓ Staff Comment: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated R-4 on the City's zoning maps and King County maps. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourages large lot development. S.AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES: Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant ✓ provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit.This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Schools: It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 156th Avenue SE & SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the ✓ City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application.The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot,will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. ✓ Staff Comment:A drainage plan (Exhibit 5)and drainage report(Exhibit 13)dated February 26,2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Commi,nity& Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL ,3Y PLAT NO-09 LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 12 of 13 Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2.All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level depending on downstream conditions.A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre- developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50%of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site.Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM.A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. A geotechnical report, dated February 4,2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (Exhibit 14).A SEPA mitigation measure(Exhibit 17) was imposed by the City's Environmental Review Committee(ERC)requiring that the project construction comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted geotechnical report(Exhibit 14). The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, the geotech recommends a contingency in the project budget be included to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. Water and Sanitary Sewer:Water service will be provided by Water District#90.A water availability certificate was submitted to the City.Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton.The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and extending the sewer main into the plat.The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line.The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay ✓ pavement restoration for at least half street.A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road,to the east property line (with a 10 foot sewer easement).A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub.System development charge (SDC)fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot.The current fee per lot based on%-inch or 1-inch water is$2,033.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit.This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. HEX Report 14-000241 City of Renton Department of Corr—nity& Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRET RY PLAT °ter' LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Hearing Date:June 24,2014 Page 13 of 13 [�J :RECOMMENDATIONS. Staff recommends approval of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, LUA14-000241, ECF, PP subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract(Tract A). 4. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 5. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained.Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 6. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained,as determined by the City Arborist. 7. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. S. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 9. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 10. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be.provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 11. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities,stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. HEX Report 14-000241 � � THE Ec EXHIBIT 2 - | § se lot�| | ■ , | � � . $ - ■ |§ ■ � � - , , ■ �® �» r( m • �° _._W ! keg | | \q ! 00 « _._ m § 2 | . » ` THE ENC►A%� EXHIBIT 3 t 144 =� •�`'t.a' s^ ';f.'r"' +7 fig, - :�i---1i I'• ,.I .?ms's. .mR �� �gib' c ;€'�S'r k•'%�`[;.`�'. � "- �, la I � t' �� ;i. :;A �' .. 'y�erns • -. ,tet-vRa� ,0y 1. t'_ J �. ,� I �w. I,I, .I" :SIV .,I _ ', �L!{ rmiyz•rrre' nwsTW r MI l �' ,y -� Vag='r'" .= - ?"- :',`•.a5 . . �. -._ 1 `�' %•��/I E ,r, �' i ..rs'f' 1 •� w. Z. '� -I - � r4m'A' 1 l I g r 'I.. I. II C ... •-.,_.I '!••=,s _' F.-�-{. 1' 1�+.�,. �. ' !-rel___. �� i- -- - , '� '� 1' -' "+E-�,.•,. 7�i '�2rA .._ s - p' il. Yt .. �°':, .st i,?rz .} "�.• K! � ;`�c0; ' i~O i CIO Tel Al I /tiA., I �� I ..;� n l�a'I I 1 i �'- i 1.T:'- r�k:• '�,:',9 �` by.��; o? rn y�3� - r� r^;�. - sem`. "-'"'� •• �:r � v. a m �e�`-_3%:.f` O!�t .tj ,fi S zzzzz oZ::28:CIIs [ :r sE V J 5ggsRRRRRRRRRRRRRos-rE 'ti�t 1{ jF lil lig Rd xgRF. 22 ijE{jfflf` I =,'IS 3M g a# e 1'gkk .. :., ^ ft < ROE- i 8 Lg-Ve= r I I �o SS l g z 9 y A ij £ w. EXHIBIT 4 THE ENCLAVE AT 8 I F II E ' '. _- �;^..•�-.,.rte—;- •1=r�-�?�;r�� �, '---�.-=Ri—-- —ate=— . �� ��_ � _y�i i )�,t � � ± � •.I his .. �r7/ � .z , V; a .::,,/ � c: � �".{n f.i✓' `�l { 0 p Z0 � 8 I I I I � i i I I r A z _< M. > �? tz; z > .z o "-°o O -� pn a a p� O yam' D �o z_ yg+� tE 9 }E e 3 -PA cl o A SV � Z � 10� ZEiPa �z ECC9CCC CCCCCCCCaC9CCCC9C96C9CCCCCCCC3 . . CCC@CCC @aCrCCCCC@9CCCCCCC9CCCCCCCCC ICCCCC6CC9CCC�CI�CICC1 CCCCCC9CCCC9C9�6C9CCCCC9CCC�CC 3CCCCCCC9CCCC� C9CCCCCCC�IC9CCC91000� � �� C:CCCICCCC6CCCC6CCC�CCC6C9C9@CC�CCCCCaCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCeCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC t.M. 111E!J!111 "'Yili 1 !V' �I F [P �U. 1! - �11E.jj. . i .7�-E��< �,�� r-aEc���:7.::::�:�k���� �.��C���.. �=��� :._-C � ��•1 uC t1111B �IItIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItl111111!IIIIIIIIIl111��fIIIIII01��G9�cllfllllllllllllllllff��llc����IIfIC IS: 311111 ttlllo Q �CCCCCCC�9CCCC4C�CCC���@CCICCC�C;9CC9C96CD�C6CCCCCC000CCCCaCCCCCCCC9�C�CC1oCCC�� C CCCC�CCCCCCCC 1 e�:C+ ,.��L F K_.�:�-C1t�,,'.::7E�_•� `��,L L .���N7�F�E ::L � t] .N�ER�L, L-ry��+�?':k3- � .3 �� �. G��� C� �al�„ . IIIII� �IIIIIIIIIIIiIfIlllllllllflllllllif@CIIIIIII1111111110�61�f II�lI�IIlIlilllllllllllllllllflGllllIII011 -@CCCCCC9CCCCC9C9CC9CCCCCC94C0CCCCCCCCC69C9CCCCCCCCCC9CE96CCCCCC9CCCCCCCOCC9C@CC9C@CC9@C ' CCC = C9CCC�C 0 6 C@ SIS 10,e :':, � [ _ !6� _�: 7 EcGa��LL�.a, ,•.�t E ��� cLkj: ,_'_ FE _lC _",t IS ISM11!"IM@SIS:IN:@@@6@@�����@��@�@@6@@@@@4@8@��6@@@����@�@@����@���@��0@����������@@�����E� THE ENCLA' EXHIBIT 5 girl fi g i 7 'C 4e .• �Jt' t` �T. Y . "c ry gym-,. „ lY1b _ `� �� •SSS ".'�� ' E �f't q u � H� 1 �,�gYA� ��' L F v ay ` :, `•- gam' .v _ :cNu � ''J N �.a4 j , ' 'F.� ¢ := mo vtd — iJ ✓ d & L} r*�M1 '' BJP K ' aern. �F � 'p' a V" L� F`x�� .(Y.y .' :fes.� :.,� .^� �c,���lyZ•04• �2: € � _-�- - •� 1�.'rl\-eft�•�"`�,;' �:i' �' -- - 'K ._- ����-•- fir'^-f�J-. � ,.�^`. z� ZO R m m o�z �?z Rv� .1m D ! � Z g � z s �•� � m � i '■�a�e -ca�.stla m� ta'��!!!3D'�i 'x..a..�ai�+,� �.��a,.+��' ���. - - Mrs- 1 21 p G�,C E•1..b-1 e1 7 I..1'J,1..•"'� 1� � aw a 7'-..f ��� t�■ i II If� �iil'e�'" I�s�1r'11"r� e'er•4�i�ca'...�.. � � � �� ' .� �.rw1 ♦J•.1 �!t �r N� K��! �• Goa•■/lya '�M \ no�''� °1�►-� �� � �� � `j/tea F - r i cc �tn� A�iS.u. .iii; .i►��'/.u�� .r►. '� -_ � ' ��� �^6y°���j�►T�ri��®a�i�► Sa lwnm s `►t�r� r'�i►��o� �i►��a.� _.`,'..�-F��sr�a�4�����i►���►�s`�rav� �` �� /A�`��°�������i►,�►� Ca 11E��� � � 5 wzxn Pull FIR �:a gid• I 1�5 a 11 �m ir �:�I fes ' • y\may ! I `g. �� �►,L `4,'����;. r�i\� lea its �--�� ____ a►`w•�.o.., �:t�l��l�� e��.T�:.fj l�ie ���i►�j�►��� �\ 9�0��64'�.>�►��. �►9.r, 3 �kf$� Iy+\ t�`0�S PJ�9SG�gG•f�-t♦1►�E 6 _ � `� � � � ' ,,11f,�MIi��1C� •� �. `.T� Ufa Ea afa�sa�shq�::`I�►(j �5e'eet °'Ne°'Ce°r����� F;1t1, s� til �irfl f ` IIFig gol BF 1 ` �r��l .r ♦-9r•��+si�r�� 6I`a I �}��i���3S."'r'�a>��� ,���� `'A�.�s`'.� � r / �S -• 1 1400, i------------------ . , Lo i t I / co Aj H ;i i C 'f \ _, ---_-_---__ -_-- ----------J :/�� -"-,•�''1 \ )ice/ hof \ `W �\/ l�.` �� ��� ■ cR � b z 94F�y�y� �� (■6 g�sld11l IN. l � � 3 9 L FL �i 9� � �V�NNNN Nl N NNN—p 33 �1 tJNN N NNNN � R R � T milmmFu fly () N N �a H N N �S PNW HOU91NG5 LLC �Y- M - `� 42" -- i_ I li jk : I , I / ilk r I Q O Qi O ` T � m 7lT - 73 �lt +� �2 m p �}c 3 la � P .y tT ♦15 TSN n CG 'S N � N aS PNW NOLniNGS LLC M MN -N� ENCLAV� at f3rMl FInG� ' wv+��.V+rIrVAT.rlw+w'wwYr�awmu.I M1VV�ue,r.vm .. �. THE ENCI EXHIBIT 7 .0; A- FA .,aO---' ZA Aa- Gi fAa:. ,•,• P"c�" II�. 'P I b¢�Q �. .___ Y W � 'J rvs FS�_ — *• . E r. '3"gg II '6 J�;%'M1'J. l"L �. ..f ,°rKllC l�{YI•� Q., . rd 1: a_ Y :-Am ate..RS•''!'`,�;�,�'-a- p all k 9 tr � Ri; �I � /!N Y �'I�' :Y �.�7 •v iJj ? ;�� +�Y.�'•• � ..4!�,•'d'' ,Qp� �.r fv .. p � "" t"� jY,:�: �$:' _: �N'�r�vl , n a v'`-Z'e�_,'�=�J`""a .'�; 'g��� W�C•+ €$a� 5". :. v-: '�y.�!rr+y vmenti" I ;.'' :+"x+91 Ak�. :�'��!.• �, -3e -OZ 3M Z_i Mull IE - Z"• ���� PIN RN Ut 91 M�4�i^ ry ..'��pig- qplat�P � 'I hi' Rpti ggggk-.4 ` Ri " Y� . El 1. . ' MIR it pill It 1111 ga o s lit' MIR 11 31, 44F Is. opt TE _� Y$ 3 C R�E wa+a.laryWvlJlr.s.l+`WYe-�.�..M Y1M,<s�rtia THE ENCI EXHIBIT 8 t & t ® ?f S ? i — �� #*v vE Rtp liq —J �'t• ��--- i -----I I�/ Y moi. �A S I .fes==.=-- - .'I i rte= '� 1"i��•t: � �� ��. 9 -•. I I r x'-I =_J •I_• "I s •'-_' i�!!vz-� , ur I �# 7�I 1' � /.. i' p 1 Y. ,y7�j u•' ; .r.:rte N �,•t`J. 1 ;��` k'3.�__Y,.i I� ��,���It II _ 3g Al [-: a Zl oo I I Z-n I 1 ! p I . RAS Z YDS oil D o � Z a4 g 0 ° � I D _ TME E EXHIBIT 9 qlsi � � . _� IFS Ali .��.` � s� LV���p� I�a3 � 1 Ij c � € •i, /I E� c � �\ IJ S ro 4 0�'V j 'T `r P w•, icz N\' F act f i f I � I I 1 •ry i �p. 3 "p H2 Fri �`4 ��� � � .ta �•• �' �:�. ',�%••Iii f ! r- ---+`- 'ml� +v .I =� -'_- -J� - I i-• ___�J :I-r�. Qf"e'-'A:,�` I� �I�I ' ', I• ��+y - 1 I:I j•t�I I• _ �I- I�- y,��, Il � !�* .,,�+fyi.c�7lp - ::�a � .4 �^,A I I I m 1 I .'"-. r i 1 ,-kas:'• I:i�1v � - f-;--- _� " N � � yl -_••- I ' � a. is r - N i�� $ v Moig`ra - J �w w:� 'f� .. ��r ��`^a :^:."� I,3t "�, �) 1 M• �� I/ �` I � (;,:[ :i L-ti a',j i 1 c I I ` RF-•'J"' ,t -�!:'.t''w J�—_ ��€._ � �,.�C�,�_� ...�..-�;�j, r —d:- Wit-----� � Y% �—`----- i;�.•=�t '�:-�:'d� ik Y n" -�K: r ti :`ice. F<�;:; -. •'v-`gym e mo Z-< 00 3 z-q #= � vi CD Aum 29= a; mr'I �I gc> !gam scc �-tm I 1 D � ' m Z z xo©z � g THE EN{ EXHIBIT 10 !!tlt g P6 �14le rn�, q 1�Aw06An AafM AIC SGS_ !�� fit VFW ! 1! 11 aVAN 2 ! ;�j M `• i j�2 c - - rr i i 1 o m o �Dy j {m D o � D Z P � s � e D _ NAME THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX-XXXX E m$ g U j I 3 4 m I i i 3 C-F—I $ F tr'g j,i j b I i ' '[l rn Lit' �` [ I 3 o i € � a �x rrj2 i 211 i -4 I4 D h i li / i i I i f/ I z0 I :A Z O� i I I I t V n mms Em gym D � z IttttoeraE sst 10+64 SM sir CFO m Z L THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX-XXXX f C Iq Jg NA YC KAW STA 18+64 gF S4F7 CB � i i � I I aass� i t ' t i I / — 4�`� m raar.s � i i I I I I g n nCa I [ I I f 9f4 i1181b I �� 1 I 1 i I � 616 i 33 I i k $ 16 rnn E 1 $ Z-n { 6a Q ! v -az I t qq m hs- , THE ENCLA EXHIBIT 11 SIX t > .,�J567fiAVESEJ � - 1 tap 4 �'[5�5:�'-' �•' �a �;S � �'�,r.��.,�� ^ - ��� sa• �; .. •`7� 'fes :' l'x, rrca ap a �•,�`�"" n � — ziz 16 1 YWW VE SE �rA �:�ZE cVTap;AIMS e 70c� 4a� gp2g4QdBaa� Oo z PIN Fs grm y < 'L �m V 9D0 ,Q—Im DSol I � m Z z ga z A -t> = EXHIBIT 12 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by rra ffij NOR !-/WEST RA FT/V XPCR7S 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522,4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED IcEB272014 OF AI PLAT NTNG DIVi$fUrV I *tow EXHIBIT 13 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for HE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156'h Avenue SE Renton,Washington A. J WAR ��d f o� �0 5232 I NAL DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC cD 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 FEB 2 7 2014 Mercer Island, WA 98040 - Report Prepared by C'TY0 RENT0N PLANNING D114SION D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, InG. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 . (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 GablldA r% a EXHIBIT 14 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES t February 5, 2014 L�' �.," w" In Ste en H. Avr�l� SarkGeologist NI k +r Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED ES-3220 FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 - 136 ' Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 'fir fid' EXHIBIT 15 Greenforest I ncorporat e. onl - iArborgs . 2/18/2014 EC.�TI ED Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC Clr( of RENT�M 9675 SE 36th St.,Suite 105 PLANNING DIMISION Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, &9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels.Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated.A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed,and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter(DBH),estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary(Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease.This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary)with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees,and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus,as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street,Seattle,WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 Noe Sewa EXHIBIT 16 27641 cc Coo IF February 3,'2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings,LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 RECEIVED Mercer Island,WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton FEB 2 7 2014 SWC Job#13-187 CITY O frZENS=ON PL ANNfNG DIVISION I.4 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands,streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge"plat,which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington(the"site"). _ Q v ` (2Mia1? ..f 1- 7DOM X9039023 000 9 s . 1 /631 Vicinity Map t %owr DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY _j EXHIBIT 17 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) j PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings,LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156'Ave SE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton I Environmental Review Committee Department of Community& Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW j 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under j their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental ' impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen(14)days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: April 4,2014 DATE OF DECISION: March 31,2014 SIGNATURES_ a Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator Mark Peterson,Administrator Public Works Department Date Fire& Emergency Services Date Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E."Chip"Vincent, dministrator Community Services Department Date Department of Comm nity& Date E Economic Development t • j DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EXHIBIT 18 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -- DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP I APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge I i PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located I within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet.to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would .be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single. family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures i are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on j the project site. i PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156th Ave SE I I LEAD AGENCY. The City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Planning Division I MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5, 2014). ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock(9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and j where no further construction work will occur within ninety(90)days.Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water j Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year.The Development Services Division's approval of this I work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. 'The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit:This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 j square feet(including garage and basements). if the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet,a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required.A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5- inch storz fittings.A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet•long.Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water.. 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from Water District#90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. f Sewer 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 1561' Ave SE near the intersection with SE 140 Street and ext6ending the sewer main into the plat_ The project is required to extend the sewer main along 15611 Ave SE up to the north property fine.The extension of the sewer main from the south on 15e Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street.The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156"'Ave SE up to the north property line_ 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line(with a 10-foot sewer easement).A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated flee for sewer is$53,023.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4.. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is$438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid.' 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot.Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. Surface water: '. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 4 1 { 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in I accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. AEI core and six special requirements have been discussed in the j report.The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the E Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition.The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition,extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to,help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report,dated February 4,2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC.The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content,the'geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is$1,228.00 per new lot Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit.Estimated storm fee is$36,840.00. 4_ A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. j f Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot.The transportation impact fee that is current at the time- of building permit application will- be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013,was provided by Traffix Northwest.The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips.Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak I hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips,with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each.approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the I City's complete street standards,the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb,-gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE,the Cityy traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. to meet the City's complete street standards,frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8-foot ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 4 i planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section,five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required.It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench. restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be. included with the civil plan - submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals.All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special ' Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. I 7 i 1 I l i. . i• • i i ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 4 City Ofr EXHIBIT 19 NO- T1 [ CL : . OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OFA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OFAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTON - PROJECTNAME Endaw @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary plat - PROJECTNUMBER; LUA14.000241,ECF,PP LOCATION: 1403815641 Ave SE DESCRIPTION; Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 ace project site located within the R-4 (Re4dentlal4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and 81 and a now public steeL The proposed lots would range In size from It,=square feet to 12,556 square feet Access to the new Iota would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue M A lat - fine adjustment(LUA14-000 50)Is proposed between tax parcels 142 3 0 5 9 057 and 1423059=which MR result In 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being nen—ad from the proposed subdivision.The site is curtentty developed with two single family residences and a detached garage.An existing reside Is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057.All other strocbrres are proposed to be removed through the subdlvlsim process.No critical areas are present an the pmjectsite. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANTADY£RSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m.on April 18, 2014,together with the required fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton Qty Clerks Office,(425)430.6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL,1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY,RENTON,WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 22,2014 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE*CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,SHORT PLAT,ETC'. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART Or THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ' u 4 � t FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE IN CLU D E TH E PROJECT N UMBER•WHEWCALDNG FOR-PROP ER-FILE)DENTIFIG4TION. • liLl� ,)Thereby certify that- copies of the above document were p sted in—3—conspicuous places or nearby the descri property on Date: <'7-ig -Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON } SS COUNTY OF kING ) certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that A-Ly signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ``ttttt��\Nt{3lrt ' Dated: pv �loag% ,�t1� ; Notary P Ic in and forthe State of Washington Z. �otA ; R} Notary (Print): 14�� o itr s O T � (J ointment expires: �.�;n� ':x .`2.•a.;�'n'-u:d. �: �' .� ,..''.r � .�T�.�.`r.-..'�rei�x:�[i'.aw''^c'y�yl.,..,�:�-^�is:'v�.�=> oL'.x�rc..�'-7��'rx4}�su�.�t3�"ss�-.»�`��r'{""i--'.^}-�'r _����. �`�.� .K•�' , -,„-. q,�.5 "c..� .�'iY,`�.m::aii..gu ,`� �itc•�.="..x:n•�-sr.�my�--irycze����..: � .. �� ^, r„ _ ,s� _ _ _ „t���� a��:�k#-�~�s.5'i�. , -'�ia nifip-•7ma��'-bsFr..y� .:-1=cs�:..y�'L,`C.S�_ .':T ^, i;. ,gym ��+ � ,g�yt„�Ti�.;..a: r • 2•y � .ycrJ:ui� a. rSS._ ,...ii.`'u','1•.fiU� �.+r�1i'`•.' -'�J - tfT3f�t1 • y'tfZ��`�}• 2yT�• � s,]7�''y�'..J¢��/+ ..y�-C�1..•��r���'�..�'�k I."T-x •v.�5.���:�•i'-�. .i:r ni•�`" ''�-�� A�,Y131�3� �'�1� ��: I-�'�i:1'��..li:"'��.�•—.�-...r3-''.�13� ar, '3•'-i...er��i�S:�ci. :��.�_1Fa[:I�. .i. •' �6�r�exan��=:'"�11'n�-e�r<. -s '�Ah'. __ �Xia''�`•' � 6� .'tIC,.-- �'�•n •N-la•C ffi b«. �:`3'••v,�'.^J,.YI��..-�^'�t:_... . � ...m: -r .r, r.w...,:-. ......' .. .-.t :�.aLta�.�sss�xuGnr-�--ii.. LR'G.S'ifb::iF:?�..- "^.w=:.� ..�wrr+;�.e-.:�,'.,1.F.i:.i...-c"_ICi�i...L...r''.��-_._ On the 3rd day of April, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of.the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA determination documents.This information was sent to: . _�.._ Agencies See Attached See attached Owner,Applicant, Contact, Party of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING 1.1.Y p fits I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa M. McElrea "w,�`"►p���i�� signed this instrument and acknowledged itto be his/her/their free and voluntary act forAt 6,5es mentioned in the instrument. A'• '� 0,800 Dated: r." f O[Y 2g=17 -� �– �— Nota(gublic in and for the State of 171fa Notary(Print): My appointment expires: a r C) The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 template-affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept.of Ecology** WDFW-Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave.NW Suite 201 Attn:Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah,WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Auburn,WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region* Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn:Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev.Serv.,MS-240 Seattle,WA 98106-1514 39015172 ad Avenue 5E PO Box 330310 Auburn,WA 98092-9763 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp.of Engineers* KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn:Gretchen Kaehler Attn:SEPA Reviewer Ms.Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S.Jackson ST,MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia,WA 98504-8343 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers*** Depart.of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia,WA 98504-7015 KC Dev.&Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn:SEPA Section Attn:Steve Roberge Attn:Mr.Fred Satterstrom,AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave.SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev.Director Renton,WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle,WA 98059 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster,Responsible Official Gary Kdedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868,MS:XRD-01W Tukwila,WA 98188 Seattle,WA 98104-3856 . Bellevue,WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn:SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle,WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an"Optional DNS",the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,&Notice to the following email address:sepaunit(@ecy.wa.goy ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT, &Notice the following email address:sepacenterCcDdnr.wa.gov template-affidavit of service by mailing ie Enclave at Bridle Ridge 9 LUA14-000241 .PARTIES OF RECORD n4:e_..cr.:rF... »S.a - °tc'C- .�...n::.�=zm_.:a•�u: s{:r`s � ,tt�r��} xs4r �r�'��?S#�-:w ''! �• rex��:i• ?Fr�.^..� ��c! •i Sr-yte i4S m. ma�.g•a-r»�:�4m�m+a:,i._�e:w me -••:r, y�•- ire - r.'p� .s.:•u. c:fir^�'ix:.r—••c "�i^r_- '�_/�,' rCd tr ' +{{ ^�•[ ji�'�1. .^{.�y� 1 .,;E. a' iEt S tf}'yal°c �. 'ai:'}]kgl+i5c3m73:, sh"i S_ ..^7FYe�"' e�i� c":.' Nf '{c •.r-.E •3V S '..�c'xx:re..�:'r+ �e a...vi:.•Gw.`: .,t;.. 3Sd?::AG6�.i.,C�'::1,Y: C:.'�.�.•.•ca.. PNW Holdings LLC Maherloudi Richard Ouimet 9675 SE 36th St,105 D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers 2923 Maltby Rd Mercer Island,WA 98040 10604 NE 38th Pl,232 Bothell,WA 98012 (206)588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com Kirkland,WA 98033 .� :Hisi�.:.^"+'�-•�'Lxy,..r!s�- ...5..:.:.T, .:::•,_."��'i�'aEGi°,�:.•�,......, u�^n'.i:`_;;'`:..—•,.,_715`:�aea.. cna-x.Y. �c-•'�av':ea^'�5r54* r actt're ��..:..iSlris--:� .-.-r:,»..�,�..�i-:::_:';'a'ss -.:'...� _,s. �. r.:: r...•,'a'i�'Y•.::iudt^-�''L :u.•-4 -�.i.`•+•.� EF'-^_•'" .' a=�fS..Y.!_� s:�Y..1�'•••••_� -T� -% c "'e5#Sr• u•�t„""j;^ �:; ,:�'sts=.�..iia�•:saa.�l::a,.•�'�:. , ,<u .°a .iI•�ECq�• _ OWBeI';i+d;e?a.:to a,.... �''�.:_ •.�� e•, �.-."•e•_ �'d �p�•R2�OFX�:...- .�Si•aP.*= t� .:�r'i. �..ac:r- ,'may,' r� •-rr-'� 'ax"'' -..-.,..._....«,.-.;�.:rF•�ry?�_•tom'^K :����dt�:d33t;0p'C-�f:s:..'!,SCW»�a"�:?u.¢:.ri:.ss '�,-t�-:k:a.��f2xa:ciS'.'-.i�^-''r1.`si�.'��r. :�:�rr�!:r'i:�ri���-••��'�..^-^��•� ��.N�..,'^^'•`L. aatar�me,ua•'�f1L�� '1:2�'a'rld,'idk,.o: Sally Nipert M.A.Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI 14004 156th Ave SE 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE STH PI Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 (425)226-6594 (425)271-7837 .a{3._,..:.W'•"id•...:...y: n:_.. _....». X17"-..450,01TUE -wr_si9CtLF^ti".::3r.:,y,a, •z.. :^tt.- a....ee m•�' _ .. -+°-- `a.e,u.L.L-i_•:. 3 ' �'"'yi.i_1� e..s-a. a Pai#yso iecpr . ,r. ^ ? ,is ftto: ss _�+,.�•-;isuxt:,M.�:,�.-�..sty`-ih�J,e.�xra.r,...x�.'._:�:r.,..z���c'.3�. i�"3�ixc.xc � Roger Paulson Jason Paulson 6617 SE 5th PI 31 Mazama Pines Ln Renton,WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98333 (425) 228-1589 Page 1 of 1 David M EXHIBIT 20 6525 se Renton,Wa 98059 March 21,2014 Jill Ding,Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156 'Ave Se.Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the_.,t . traffic on 156"'ave se is unbearable, Coming out of any of the side streets off 156 'ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down,there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156"'. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented.I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see.Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? h �4� Sincerely, V&D � � QIP "ry\ . � 2 4 20,,4 David MichalskikovA, Qr rYPJII Dl.Ufcl op Email:dcmichal@msn.com ,V Ph#425-271-7837 March 22,2014 EXHIBIT 21 Ms.Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SEAT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Mifng ,rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms.Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project#LUA 14-00024 1,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M.Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current,the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5d'Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.)in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access.to 156th even more difficult. The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5"'Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project,and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has.been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existingresidents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. 1 a also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south)from the plat access streets,due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality,in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based.upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142'intersection,including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies,and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. . Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes,common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11.-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code),I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls,hawks,eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally,I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached)states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24`h deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determinationrp for to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further;the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided,but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Rentori code. Thus,anyone who comments before April 22nd,but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter,I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsengcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application Jilt Ding EXHIBIT 22 From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday,April 09,2014 6:38 AM To: 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' Cc: Rohini Nair Subject: RE:concerns:the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Dear Mr. Michalski, Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review.The City is aware of the delay at the 156th Avenue SE and SE 142"d Place intersection. Unfortunately,the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project.According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 2.3 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road,the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access.Widening 1-405(which the State is pursuing)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development to the City of Renton street system. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22,which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. If you have further comments or concerns, I encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again foryour comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner From: DAVID C MICHALSKI [mailto:dcmichal(dmsn.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP 1 EXHIBIT 23 Angelea Wickstrom From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, April 14,2014 6:46 AM To: 'Roger Paulsen' Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Mr. Paulsen, Thank you for your comments.They have been included in the file for official consideration by the decision maker. Below I have attempted to respond to the concerns raised in your letter. 1. In your letter you cite the proposed development's impacts on transportation. Per the submitted traffic study the current delay at the southbound approach to SE 142nd PI and 156th Ave SE is 94.8 seconds.The future delay without the project is anticipated to be 133.2 seconds and the future delay with the project is anticipated at 137.1 seconds.Therefore, it is anticipated that the traffic generated by the proposed project would result in an additional delay of 2.3 seconds. I also understand that you have concerns regarding the traffic heading northbound through the SE 142nd PI and 156th Ave SE intersection as it makes a right turn from SE 5th PI difficult. According to the submitted traffic study the northbound traffic at the SE 142nd PI and 156th Ave SE intersection is currently operating at a Level of Service (LOS) B and is anticipated to continue operating at a LOS B with the construction of the proposed project.The City's transportation department has reviewed the proposal and has concluded that the payment of a traffic mitigation fee by the project proponent would sufficiently mitigate the additional trips generated by the proposed project on the City's street system. 2. You also indicated in your letter that you would like the.opportunity to connect to the sewer being constructed with the proposed project. It is my understanding that the City cannot require the applicant to provide sewer to abutting properties. In order to gain access to the sewer being constructed,you would need to contact the developer(Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings Inc.253-405-5587).The City would then review any plans for additional connections. 3. You also noted that additional wildlife, not identified on the SEPA checklist is present on the project site.Thank you for this information. 4. You expressed concern that adequate public comment has not been provided for the project and that the City's notice of application is misleading.The posted notice of application is in compliance with RMC 4-8-090B.The notice advertised the 14 day public comment period on the project and also advertised the date of the public hearing.Any comments on the project not made during the public comment period can be made at the hearing, currently scheduled for April 22"d at 10:00 am. if you have any additional comments or concerns, I would encourage you to attend the public hearing on April 22 at 10:00 am in the Council Chambers as an opportunity for public comment will be provided at the hearing. Thank you again for your comments. Jill Ding Senior Planner From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:46 AM To: ]ill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair;jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 1 **MOO Jill, Please find attached an electronic copy of my comment letter for the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I'm sending this via e-mail while traveling in order to meet the March 24t' comment period deadline. I'll be entering an area of the country (southern Utah)where Internet access is unreliable. I'm copying my son, Jason Paulsen, on this is so he can address any questions or issues you may have if I'm unable to respond. Jason can be reached at jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication via e-mail to both Jason and me. Thanks!! Roger Paulsen --Original Message--- From: Jill Ding <JDing(a)_Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(c)-cs.com> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(c)Rentonwa.gov>; Lisa Marie McElrea<LMcElrea(a?_Rentonwa.gov>; Rohini Nair <RNair .Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 6:38 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Thank you for your email. Could you send us your mailing address so that we can add you as a Party of Record? The plan reviewer assigned to review the Enclave at Bridle Ridge for utility compliance is Rohini Nair. I have copied her on this email. I do not have her direct line, but she can be reached by contacting the front desk at 425-430-7200. I primarily work remotely. I do go into the office once a week on Thursdays from 10am-2pm. I will also be happy to answer any questions you have on this project via email. I will let Vanessa respond to your request for public records, as I am not sure if we grant them electronically. Thank you, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [rooerapaulsen(a)cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:41 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Fwd: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Jill, I'm forwarding an e-mail I had copied you on--but had your address incorrect. Hopefully this one works!! Roger Paulsen ---Original Message---- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(d-)cs.com> To:VDolbee<VDoIbee@Rentonwa.gov> Cc:jding <iding(a)-renton.wa.gov>;jasonmpaulsen <iasonmpaulsen(a.gmail.corn> 2 Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 10:37 pm V Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, This is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence regarding the project named"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", file number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP.(see below). Now that the project has officially been posted, I request to become a party of record. Attached is an electronic copy of the required form, with my contact information. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, I am traveling out of the area, and won't return until after the end of the comment period on March 24th. I am an adjacent property owner(parcel 9425200080), and this project is of vital interest_ I had arranged for my son (Jason Paulsen)to watch for official notice of the proposed development, and have been copied on Jason's correspondence with Jill Ding, of your department. Apparently Ms. Doing is out of the office on vacation until . March 20th, and was unable to assist Jason in obtaining an electronic copy of information on the project. I'm writing you in the hope that you can help. If possible, I'd like to receive an electronic copy of application materials and supporting studies pertinent to the SEPA decision so that I can comment prior to March 24th closing date. I am especially interested in reviewing the traffic study. I am quite willing to pay the reasonable cost of providing this information. Let me know the best way to provide payment. Now that the project application has been officially accepted.by the City, I'd like to pursue my question regarding sewer service. Can you tell me who I can/should contact to determine whether this project will provide an opportunity for adjacent properties to connect to the Renton Sewer system?? Thanks for any help you can providel 11 Roger Paulsen ----Original Message--- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(.Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(a�cs.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:28 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Yes you are correct, as long as you are the property owner. The City uses the King Co. assessors data to mail out to the 300 ft. surrounding neighbors, so whatever address the assessor have for tax purposes is where the City will mail the notice. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen [mail to:rogerapaulsen 5cs.coml Sent:Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:33 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, 3 *' Thanks for the update!! My wife and I will be away from home for the next 6 weeks,-so I won't be able to watch for the pink notice posters. Based on my conversation with Chris on Monday, I understand that we'll also receive a letter in the mail.because we are within 300 feet of the development. Is that correct?? Our property actually abuts the development. We're having our mail forwarded, so I should receive the notice in time to become a party of record, and submit comments on the project. I'm assuming my question about access to the Renton Sewer system will need to wait until the City has actually accepted the application. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger ---Original Message--- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsenQ_cs.com> Sent:Wed, Feb 12, 2014 12:25 prn Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, The name of the project based on your photos is "156th Ave. SE Assemblage" This project did go through the City's-pre-application process but has not been submitted to the City as an official application. The developer is required to install these public notices signs prior to application to the City. At this point in time we do not have an official application to add you to as a party of record. Please keep an eye on the big white sign, once you see a bright pink"notice" poster stapled to the front of the sign, the application has been submitted to the City for review. At this time please contact the identified person at the City that is noted on the pink"notice" sign requesting to be added to the party of records list. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen fmailto:rogerapaulsenacs.coml Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:15 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for getting back to meM Attached is a zip file with photos taken of the "Proposed Land Use"sign recently posted on the property. The address is 14038 156th Ave. SE. I believe the project number is 13117. 4 Does that help?? Roger ---Original Message--- From: Vanessa Dolbee<VDalbee(cDRentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(acs.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 5:23 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, I have searched the City's permit system for a project with the title "Enclave at Bridle Ridge° or a variation of this title. We do not have any records of a project with this name in our system. Can you please provide me a site address or tax parcel number so I can identify what project you are inquiring about. If you would like to become a party of record for any project, the City has to have an application to assign "you" to. In order to do this I need to identify what application you would like to become a party of record for. Thank you for the additional information. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen fmailto:rogerapaulsen(c)-cs.coml Sent:Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:09 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, By way of introduction, my wife and I live on the East Renton Plateau, adjacent to the NE corner of proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I had some questions about the development, and met yesterday with Chris in your department. He suggested that I forward one of my questions to you. Our property has a 50-year old septic system. It's currently functioning correctly, but 1 anticipate it's life is limited. I wonder if the new development will provide us an opportunity to connect to the Renton sewer system?? If you're not the right person to address this question to, please direct me to someone who can. Although we haven't yet been formally notified of the development, I would like to become a party of record. Can I do that via this e-mail?? If so, the following is.my contact information: Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th PL Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 RoaerAPaulsen cOcs.com 5 Thanks!!! Roger • 6 EXHIBIT 24 Gird of t C' � ' ".`• ..._.. - epartmer�t of Comment ar�d Ecc�lnom>Ic Deve�4pment - - ...;... flev lopment Seirufce Dt------ ADI INSTRAT E Pt3�1CYj 4DE INTERPRET ITE I ------------ MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water)Standards REFERENCE: N/A SUBJECT: Landscaping,fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. BACKGROUND: The current drainage code(RMC 4-6-030) references the current King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM)for compliance with stormwater standards. Requirements for landscaping in stormwater facility tracts are included in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Section 5.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM restricts planting in berms that impound water or within 10 feet of any structure. Requirements for pond geometry and side slopes are listed in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton.Adopted standards allow for the side slopes of an open detention or water quality treatment facilities(pond,wetpond, stormwater wetland, etc)to be steeper than 3:1 if a fence is provided along the wall and/or around the emergency overflow water surface elevation.This standard is resulting in facilities that are difficult to maintain,expensive in labor and materials for maintenance, and create a safety hazard to the maintenance crews. Fencing requirements are also standardized in section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton.A fence is required to discourage access to the stormwater pond, prevent litter, allow efficient maintenance, and in consideration of worker and public safety. JUSTIFICATION: Recognizing that requirements for landscaping and tree planting contribute to the aesthetics and value of new surface water installations while needing to ensure proper functionality and maintenance of facilities, both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community and Economic Development desire to clarify standards H.\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\C1-38\Code Interpretation.doc ***too EXHIBIT 24 City OU-; _ m y ti s � I �• �,, � fes_/�1` Department of Community and Economic Development Development Services Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards REFERENCE: N/A SUBJECT: Landscaping, fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. BACKGROUND: The current drainage code (RMC 4-6-030) references the current King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM)for compliance with stormwater standards. Requirements for landscaping in stormwater facility tracts are included in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Section.5.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM restricts planting in berms that impound water or within 10 feet of any structure. Requirements for pond geometry and side slopes are listed in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton.Adopted standards allow for the side slopes of an open detention or water quality treatment facilities(pond, wetpond, stormwater wetland, etc) to be steeper than 3:1 if a fence is provided along the wall and/or around the emergency overflow water surface elevation.This standard is resulting in facilities that are difficult to maintain,expensive in labor and materials for maintenance,and create a safety hazard to the maintenance crews. Fencing requirements are also standardized in section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton.A fence is required to discourage access to the stormwater pond, prevent litter, allow efficient maintenance, and in consideration of worker and public safety. JUSTIFICATION: Recognizing that requirements for landscaping and tree planting contribute to the aesthetics and value of new surface water installations while needing to ensure proper functionality and maintenance of facilities, both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community and Economic Development.desire to clarify standards H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\CI-38\Code Interpretation.doc pertaining to the landscaping requirements applicable to stormwater facilities. Concerns for public safety have also raised questions regarding the necessity of more extensive fencing requirements for drainage facilities as well as lesser side slopes for flow control and/or water quality treatment ponds. This interpretation is intended to provide guidance and consistency for projects currently under review. DECISION: Briefly,this determination clarifies: Fencing Requirements: All flow control and/or water quality treatment ponds shall be fenced. Fence material shall be six foot black or green coated chain link. Cedar or other materials may be installed only if owned and maintained by a private property owner or Home Owner's Association (HOA). Landscaping Requirements: Landscaping is required in those areas of the tract/easement that will not impact the functionality or maintenance of the facility. The fence shall be placed at the top of the berm with the maintenance access road in the inside of the fence; or 5 feet min from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road to allow access for proper maintenance of the facility. No landscaping shall be planted inside the fence line. Pond Geometry and Side Slope Requirements: Side slopes (interior and exterior)shall not exceed three (3)feet horizontal one foot (1)vertical. The full text of all clarified rules regarding fencing, side slopes, and landscaping in storm drainage facilities is attached as Attachment A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVAL Neil Watts UTILITY SYSTEMS DIRECTOR APPROVAL Lys Hornsby DATE: February 4, 2013 APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal—accompanied by the required filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner(1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057,425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the CI-38 Page 2 of 3 %Mr basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. CODE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT DETERMINATIONS: RMC 4-3-060, Drainage Standards; RMC 4-4-040 Fences and Hedges;4-7- 070, Description of Required Landscaping Types; Pages 5-1 and 5-2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Design Manual CI-38 Page 3 of 3 1%001 Attachment A 4-6-030 DRAINAGE(SURFACE WATER)STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: 1.The purpose of this Section is shall bete r ,.+„ and d,,,,, lep peliei , with . ,,,.++ the City's....,+,,.-,.euFses a-R4 to preserve t#e+x+-the City's watercourses by minimizing water quality degradation from by pevieus siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water, and to protect tFibutaFy+„ deyel ped and ,,Rdevelepna land from increased runoff rates and to ensure the safety of roads and rights-of-way. 2. It shall also be the purpose of this Section to reduce flooding, erosion, and sedimentation; prevent and mitigate habitat loss; enhance groundwater recharge;and prevent water quality degradation through permit review, construction inspection, enforcement, and maintenance iR eFdeF W p „+„the „ffer-Ai ,,,Rprr„f the FequiFepAe.,+s 3. It shall also be the a purpose of this Section to regulate the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) regarding the contribution of pollutants, consisting of any material other than stormwater, including but not limited to illicit discharges, illicit connections and/or dumping into any storm drain system, including surface and/or groundwater throughout the City that would adversely impact surface and groundwater quality of the City and the State of Washington, in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) 4. It shall also be the purpose of this Section to provide landscaping and fencing standards for surface water facilities that create attractive functional facilities that improve public safety. B.ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING AUTHORITY: The Administrator of the Public Works Department is responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section.All provisions of this Section shall be enforced by the Administrator or his or her designated representatives. (Ord. 5526, 2-1- 2010) 1 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 C.ADOPTION OF SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL: The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton, and hereby referred to as the Surface Water Design Manual, is hereby adopted by reference,with the exception ^{ referenEe Rteferenees 1, 2, 3, 4A,4B, 4B;713, 7C, 8F, 8G, 9 and 109f theTiRg Cew„ty SuFf ee Wat„F Design Manual aFe „„t -+r1epted One copy of the Surface Water Design Manual and the City of Renton's Amended Surface Water Design Manual shall be filed with the City Clerk iReludiRg nd.r e.pt--theFete. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) D.WHEN REQUIRED: All persons applying for any of the following permits and/or approvals shall submit for approval a drainage plan with their application and/or request: 1. Mining, excavation or grading permit or license; 2. Shoreline permit; 3. Flood control zone permit; 4. Subdivision; 5. Short plat; 6. Special permit; 7.Temporary permit when involving land disturbance; S. Building Permit; 9. Planned urban development; 10.Site plan approval; 11. Construction Permit; 12.Stormwater Permit; 13. Binding Site Plan; 2 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 "fir' `✓ 14. Any other development or permit application which will affect the drainage in any way.The plan submitted during one permit approval process may be subsequently submitted with further required applications.The plan shall be supplemented with additional information at the request of the Public Works Department..(Ord. 5526, 2-1- 2010) E. DRAINAGE REVIEW: 1.When Required:A drainage review is required when any proposed project is subject to a City of Renton permit or approval as determined under subsection D of this Section and: a. Would result in two thousand (2,000) square feet or more of new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface or new plus replaced impervious surface;or b. Would involve seven thousand (7,000) square feet of land disturbing activity; or c. Would construct or modify a drainage pipe or ditch that is twelve inches(12") or more in size or depth or receives surface or stormwater runoff from a drainage pipe or ditch that is twelve inches(12") or more in size or depth; or d. Contains or is adjacent to a critical area designation, defined and regulated in RMC 4-3-050; or e. Is a single family residential development that would result in new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface or new plus replaced impervious surface. 2.Scope of Review:The drainage review for any proposed project shall be scaled to the scope of the project's size,type of development and potential for impacts to the regional surface water system to facilitate preparation and review of project applications. If drainage review for a proposed project is required under subsection E1 of this Section,the Renton Development Services Division shall determine which of the following drainage reviews apply as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual: a. Small project drainage review (also known as residential building permit drainage review); b.Targeted drainage review; c. Full drainage review; d. Large project drainage review. 3 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 3.Core Requirements:A proposed project required to have drainage review by subsection E1 of this Section must meet each of the following core requirements which are described in detail in the Surface Water Design Manual. Projects subject only to small project drainage review(also known as residential building permit drainage review)that meet the small project drainage requirements specified in the Surface Water Design Manual, including flow control best management practices, erosion and sediment control measures, and drainage plan submittal requirements are deemed to comply with the following core requirements: (For brevity core requirements 1 through 8 not printed here but will remain in the code. 4.Special Requirements:A proposed project required by subsection E of this Section to have drainage review shall meet any of the following special requirements which apply to the site and which are described in detail in the Surface Water Design Manual.The City of Renton Development Services Division shall verify if a proposed project is subject to and must meet any of the following special requirements: a. Special Requirement 1—Other Area Specific Requirements:The Surface Water Utility may apply a more restrictive requirement for controlling drainage on an area-specific basis. Other adopted area-specific regulations may include requirements that have a direct bearing on the drainage design of a proposed project. b..Special Requirement 2-Flood Hazard Delineation: If a proposed project contains or is adjacent to a stream, lake,wetland or closed depression, or if other City regulations require study of flood hazards relating to the proposed project, the one hundred (100)year floodplain boundaries and floodway shall be determined and delineated on the site improvement plans and profiles and any final maps prepared for the proposed project.The flood hazard study shall be prepared for as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. c. Special Requirement 3—Flood Protection Facilities: If a proposed project contains or is adjacent to a stream that has an existing flood protection facility, such as a levee, revetment or berm, or proposes to either construct a new or modify an existing flood protection facility, then the flood protection facilities shall be analyzed and designed as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual to conform with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations as found in 44 C.F.R. d. Special Requirement 4—Source Control:All commercial, industrial and multifamily projects(irrespective of size) undergoing drainage review are required 4 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 to implement applicable source control in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and the Surface Water Design Manual. e. Special Requirement 5—Oil Control: If a proposed project is a high-use site, then oil control shall be applied to all runoff from the high-use portion of the site as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. f.Special Requirement 6—Aquifer Protection Area (APA): If a proposed project is located within the APA as identified in RMC 4-3-050, then the project must comply with drainage requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual and RMC 4-3- 050. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12-12-2011) F. CREATION OF TRACTS AND/OR EASEMENTS: 1. Method of Creation for City-Maintained Facility for New Residential Subdivisions with Drainage Facilities that Collect Public Runoff: New residential subdivisions must place stormwater flow control and water quality treatment ponds,vaults and other similar drainage facilities, along with the required perimeter landscaping in a separate stormwater tract granted and conveyed with all maintenance obligations(excluding maintenance of the drainage facilities contained therein)to the homeowners association. An underlying easement under and upon said tract shall be dedicated to the City for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein. The stormwater tract, including the landscaped area, must be owned by the homeowners' association. Each lot owner within the subdivision shall have an equal and undivided interest in the maintenance of the stormwater tract and landscaping features. Per RMC Section 4-6-030G,the homeowner's association is responsible for all landscape maintenance. This requirement is graphically depicted on the following page: 5 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 ........ ...... _.. ..-. . ..........---- ..__ .. ............ ....... ............. ......- �/ i /� Taal b-WW >✓1CR{9 Paap / G x r X Pond IrM Piw Ferae loraaon u required.Refer ro General tholes. b y Ni •V a:1 MINIMUM SIDE SLOPES.VERTICAL WALLS NIDNED, ?; F'ENCEREOtaREDONTOPOFYNLL sY ✓Saedaorals V 4,: S selbadcp9mnue haul kporloa alsbpe m tratl burtlgy. •X% warei aiera t • ;-' �, GENERAL NOTES: 1. F {, %.Y a Tnis dotal]so sobemagc rapresenlaaonony.Aoblal �/ configuration will very depending on specific she �• t ' v •` `E "d'i eonsasints and applicable design dwis. On slommvelar fakaTltes to be maintained by the City,It I L i 4 a � ':. 1.—shat be placed at the by of the bacon v b it. maintenance xcaac food m the Inside of the fence:OR 5 feet minimum from top of berm If there 1,no mandenance eruu road Wowing proper mamRnonec ofthe faddy. ;',z: •• No landscaping is.flowed inside ria fent: Landwaping shW be planted b szeordance with the -�,,' requuemenh Included In secgon 6,3.1 l if a KCS WDM which Prelude landscaping in arty beans that hrkpkxnd �i F;✓�.'=./ water"vANn 10 feet of any structure. r+X., Est—ad earthon gro pond bottom and Interior side slopes hal be sodded or asedded wen an eppreplial. Y+'• abucaae „F,y seed mbkwra AN remaining areas of she hack must be .,� ;.�,,:• seeded pWnled with gross mixtures approved urdertle ., �., •. I' t I '.'--': KCSMM as adopted- i .f>�!c',,(�r. ,„i}.•r All tress and other plantings shah cDni m to Ore K S KCSVVDM requirements and resulc9—ragardrg both overolher inhastruclure such as wafer.newer. i .•:.%Ay,'';. .��, :;•,.. .� power.etc P [. Fences shall be a feet In Height For example designs, —germs' F, sec YyEDOT Slmdaid Plan L-2 Type 1 or Type 3 chain :•spaWay rax wink'.::"`.^ _ _ ?i- � _ link fence. Y.t r - Far fence m be maintained by the City,fence maferol - '' f; ,••>: JX, �,a� .:�J shag ba 9 gauge galvanized a"febdcwhh bonded j.'••:k,F/,-/`:'• /.,-r.',.` .- ••VNYI Vinyl besting etin stool be zz fences elle(h the r8 eppgec Vinyl coatnq snail be sornpatlble wiP the `Y "' '.•..l < ' --ding enVimnmerrt A (e.9.glean In open,pussy areas and black.in or brown in wooden Areas),a0 OWNERSHIP OF STORM WATER TRACT ON RESIDENTWL DEVELOPMENTS: Posts,cross bars,and gales shall be painled.or vYhM landacaping Vn addIlion of bees)features are Imalad in atorrllwelor bats,madman.—of sap snared the same color as vinyl chain link tense. hat will be the respondblIty of the property owners wiNn the subdivision.The home owners •• Fence pont and mhs shall conform to%SDOT soclatlo..(HOA)whl be responsible for the maintenance of said siormwater bat exduding the Standard Plan L-2 Types 1,3,or 4 haln It*farce, drainage fadifles contained therein.A roto that assigns each property owner as having equal and • blond tents are Wowed in subdivisans where the fence undivided inletestover the maintenance of ger slo—ler Uad saW be paced in the find plot An will be maintained by Fromeowrrers aasocini ons or ovedykrg easement under and upon said drainage tract shall be conveyed to the Cay of Remora for ale adj.-.1 lot owners er in private---let orindusbiai purpose of operatbrg,m9intaining,improving,replacing and keeping in good repair Ite drainage Wes whore the fence w91 be privately maintained The fadmes wntalnad[herein, w..df—shag be plated on private property., •• Wood fences(when allowed by the City)shall have pressure treated post(ground contest rated)ehher sal N 24-incl deep—crele 0wrings w atached b � toolings by galvanized bmckela.Raps and fence ro LANDSCAPING ALLOWED PER SECTION 5.3.1 OF THE KCSWDW boas shall be radar or preewroaraled firer hemlock • SOD OR SEED VNTH APPROPRIATE SEED MDTURE. The elope and fening requiemMts in thv dotal – =-- cup—des the raquiremanta listed fn the Chy adopted ONLY GRASS AND/OR SMALL SHRUBS MAY BE ALLOWED. Sulfate Water Dssign Manual i Y LANDSCAPING,TREES, STD. PIAN — 234.30 a= PUBLIC WORKS POND GEOMETRY Aid® —ems DEPARTMENT FENr-ING STANDARDS APRIL. 2012 i 6 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 � rrr b.Text Required: The following language is required to be noted on the face of the plat. L Tract is for stormwater/landscape purposes and is hereby conveyed /to the subdivision home owners association (HOA) upon the recording of this plat. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract .An overlying easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the facilities contained therein.The homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance of said tract excluding said drainage facilities. ii. A stormwater easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton over, under and across tract for the purpose of conveying, storing, managing and facilitating storm and surface water.The City of Renton is hereby granted the right to enter said stormwater easement for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, improving, and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein. Only the chain link fence (if required by subsection G of this section), flow control,water quality treatment and conveyance facilities will be considered for formal acceptance and maintenance by the City. Maintenance of all other improvements and landscaping in said stormwater tract shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided interest in the maintenance of all other improvements constructed within Tract 2. Method of Creation for Privately Maintained Facility: As determined by the City, other types of new development shall create stormwater facilities either within an easement or within a tract not dedicated to City. In the case of a tract, the developer and successors shall own the tract and associated development site with an equal and undivided interest. 3. Method of Creation for Other Developments: As determined by the City,the City may take over maintenance of the drainage facilities located within either an easement to the City or within a tract owned by the developer and his successors in ownership together with an easement to the City• 7 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 .+ ''M► G. ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCING AND LANDSCAPING: 1. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be consistent with the provisions of section 5.3 of the KCSWDM, except that within the City of Renton, landscaping of drainage facilities is not optional, it is required. Additionally, landscaping shall comply with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070F8,Storm Drainage Facilities. 2. Fencing Around New or Expanded Storm Drainage Ponds and Signage Required: All flow control and water quality treatment ponds and similar facilities as determined by City Development Services, shall be fenced with a 6-foot tall chain link fence and access gate. Fencing is required immediately outside each new stormwater flow control and/or water quality treatment pond and other similar facilities as determined by City Development Services. For stormwater ponds the fence shall be placed at the top of the berm with the maintenance access road on the inside of the fence• or 5 feet minimum from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road to allow access for proper maintenance of the facility. The chain link fence shall be coated with black or green bonded vinyl and installed as determined by the City between the facility and the required landscaping Unless otherwise determined by the City,the fence gate must be posted with a 12 inch by 18 inch "No Trespassing"sign. Cedar or other fencing materials may be installed only if owned and maintained by a private property owner or homeowner's association (HOA). 3. Maintenance of Existing Facilities Required: Owners of existing drainage facilities not maintained by the City are required to continue to maintain existing landscaping and fencing. Replacement of deteriorated fencing and failed plantings is required HF-. REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW: All persons applying for drainage review as specified in subsection E1 of this Section shall submit to the Development Services Division all engineering plans for review in accordance with the Surface Water Design Manual.The drainage plan and supportive calculation report(s)shall be stamped by a professional civil engineer registered and licensed in the State of Washington. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) Ira. ADOPTION OF STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL(SPPM): The 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual (SPPM), as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton, and hereby referred to as the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, is hereby adopted by reference. One 8 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 copy of the manual shall be filed with the City Clerk including any amendments thereto. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) J#. DISCHARGE PROHIBITION: 1. Prohibition of Illicit Discharge: Materials,whether or not solids or liquids, other than surface water and stormwater shall not be spilled, leaked, emitted, discharged, disposed or allowed to escape into the storm sewer and/or drain system, surface water, groundwater,or watercourses. (For brevity, subsection a through a not printed here, but will remain in the code.J 2. Prohibition of Illicit Connections:The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of any connection identified by the Administrator or designee,that may convey any pollution or contaminants or anything not composed entirely of surface water and stormwater, directly into the MS4, is prohibited, including without limitation, existing illicit connections regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. 3. Remedy: a.The person and/or property owner responsible for an illicit connection and/or illicit discharge shall initiate and complete all actions necessary to remedy the effects of such connection or discharge at no cost to the City. b. If the person responsible for an illicit connection or illicit discharge and/or the owner of the property on which the illicit connection or illicit discharge has occurred fails to address the illicit connection or illicit discharge in a timely manner,the Administrator or designee shall have the authority to implement removal or remedial actions following lawful entry upon.the property.Such actions may include, but not be limited to: installation of monitoring wells; collection and laboratory testing of water,soil, and waste samples; cleanup and disposal of the illicit discharge,and remediation of soil and/or groundwater.The property owner and/or other person responsible for the release of an illicit discharge shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the Public Works Department or its authorized agents in the conduct of such remedial actions and shall be responsible for City expenses incurred due to the illicit connection or illicit discharge, including but not limited to removal and/or remedial actions in accordance with RMC 1-3-3. c. Compliance with this subsection#shall be achieved through the implementation and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual.The Administrator or 9 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 designee shall initially rely on education and informational assistance to gain compliance with this subsection#, unless the Administrator or designee determines a violation poses a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare, endangers any property and/or other property owned or maintained by the City, and therefore should be addressed through immediate penalties.The Administrator or designee may demand immediate cessation of illicit discharges and assess penalties for violations that are an imminent or substantial danger to the health or welfare of persons or danger to the environment. 4. Elimination of Illicit Connection and/or Illicit Discharge: a. Notice of Violation: Whenever the Administrator or designee finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this Section, he or she may order compliance by written notice of violation to the property owner and/or responsible person, by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested. Such notice may require without limitation: i.The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting by the violator; ii. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; iii.That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall immediately cease and desist; iv. The abatement or remediation of stormwater pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; and v.The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs.Any person responsible for a property or premises which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and nonstructural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system and/or waters of the State.These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit. b. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Connection:The Administrator or designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested,to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit connection, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit connection to the MS4 that the connection must be terminated by a specified date. 10 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 c. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Discharges:The Administrator or designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit discharge, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit discharge to the MS4,whether it be surface water and/or groundwater,that the discharge must be terminated by a specified date. d. Sample and Analysis: When the Administrator or designee has reason to believe that an illicit connection is resulting in an illicit discharge,the Administrator or designee may sample and analyze the discharge and recover the cost of such sampling and analysis from the property owner or person responsible for such illicit connection or discharge pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, as now or as hereafter may be amended, and require the person permitting or maintaining the illicit connection and/or discharge to conduct ongoing monitoring at that person's expense. e. Right of Appeal from Administrative Decision:Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision of the Administrator or designee may appeal such decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. f. Any illicit connection and/or illicit discharge as set forth in this Section or the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual is hereby declared to be a nuisance pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, and as defined in RMC 1-3-4A11c (23). 5. Reporting Requirements: a. In the event of an illicit discharge or spill of hazardous material into the stormwater drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the emergency dispatch services(911). b. In the event of an illicit discharge of nonhazardous material into the stormwater drainage system or waters of the City,State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the Public Works Department by phone at 425-430-7400, or in person. 6. Inspections, Investigation and Sampling:The Administrator or designee may lawfully enter property to inspect the facilities of any person to determine compliance with the requirements of these regulations. a.Access: 11 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 Noe i.The Administrator or designee shall be permitted to lawfully enter and inspect sites subject to regulation under this Chapter and Section as often as may be necessary to determine compliance herewith, at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspections, sampling or records examination. ii.The Administrator or designee shall have the right to set up on the property necessary devices to conduct sampling, inspection, compliance monitoring, and/or metering actions. b. Compliance with Inspection Report:Within thirty(30) days of receiving an inspection report from the Public Works Department,the property owner or operator shall file with the Department a plan and time schedule to implement any required modifications to the site or to the monitoring plan needed to achieve compliance with the intent of this Chapter or Section or the NPDES permit conditions.This plan and time schedule shall also implement all of the recommendations of the Department. 7. Record Retention Required: All persons subject to the provisions of this Section shall retain and preserve for no less than five 5 thfew&( years any records, books, documents, memoranda, reports, correspondence, and any and all summaries thereof, relating to operation, maintenance, monitoring,sampling, remedial actions and chemical analysis made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any illicit connection or illicit discharge. All records which pertain to matters which are the subject of administrative or any other enforcement or litigation activities brought by the City pursuant to this Code shall be retained and preserved by the person until all enforcement activities have concluded and all periods of limitation with respect to any and all appeals have expired. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) Kf. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 1. Process:All storm drainage plans and supportive calculations shall be prepared in connection with any of the permits and/or approvals listed in subsection D of this Section shall be submitted for review and approval to the Development Services Division. 2. Fees: Fees shall be as listed in o^er n , 3,809the City of Renton Fee Schedule Brochure on file with the City Clerk's Office. 3.Additional Information:The permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or designee. 12 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 4.Tests:Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of this Section or Code, or evidence that any material or construction does not conform to the requirements of this Section or Code, the Administrator or designee may require tests as proof of compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified by this Section or Code or by other recognized test standards. If there are no recognized and accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, the Administrator or designee shall determine test procedures.Suitable performance of the method or material may be evidence of compliance meeting the testing requirement. (Ord. 5526,2-1-2010) I.J. BONDS AND LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED: The Development Services Division shall require all persons constructing drainage facilities pursuant to RMC 4-6-030,except for single family residential lots, to post with the City of Renton a surety, cash bonds, assignment of funds or certified check in the amount equal to the estimated cost of construction calculated using the Bond Quantity Worksheet as described in the Surface Water Design Manual. 1. Construction Bond: Prior to commencing construction,the person constructing the drainage facility shall post a construction bond in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of conforming said construction with the approved drainage plans. In lieu of a bond, the applicant may elect to establish a cash escrow account with his bank in an amount deemed by the City of Renton to be sufficient to reimburse the City if it should become necessary for the City to enter the property for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating hazardous conditions relating to soil stability and/or erosion.The instructions to the escrowee shall specifically provide that after prior written notice unto the owner and his failure to correct and/or eliminate existing or potential hazardous conditions and his failure to timely remedy same,the escrowee shall be authorized without any further notice to the owner or his consent to disburse the ' necessary funds to the City of Renton for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating such conditions complained of.After determination by the Department that all facilities are constructed in compliance with the approved plans, the construction bond shall be released. 2. Maintenance and Defect Bond(required only for those facilities to be maintained and operated by the City of Renton):After satisfactory completion of the facilities and prior to the release of the construction bond by the City, the person constructing the facility shall commence a two (2)year period of satisfactory maintenance of the facility. A cash bond, surety bond or bona fide contract for maintenance and defect with a third party for the duration of this two (2)year period, to be approved by the City of Renton and to be used at the discretion of the City of Renton to correct deficiencies in said maintenance affecting public health, safety and welfare, must be posted and 13 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 maintained throughout the two (2)year maintenance and defect period.The amount of the cash bond or surety bond shall be in the amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the estimated cost of construction for a two (2)year period calculated using the Bond Quantity worksheet as described in the Surface Water Design Manual. The owner of the property shall throughout the maintenance and defect period notify the City in writing if any defect or malfunction of the drainage system has come to his or her notice. Failure to notify the City shall give the City cause to reject assumption of the maintenance of the facility at the expiration of the two (2)year maintenance and defect period, or within one year of the discovery of the defect or malfunction of the drainage system,whichever period is the latest in time. 3. Liability Policy: Before a permit shall be issued for any construction, insurance will be required as follows: a. Duration and Limits: The applicant shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of the permit commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence/two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) aggregate. b. Additional Insured: Copies of such insurance policy or policies shall be furnished unto the City with a special endorsement in favor of the City with the City named as a primary and noncontributory additional insured on the insurance policy and an endorsement stating such shall be provided to the City. c. Cancelation Notice Required: The policy shall provide that it will not be canceled or reduced without thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City. d. Waiver: Upon showing of a hardship and at the discretion of the Administrator or designee,the insurance requirements may be reduced or waived for single family or two-family residential applications. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12- 12-2011) Mg. MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES: 1. Drainage Facilities Accepted by the City of Renton for Maintenance: a. Responsibility for Maintenance of Accepted Facilities: The City of Renton is responsible for maintenance, including performance and operation of drainage facilities inside the{^^^^that have formally been accepted by the Administrator. The City will also maintain any chain link fence surrounding accepted drainage facilities if the fencing is required per subsection G of this section. All landscaped areas, wooden fencing, or fencing constructed for a purpose other 14 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 than safety within the tract, must be maintained by the property owners/homeowners' association.The following language is required to be noted on the face of the plat. i. Tract is for stormwater/landscape purposes and is hereby conveyed/to the subdivision home owners association (HOA) upon the recording of this plat. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract .An overlying easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the facilities contained therein.The homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance of said tract excluding said drainage facilities. H. A stormwater easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton over, under and across Tract for the purpose of conveying, storing, managing and facilitating storm and surface water.The City of Renton is hereby granted the right to enter said stormwater easement for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, improving, and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein. Only the chain link fence (if required by subsection G of this section), flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance facilities will be considered for formal acceptance and maintenance by the City. Maintenance of all other improvements and landscaping in said stormwater tract shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided interest in the maintenance of all other improvements constructed within Tract b. City Assumption of Maintenance Responsibility for Existing Facilities: The City of Renton may assume maintenance of privately maintained drainage facilities, including the perimeter fencing, after the expiration of the two (2)year maintenance period in connection with the subdivision of land if the following conditions have been met: i.All of the requirements of subsection E of this Section have been fully complied with; ii.The facilities have been inspected and any defects or repairs have been corrected and approved by the Department prior to the end of the two (2) year maintenance period; 15 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 �✓ S"NO'. iii.All necessary easements entitling the City to properly maintain the facility have been conveyed to the City; iv.The facility is constructed on a plat with public streets and located on tracts or easements dedicated to the City; and v. It is recommended by the Administrator and concurred in by the City Council that said assumption of maintenance would be in the best interests of the City. c. Facilities not Eligible for Transfer of Maintenance Responsibility: A drainage facility which does not meet the criteria of this subsection shall remain the responsibility of the applicant required to construct the facility and persons holding title to the property for which the facility was required. 2. Drainage Facilities Not Accepted by the City for Maintenance: a.The person or persons holding title to the property and the applicant required to construct a drainage facility shall remain responsible for the facility's continual performance, operation and maintenance, including the perimeter fencing, in accordance with the standards and requirements per subsection C of this Section and remain responsible for any liability as a result of these duties.This responsibility includes maintenance of a drainage facility which is: i. Under a two (2)year maintenance bond period; ii.Serving a private road; iii. Located within and serving only one single family residential lot; iv. Located within and serving a multi-family, commercial site, industrial or mixed use property site; v. Not otherwise accepted by the City for maintenance. b.A declaration of covenant as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual shall be recorded.The restrictions set forth in such covenant shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for notice to the persons holding title to the property of a City determination that maintenance and/or repairs are necessary to the facility and a reasonable time limit in which such work is to be completed. 16 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 i. In the event that the titleholders do not effect such maintenance and/or repairs,the City may perform such work upon due notice.The titleholders are required to reimburse the City for any such work.The restrictions set forth in such covenant shall be included in any instrument of conveyance of the subject property and shall be recorded with the King County Records Division. ii.The City may enforce the restrictions set forth in the declaration of covenant provided in the Surface Water Design Manual. 3. Separate Conveyance System Required for Off Site Drainage: Cenv2�+@Ree systems traGt, eF Fight of way, Famed to City. Offsite areas that naturally drain onto the project site must be intercepted at the natural drainage course within the project site and conveyed in a separate conveyance system and must bypass onsite stormwater facilities. Separate conveyance systems that intercept offsite runoff and are located on private property must be located in a drainage easement that may be dedicated to the City if the City deems it appropriate depending on the upstream tributary area. 4. Other Cases: Where not specifically defined in this subsection,the responsibility for performance, operation and maintenance of drainage facilities and conveyance systems shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12-12- 2011) N.L. RETROACTIVITY RELATING TO CITY MAINTENANCE OF SUBDIVISION FACILITIES: If any person constructing drainage facilities pursuant to this Section and/or receiving approval of drainage plans prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section reassesses the facilities and/or plans so constructed and/or approved and demonstrates,to the Administrator's satisfaction,total compliance with the requirements of this Section, the City may, after inspection, approval and acknowledgment of the proper posting of the required bonds as specified in subsection M of this Section, assume maintenance of the facilities. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) OA4. ADJUSTMENT: 1. An adjustment to the requirements contained in this Section or other requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual may be proposed.The resulting development shall be subject to all of the remaining terms and conditions of this section and the adjustment shall: a. Produce a compensating or comparable result in the public interest; and 17 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 b. Meet the objectives contained in this Section of safety,function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability based upon sound engineering judgment. 2. Requests for adjustments that may conflict with the requirements of any other City departments shall require review and concurrence with that department. 3.A request for an adjustment shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. 4.The applicant may appeal an adjustment decision by following the appeal procedures as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual per RMC 4-5-110. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) PN. VARIANCE: 1. If complying with subsection E2 of this Section will deny all reasonable use of a property, a variance to the requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual may be requested from the Community and Economic Development Administrator or designee in accordance with the variance process defined in the Surface Water Design Manual and RMC 4-9-250. 2.A request for a variance shall be processed in accordance with RMC 4-9-250. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) g9. SEVERABILITY: If any provision, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Section or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid,the remaining portions of this Section and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) R42.VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION AND PENALTIES: A violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall be a civil infraction upon the first offense pursuant to RMC 1-3-2.See also RMC 4-6-110. Amend RMC section 4-4-040, FENCES AND HEDGES, to read as follows. A. PURPOSE: These regulations are intended to regulate the material and height of fences and hedges, particularly in front yards and in yards abutting public rights-of-way, in order to promote traffic and 18 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12127 w✓ ' public safety and to maintain aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods. The following regulations are intended to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. These regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere which tall fences along public rights-of-way can create. B.APPLICABILITY: The provisions and conditions of this Section regulating height are not applicable to fences or barriers required by State or City law eF by the zeRing r f this GGde GG-+eto surround and enclose public safety installations, school grounds, public playgrounds, storm drainage facilities private or public swimming pools and similar installations and improvements. Fences and hedges within the urban separator overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay regulations(see RMC 4-3-110). (Ord. 5132,4-4-2005) Amend existing code section RMC 4-4-07OB1b, Landscaping,Applicability to read as follows: b.All new buildings;and new surfacewater facilities: Insert a new code section ahead of existing section RMC 4-4-070F8 and renumber existing section FS to F9 and add a heading for this relocated section as follows: RMC 4-4-07OF: 8.Storm Drainage Facilities: The perimeter of all new flow control and/or water quality treatment stormwater facilities shall be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of this Section,the 2009 KCSWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM (on file with the Renton City Clerk's Office) unless otherwise determined through the site plan review or subdivision review process. 98. Urban Separator Properties: Properties within urban separators are subject to landscaping requirements of RMC 4-3-110E in addition to therequirements of this section. Amend RMC Section 4-4-070H, Landscaping, Description of required landscaping types, by adding a new section 6 to read as follows: 6. Storm Drainage Facility Landscaping: a) Trees are Prohibited on Berms: Trees are prohibited on any berm serving a drainage-related function, however,groundcover is required and subject to City review/approval. 19 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 b) Additional Locations where Trees and Shrubs are Prohibited: 1) within the inside of the fenced area; and 2) within 10 feet of any manmade drainage structure (i.e. catch basins ditches, pipes,vaults, etc:). c) Perimeter Landscaping Required: Minimum 15-foot wide landscaping strip on the outside of the fence unless otherwise determined through the site plan review or subdivision review process. d)Type of Plantings Required: Plantings shall be consistent with the KCSWDM and this section. Additionally, trees must be spaced as determined by the Department of Community and Economic Development. e)Conflicts: In the event of a conflict between this section and the KCSWDM the landscaping provisions of this Section shall prevail. See also pages 5-1 and 5-2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual Amend pages 5-1 and 5-2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual to add the following text relating to fencing and side slopes: .5.3.1.1 Design Criteria,Side Slopes: Replace paragraphs 1-4 with the following: 1. Side slopes(interior and exterior) shall not be steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical 2. Pond walls may be vertical retaining walls provided: (a)they are constructed of reinforced concrete per Section 5.3.3 (p. 5-35)• (b)a fence is provided along the top of the wall; (c) at least 25%of the pond perimeter will be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 3H: 1V; and (d) the design plan is stamped by a licensed structural civil engineer. 5.3.1.1 Design Criteria, Fencing. Replace paragraphs 1 and 2 with the following: All ponds and other similar facilities, as determined by the City Development Services Division, shall be fenced. On stormwater facilities to be maintained by the City,a fence shall be placed at the top the berm with the maintenance access road in the inside of the fence; or 5 feet minimum from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road allowing proper maintenance of the facility. 20 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 Fence material shall be six foot high black or green bonded vinyl chain link Cedar or other fencing materials may be installed only if owned and maintained bV a private propertV owner or Home Owner's Association (HOA). Language assigning maintenance responsibility of the fence will be placed in the final plat. 5.3.1.1 Landscaping: Replace introductory paragraph with the following: Landscaping is not optional; it is required on all stormwater/landscaping tracts Landscaping is required in those areas of the tract that will not impact the functionalitV or maintenance of the drainage facilities. For stormwater ponds to be maintained by the CitV, no landscaping shall be planted inside the fence Landscaping inside the fence is allowed for storm water facilities to be privatelV maintained provided that the landscaping complies with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070F8,Storm Drainage Facilities. 5.3.1.1 Landscaping: Add to bullet#2 the following: If StormWater pond is CitV maintained then landscaping is prohibited in the inside slope of the pond and trees are prohibited on any drainage-related berms No landscaping is allowed inside the facility fencing. 5.3.1.1 Signage: Add the following text to this section: The fence gate must be posted with a 12 inch bV 18 inch "No Trespassing" sign, unless otherwise approved by the City. Amend the"Reference"section at the end of the"City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual"to replace Form Number 1, "Maintenance and Defect Agreement"with the following updated form: 21 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 \rr►. N%0001 City of Renton Page 1 of 4 MAINTENANCE AND DEFECT AGREEMENT Applicant's Name and Address (Two Years) For public roads,drainage facilities and other public improvements Agreement Number Project Number and Name Guarantee Amount Site Location/Section Reference Number(s)of Documents assigned or released:Additional reference numbers are on page Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. 1. 2. This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of _' 20 between the City of Renton, hereinafter called the CITY, and the above named APPLICANT, hereinafter called APPLICANT. Basis for AGREEMENT: WHEREAS the undersigned APPLICANT has constructed public roads and/or drainage facilities and other public improvements to be deeded to the City in connection with the above-referenced project;and WHEREAS the APPLICANT has agreed to secure the successful maintenance and operation of said improvements for the referenced projects pursuant to RMC 4-6-030 and RMC 9-10-5. NOW THEREFORE, the APPLICANT hereby agrees and binds itself and its legal representatives,successors,and assigns as follows: Terms of the AGREEMENT: 1. The improvements constructed by the APPLICANT or his representative shall successfully operate and shall remain free of defects in design, workmanship, materials, and design for a period of two years from the date of satisfactory completion of the improvements or final plat approval, whichever is later. As used in 22 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 **we this AGREEMENT, the term "defects" includes but is not limited to, damage resulting from construction activities and/or use-during the two year period. 2. The APPLICANT is responsible for maintenance of the public road, drainage facilities and other public improvements, including the roadway surface for the two year period from the date of satisfactory construction approval or final plat approval,whichever is later. City of Renton Page 2 of 4 Agreement Number Project Number and Name 3. In the event of any failure of the improvements to satisfactorily operate or in the event of a defect in design, workmanship or materials, the APPLICANT shall promptly and adequately repair and/or correct the failure or defect. 4. The CITY will perform maintenance inspections during the two year period. 5. During the two year period upon notification by the CITY, the APPLICANT shall correct and/or make repairs to the right-of-way improvements within the time period specified by the CITY when defects in the design,workmanship, or materials occur. 6. In the event the CITY determines that repairs must be performed immediately to prevent risk to person(s) and property, the CITY may make necessary repairs and the costs of those repairs shall be paid by the APPLICANT upon demand. 7. The APPLICANT shall pay all required fees in accordance with Renton Municipal Code. S. At the end of the two year period, the APPLICANT shall clean the drainage facilities prior to the CITY's final inspection. 9. If, at the conclusion of the two year period, the City of Renton, at its sole discretion, determines that the improvements are not adequately maintained, the APPLICANT shall perform prompt maintenance to the CITY's satisfaction. In the event this maintenance is not performed within the time period specified by the CITY, the CITY will invoke the enforcement processes found in RMC Chapter 1-3. 10. Any failure by the APPLICANT to comply with the terms of this AGREEMENT in a timely manner shall constitute default. Any action or inaction by the City of Renton following any default in any term or condition of this AGREEMENT shall not be deemed to waive any rights of the City of Renton pursuant to this AGREEMENT. 11. The APPLICANT shall indemnify and hold the CITY and its agents, employees and/or officers harmless from and shall aid defend at its own expense all claims, damages, suits at law or equity, actions, penalties, losses, or costs of whatsoever kind or nature, brought against the CITY for negligence arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the execution of this AGREEMENT and/or the APPLICANT's performance or failure 23 c:stoimwater draft code.doc 12/27 to perform any aspect of the AGREEMENT. Provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from concurrent negligence of the APPLICANT and the CITY, its agents, employees and/or officers,this provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the APPLICANT, and provided further,,that nothing herein shall require the APPLICANT to hold harmless or defend the CITY from any claim arising from the sole negligence of the CITY's agents, employees and/or officers. 12. In the event that any party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree that any such action or proceeding shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in King County, Washington. 13. The Applicant is granted the right to access City right-of-way, tracts and easements dedicated to the City for the purpose of performing work required by this Maintenance and Defect Agreement until the agreement is released. City of Renton Page 3of4 Agreement Number Project Number and Name Release Requirements: This AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be released until all terms of this AGREEMENT have been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Renton. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written. APPLICANT By Title Date Received for City of Renton By Date IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed this_day of 120 24 c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 Notary Seal must be within INDIVIDUAL FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires: Dated: City of Renton Page 3of4 Agreement Number Project Number and Name Notary Seal must be REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT c:stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 25 �r.r `'rr✓` within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING ) certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the and of to be free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires: Dated: Notary Seal must be CORPORATE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of 20 before me personally appeared to me known to be of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and each on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires: Dated: 9/4/2012 26 c:storrawater draft code.doc 12/27 EXHIBIT 25 7 . . \ . . . . . . �G . .. G % 4 c . . . , , £ . . . . .... ._ ..... .. . . . . . .. . . . , . . . . _ 16 M . _§ � � /��77 ■ % T-ri 2k d � - {} ( a � E80 § 0 } 8 § 0 k S )# \ »02 FD - � . k . . �. f » : . .�� . . . . � � \ k co � � § } � o £ } � � \ / 7 � \ � \ . ƒ . $ � ~ \ co � ` \ o § -- - . T- \ « # � . - _ « EXHIBIT 26 COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT, Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots,with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130%of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.13,which is listed for reference: Transportation Concurrency Test -_lave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18,2014 ' D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required:A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required:Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity.A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test:If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan,payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 EXHIBIT 27 t VA LV ti l i n Denis Law. City `r✓ EXHIBIT 28 Mayor j - x Community&Economic Development Department May 22, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator ' Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th PI Renton,`V1/A.98059 . SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge; LUA14.-000241, PP, ECF- Dear CF Dear Ms. Stachowiak:. Thank you.for your.comment letter: Your letter has been included in the:official file.for. consideration by the.d'eci.sion maker. You have been added`as a party of record for this project: A hearing"has been scheduled for June•24th'at 8:00 am;you may wish"to attend . "and tesitfy.The hearing will beheld on the.7th floor of-City Hall 'in the Council Chambers: Please contact me at (425) 430-659.8:or jding@rentonwa gov if.you have any questions. Sincerely,. JJ -Ding. ` Senior_.Planner Renton City'Hall 1 Q55 South Grady Way • Renton,Washini ton 98057 • renionwa.gov - - = EXHIBIT 29 April 16,2014 City,of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, i i Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2),please accept this letter as a i formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental(SEPA)Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project#LUA14-000241,ECF,PP. As a party of record for this project,this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmentalimpacts of this project are adequately understood,documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant--all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes,policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen,I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works,or even who considers the request While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens,the time provided for me to become educated,and file this request in a timely manner,leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end,I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this jRequest is not in-line with what you may typically receive. i Thank you for taking the time to consider this request,and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely,health and interests of the citizens of our community. i i As a long-standing member of this community,I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately,my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected,I submit this Request for Reconsideration. . Standi As an adjacent landowner,and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration(EJhibit A),and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5�' Place/ 156''AVE SE intersection,my public health,safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 1 i I I requesting. To allow additional unmitigated ttaffic from this project,absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA,has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests,as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future to-sale. For these and other reasons,I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project,and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern#1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31,2014, (Exhibit D) it is cleat that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27,2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically,this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project In the TIA submitted by the applicant,and relied upon by the ERC,the author states as follows: "The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic ImpactAnalysis for New Development" By relying upon this report,the City failed to adequately inform itself with the fullrange of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the ttansportation demands of this project,as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development,attached as Exhibit C to this request Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this,where A.M. or P.M.Peak Hour Trip contributions are>20,a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed,and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M.Peak Hour conditions,among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved,trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 ,%*Age It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City,of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy,and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information,and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious,in addition to in error. Concern#2.Transportation 1 , My second concern also relates to transportation,and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D),the Committee states: The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Serzice(LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity+..." i This report goes on to conclude that "...the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Serzice(LOS)with the :. exception of the southbound approach to the 15e Avenue SE/ SE 142d Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156th/ 142nd Place intersection_ They did not In fact, j the 156` Ave SE/ 142nd intersection is the ONLY exis intersection that was analyzed by the applicant Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent j existing intersection to the proposed project(SE 5''Place),the ERC did not require additional ! information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally,by only analyzing the P.M.Peak Hour Oust 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17d'),the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M.Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156 'at SE 5th Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact,as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections,despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TLA. Concern#3 Transportation Ironically,in light of Concerns#1 and#2 above,when one digs deeper into the March 31,2014 Environmental Review Committee Report,we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 1564, but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may `:..impose left turn restrictions at that intersection."(See Exhibit D,Page 10 of 11,Transportation Item#3). This already contemplated"remedy"identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156`x/ 142nd intersection,but also suggests that the City's "remedy"will 3 1 force this traffic to the right,or north,onto 156',further degrading the Level of Service at the 156th/SE 5`I'PL intersection,and other intersections to the north along 156th Ave. SE. Again,since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156tz,the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern#4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination,the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts,by adopting,by reference,the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer,we find that,other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project- In rojectIn the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report(Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: `2t is not anticipated that the pmpo red projectrign�cantly adversely impact(tic)the City of Renton's.street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements." Unfortunately,nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156th/ 142"d intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason,the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant,as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law(RCW 58.17&the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval In order for this to be true,there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156th/ 142nd or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern#5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (e:,the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency,a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below,dated April 15,2014 from Steve Lee,Dev.Engineering Manager,it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "mrrenty assessing arzy improvements are warranted Cf any...". This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15t) to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 ............. ............ ----------- N"W This e-mail serves to document yeta9wn that the ERC was not fWly informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC,as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi WeW Steve La& Serra Tuesday,Apol 15,20'1411.14 AM TO; cittycierk Records Cc: )an EfiaMIN Ding;Neil RL Watts,,Jowder T.Herinhus Rohin!Nair subyect PE New Public Records Request-PIRPL-14-MS(Paulsen) TrampoConcPoRqI404I54>df see attached files that are related docutngntation on the City process for cohwr�ency,standards and process relating to Renton.Code Section 4-6-070. 1 befieve this is the information Mr,Paoisen is seeiing:,The information,as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan,pfovi Mr.Paulsen how the Co administers a multi modal test. Renton Code$ection 4-6-070 notes ttat transportation concvrrency can be a wrnbanat'Km of Improvements or strategies in pface-at the the of bulIlding permit Issuance,or m6thin a reasonable amount of time after building issuance, per4.6-070 A-1,or a financial wmmiW-*FK is plared. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new developrrvent and is generally used by the City for im.prove rnent-s thrawjioul the City. Our Transportation i. Division is the te&"a review auftft and is currently assessing any Irnpravoments are warranted(if any)(and.5675, The'Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the stateTnent,"Within the City of Renton,the steep topography between Maple Valley highway and the upper pJateau(and on to Cemetery Roa ng h the State i i .d)n-iakesitt"fL-asibletopmvideadd.itianalacces-s-WicletiI WS(Whic te s pur-su ng)to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traft now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road.* Thanks. -Stevie Le--PE,MS,CE.$CL City of Renton Derr.Enetneerh.g.V;anager Concern#6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter(Exhibit A),I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern,such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein,misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental(SETA review of this project In short,the notice implies that a citizen having concern,who is not able to provide written comment prior to the Match 24,2014 deadline,will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22". No-where in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 until April 22 ,the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination,will have passed_ (see Exhibit E"Notice of Application...") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Detertnination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Heating on April 22nd,and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods,but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again,to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concems,and as part of this Request for Reconsideration,I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M.and P.M. Peak Hour,including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5ffi Place and 156`s Ave.SE,and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156d' • Further,given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process,I request that,once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed,the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration,it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Ro aul 6617 SE 5d'Place Renton,WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 i �✓ `*Aloe List of Exhibits: I Exhibit A—SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B—Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C—Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D—Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E—Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated i i i i 7 i 4 " j EXMIT A March 22,2014 I Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division I City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdinoprentonwa.Qov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge i Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge",Project 4LUA14-000241,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to ' supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place.in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M.Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current,the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.)in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd,and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a`rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156"'between SE 5t'Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5d'Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat,and the existing 156t`/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south)from the plat access streets,due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality,in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142°4 intersection,including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies,and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes,and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes,common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 . ....... EX=IT A Rear Yard Designations 'Mith respect to proposed lot#4,it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper re d on co rear-yard proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City,it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls,hawks,eagles and flying squirrels. ft should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate,misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24h deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22'd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided,but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus,anyone who conunents before April 22nd,but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point,and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22,d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 EDIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerA-Paulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 EXIMIT B THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNM/Holdings,'LLC. 9675 SE 3e St.,Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Prepared by r Ujr r..... fii?ywjirw' 11410 NE 124"St.,#590 Kirkland,Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522-4118 Fax:425.522.4311 December 27,2013 "err rrafftNOKTHWEBT TI7.4Fnc ExprarS 11410 NE 124th St. #530 WA.880;34 Pltot�e:-425.522.4118 Fax December 27,2013 Mr.Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE Wk., Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038156'Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156`h Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156th Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore,for purposes of this study,2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 i The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traff I I I TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Trip Rate Time Period Trips Trips Total ' Trips per unit Entering Exiting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% 6 17 AM Peak Hour 0.75 25% 75%20 23 PM Peak Hour11 1.01 63% 37% 31 I A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination(exiting or entering)inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation,for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210).These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes,including resident,visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume pattems,the characteristics of the road network,the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. i EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156"'Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142nd Pl. Residential Access Page 2 i. i' The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rrAff)ffA'T 156"Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156th.Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" PI. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft.lanes and a paved shoulder. The 1561'Ave. SEISE 142nd PI. is an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156th Ave SE or SE 142nd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing,future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156th Ave. SE and the 156th Ave SEISE 142nd St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156th Ave SEISE 142ndPi. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay,travel time,freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations,from A to F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay)and LOS F the worst(congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service(LOS)for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rraffay TYPE OF A B C D E F INTERSECTION >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. Signalized 10 <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 0 Stop Sign Control <10 15 >15 and <25 >25 and <3— >10 and< : .0 — 5 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3%per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period(for a total of 6%)from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156 'Ave. SE/SE 142nd pl. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 %of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5%City of Renton volume increase threshold,and the LOS remains unchanged,the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Qg§jgn Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft.from an intersection on a minor arterial.The south site access street is located Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ride approximately 250 ft north of the 156h Ave.SENSE 142"d Pl. intersection and-therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton "requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of$75 per new daily trip attributed to new development One'existing singie-family residence on .site will be.removed with this development resulting in.a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips(30 units x 3:57 daily trips pet unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is$21,525 (28-7 daily trips X$75 per daily trip): SUMAfARY; CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge beconstructed as:shown on the site plan.with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and.sidewalkfor the site access streets and site frontage on 156 'Ave. SE. Contribute the.approximateiy$21,526.,Trarisportabon Mitigation fee to the 'City of Renton.: No other tratfic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please.call 425-522- 4118: You may also contact us viae-mail at vin.ce(a-).nwtraffex.com or Iarry(a)_nwtraffex.cotn. Very tally yours, A L . m 3- ' Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. .Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 -zw TABLE 1 I. PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 MTH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT NA WB (B 12.6) 156th Ave. SE. North Site Access NA South Site Access NA NA WB,(B 11.2) 156th Ave. SE. 156 'Ave SE/ EB(D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142n, pi. NB(B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB(F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 �4caarfrwFs: , TRAf'FC EXP..EI7T5 137t1�u7e1 dce�f FTD F 1T3F �' t C £ Y rs e -.<' x s f ,£ ] 4th SL .5 T.,; 'l-S K.. ygt i t Ir K t Y YD 3 , 3:F ` SEStht N . 4f 74- n taf `3 . h .G _x t cj� NOR x C s A 1 t - Il7�tra 1 z F A`lFQ t� SEI rwk r r W� ..J r t , w SEl —AA MY � - a �dM r` Ara ( - 1 SE 14th Et , t SE 1 m- `n r ISE-14difaPl T r} - v to i � r A SE 145t The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Rentan Figure Vicinity Map i I I � e�rfr .esr T � j -rt I 7777777. MA ~ I 10 MoistdNe— y 1 M J } I r7 J - _ Ono •+tar .:N �' 1 i �.� I I _ �t\l � -�1 -+� - I J .. "t ! - t I i .. a l } - 7 MIA I E a = y T 1e> x j i ! 1 k gq- jx I r VISAY. i The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of.Renton j Figure Site Plant 2 i T' r FAZE I a T,F F'F'� EX=r `r i :G .55 3EE 2L s rA SEAT&€�{ -1 f 5 642nd Si ', Tt g� SE.�421W St t b — t r r rdQ� z a SE7 .iv 71 t `%_4 NAccess�155th'ave + r ch ch S Access!156th Ave -N 4-F t IN PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume ¢ 111 Legend C> C4 Enter 20. 15% Percentageoraffic Exit 1ifProject T Total 31 156th Aval SE 142 PI 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume The Enclave of Hridfe fridge K City of Renton Figure . PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution. � NOW , I r d c rig E$� k _ 3 !I t FFJC E�fPERTS af3 S 7f3siPf '2 a m i SET,41ttdt r �oVpK SET4�odSt 3� tom. - c : v Y i i, i Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project i M � ti co o � ti ti i V , r l j t r 1 f 0 i r 0 r r�2 t r` 2 t o a M T M N Access)156th ave N Access!156th ave N Access! 156th ave NAccess/156th ave 03- o c� ttom. t` -0 L�0 t `t4 t �. 4 r � , 0 t r 0 t r 0 �1 M o M o t f Ceti c) M �. C') S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave. S AccessT 156th Ave S Access/156th Ave LD Lo Lo m ti cn tD co li N M ti 3it9� ► 32$x'_ t 4� t 332 r t 3 3 I-Ole t 10fi�, t r O f06� N M f to m o N co 156th Ave!SE 147-PI 15.6th Ave/SE 142 PI 156th Ave/SE142 Pl 156th AvP1 SE 142 Pt i The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton Figure PM Peak.Hour Traffic.Volumes 4 TECHNICAL APPENDIX *%awl Traffex Traffic Count Consultants,Inc. Phoom(253)92S 5M FAX:(253)SM-7211 E-Mall:Town@TCZnr-cm lwgwn Intersection: 156*Aw$k 8 SE 142aIM Data of count Toa 171172013 Lo'cation: Rema.w#Alnv. Chackod By, Jen Tone Ffm No It on(38) From South an(NO) From Eget on(Wl%) From West an(M) Interval Jnlcsml 156&NAlm SE 1560,ANC SE, 0 SE M-ad A Total --T EnEngbt T L S I R T L S R T L S I T L S R. Uk. 430P 6 .0 13 1 1721 1 14. 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 37 309 5, S.-M F 0 0 It 1791 i- 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 20 1 325 .0 i 70 x:.,06'- 330_P 1 0 il) 141 0 1410 0 0 1 6 a 0 0 r- 0 28 291 1v 6c00 p 0 a 144 Z4'4 2 18 L4 0 0 0 0 0 t74 0 17 291 144 Uil '7 7-00 p 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Q 0 Tow Sun 13 0 1-57 1224 .6 1 1791 117 0 0 0 0 0 1 619 0 UP 2497 Tow 9 0 6R 65 4 92 63 0 0 0 1 0 1 G 6 1 309 0 106 US Appro 7-13 ISS 0 409 I2E7 .19 1.0% PEW 0.93 156th Ave SF � 1095 SE 142nd PI 1=1 I Ped] 0 Bum 0 1 t 156 309. 409 4:15 V M I'm Ino - A.— "J S E w Pd= 93 63 1380 1.0 PLIF Peat Hao[Www INT 07 DIT 02 0 *rrD3 0 i6S I55 Cbrca, WS 1297 1. Cf M Out: 1297 SB INT as XO MDS' Q 156th Ave SE Tim. q93 I.OS: "T07 1 1~ 0 "zim ft�m & r: w ISR 0u?�rs' WT oa w a-I On-W I 0 Mai a5+ WT to KT.03 a. ;5* wr 04 0 15+ Mix WT 05 Ir-10 Kr 06 S-1b Speew Not. W07 0 940 Rolli.S qiimbo&-d So ai most thcm Wim 0. W=5-8 vc6ks acMaly slurped., �T 69 0 15+OpUkS miling q.=as Lar.-d I could W. WT IG 9 Will i -0 1 0 0 0 61 00' a 0 0 0 TRA13184M Olp a i ExIsMg PM Peak 3: SE 142nd PI& 156th Ave SE 12126!2013 t Lane Ganfrgurahons Volume(vph} 309 100 92 63 68 655 [leak purl aEtoC,— 03 f3 93 _ 0?�3 -a3 . 0 93 _093 "- 37 Handy flow rate.(vph) 332 108 99 68 73 704 MIN a "a Volume Total(vph) 440 167 777 _ 99 .. Volume fight(vph} 108E.. 0 704 — Departure Headvray(s} 6.2. 6:fi 5:2 Capacity(vehlh) 572 526 679 Approach Dslay(s} 25.6. 12.4 94 8 Dem _ _. ...� — _62� - - _..._ HGM Level of Service F Intersection Ca-gaa�ilUGz�ion __._ �-y_ Analysis Period(min) _ 15 Baseline Synchro.7- Report Page 1 Future Without Project 3:SE 142nd Pt& 156th Ave SE 12/26/2Dt3 Lane Cnriguraftons SCi�iie( _Stop., Stop Stop• - - i Vafume v h 328 106 96 67 72 695 - - (P ) Hourly flow rate(vph) 353, 114 105- 72 77 747 VolumeTofai-(vph)_ 467 177 825. iumelet v, 353 _ - y _._ _ - Volume Poght(vph) _ t14 _ 0 747 Departure f leadway(s) 6 2 6.7 5.3 f3BgrEeltlGiaS X - w 0 80. 033' 122 f i Gaparxtvehm) 571 518 665 _ Approach Delay(s) 29.8 129 1332 A [�ach 6efaY r_T� 85 8. r HOM Level of Service F inersecliatrapaciry4lhhzaUon 1CtJ Leve(p1 SeN+ce E - Anatysis Period{min) 15 Basefne Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project I SE 142nd PI& 156th Ave SE i2/2612013 Lane Configurations ►'y*' �' '�r Sign Gonl� Stop_ Stop 5to �__ Volume v h 332 106 98 69 73 697 �eak?�out•Facinr`' ' ©�J3 ; 0'93„ _A 93__ g 93 ;0 93 -0 93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 Volume Total(vph) 471_ 180 828 1loiume�sff� ). X357 . 105F. Volume Right(vph) 114 0 749 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 67 54 7. Degrse iltizatrors; _ 0 8i -0 33 _13 _ ....-- Gaoaccty(vehlh� 571 516 662 4,72y -- - Approach Delay{s) 30.7 13.6 1371 _ 27 HCN!Level of Service P n#ers_ect'tan..Capac��tifzat�on_A_ :<__ : :. ;9C18Jo '__IGU L�vahtifi5etvice � _ E �- Analysis Per�ad(min) 15. - •- -- --- ---- ------- --•----�--- Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 L Future With Project 5: North Site Access&156th Ave SE 12126013 Lane Configurations X -7 -i- 77 Sign Control Stop Freip. Free -Z 7- Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 Om 0.63 0.93 -.'6.93 7C ON Arate M Pedestrians WalltingSpeed(ks) Right tum flare(vah) Median storage yo) 'S pXplatoon unblocked ............ vCI,stage 1 conf vol • r vCu,unblocked vol 1039 192 LL 194 tG;2 stage(s) P,Q queue free% 99 99 99 III mill Its IINSIN-M Volume Left 2 0. 8 cSH. 481 1700 1392- -0-: 0 PIT Lane LOS 13 A Approach LOS B Ellin" 0115�1'11111�11 Average Diblay 02 Analysis NOW(min) Baseline. Synchro 7- Report' Page 2 Future With.Project 7- South Site.Access& 156th Ave SE 12/26!2013 LaneConfigra6ons olume �eshfh i �4' � 17& 3' 7 .769. Srgn Control Slop Free Cradg 0°� _O _ o I° Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93. 0.93 .0.93 Hour�i+dio►v�aevpr} _ _ .1 __.._.4 18s. - Pedestrians LaneWaf {ft} - _ Waflung Speed{ftis) _ _ _ Right ledtane None None v Median storage veh) ... _ - pX,platoon unblocked - vG� - vC1,stage 1 conf'vol _-- 2, vCu,.unblocked vol 1033 191 - -192 tC 2 stage(s) _ _ - p0queue free% 100 99 98 M1umevia1 r 5 -1t32 634 - Volume Left 1 0 8 - - 99�0t 4 cSH 585 1700 '1393- 0. 3930 (queue Length 95th{tt} i 0 0 Control�defaY Lane LOS .. _ B A Miraacp'Defa .�s}: Approach LOS B Jim Average Delay atersection Ca a, 0-C.,ho-- .. _ LL )Ct1 Levet of Seance 9 Analysis Period{min) 15 Baseline 5ynchro 7- Report Page 3 ------------ '%PAW *Moe EXHIBIT C Y A POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 - 9:00) or PM (3:00 —6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development),describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use,the units involved,trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic,AN4 peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site-generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assignment: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site-generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM-PM peak hour directional volumes as well as timing movements at all intersections, 'driveways, and roadways within the study area. EXHIBIT C Existing and Proiected Horizon.Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics,which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi-phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site-generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary,the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage,these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Trafficsignals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/12/2008 H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\T1A GUIDELINES\GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 r - i EXHIBIT Do DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY C` `rf AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ' ; =C i ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERCMEEFINGDATE. March 31,2014 Project Name: The Enclave,at Bridle Ridge Project Number. LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Project Manager. Jill Ding,Senior Planner Owners. Sally Lou Nipert,14004156'Avenue SE, Renton,WA 98059 G.Richard Ouimet,2923 Maltby Road,Bothell,WA 98012. Applicant/Contact: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC,96755E 36t'Street,Suite 105,Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Location: .14038156e`Avenue SE,Renton;WA 98059 i Project Summary: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential-4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal Would . i. result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts.(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range.ih size from 9,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet Access to the.new lots would be provided via a new public street off of156th Avenue SE.A.lot line adjustment(WA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet.of parcel 1.423059057 being_removed from the proposed subdivision.The siteis currently developed with two single family residences i aid'a detached garage.An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057:All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the.project site: Exist Bldg.Area SF: 1,700 SF Proposed Afew Bldg.Area(footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area(gross): N/A Site Area: 329,129 SF -rotal Building Area GSF: .. /A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Rertiew(_o mittee issue a RECOMMENDATION. Determination of Non-Significance=Mitigated(DNS-M). Ptoject Location Map FRC Report 14-00024L docx Gty of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development EnWronmental Review Committee Report THEENC1AVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-0=41,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTtON/BACKGROUND The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122,1423059023,and the east portion of 1423050057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences.The project site is located within the R-4(residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density(RLD)Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.The surrounding properties to the north,south,and east of the project site are also zoned R-4.The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the City limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment(LUA14-000250)was submitted concurrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat..An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel.The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future,separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.80 acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre(after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication).The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.in addition to the proposed lots,the subdivision would also create two tracts(Tracts A and B).Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for stormwater detention.Tract B would be located at the northwest comer of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new"looped"public street(Roads A and B)with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE.addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156th Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter,S-foot sidewalks,and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials,which identified 303 existing significant trees.Cif the 303 existing significant trees,the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees.There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained;however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention.Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the Cay's tree retention requirements. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In.compliance with RCW 43.21C.240,the following environmental(SEPA)review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on.analysis of probable impacts from the proposal,staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14-000241.docx | �. ' aty of Renton Department gfCommunity&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report / THE"N=A°"A` BRIDLE RIDGE ---' i i Report cvunror Reference source not found. Page 3w11 ' | . ( ' | B. Mitigation Measures ' / | ' 1' shaUbe comm�x�ththe ou��edinthe ' . � ' ' / submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared 6vEarth Solutions, NW(dated | February 5,2014). ! 2. ^� constructionshaUberequired tocomply with the recommendations outlined in the �| � submitted Traffic Impact Analysis pre0 red6w Trafty,dated December Z7 2013' i i �� An along' —^^ | / the trees available for retention(as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in ! � perpetuity.The easement should beofsufOdentwidthtoadaquete|yprotectthatrees | | | ! identified for protection;however the easement width shall bepermitted tovary and shall ` � be based-an the Width of the stand of trees to be retained.The easement shall be / � submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be ` recorded onthe face ofthe final plat. | � | � C. Exhibits ' Exhibit Neighborhood Detail Map | Exhibit Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 3 Conceptual Road and Grading Phan | � Exhibit Drainage Control Plan ' Exhibit Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan | � Exhibit Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February | � 18,2014) ' | | Exhibit Geotechnical Engineering��p�a� ����|��N�U�(dated ' - � February S,3Ol4) � Exhibit Wetland Report prepared 6nSewall Wetland Consulting,Inc. (dated February 3, � 2014) � Exhibit 9 Technical Information Report prepared ��R.Strong Consulting Engineers � (dated February 19,3014 � Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis preparedbyTn�fEx�b�edDecember 27'JO13\ ! ! ' � Exhibit 11 Comment letter from David Michalski(dated March 21,2014)- Exhibit 014 | Exhibit12 Comment letter from Roger Paulsen(dated March 22,2Ol4\ Exhibit 13. Construction Mitigation Desc6ption ! D. Impacts _--_--_'_- | � 7ha Proposal was circulated and reviewed 6vvarious City Departments and Divisions to determine ' | ' the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to � occur in conjunction with the proposed development Staff reviewers have iderid#edthot the proposal . . islikely tohave the following probable impacts: 1. Earth ' impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888cubic 1 yards� ' ~ | family residences.Temporary erosion control measures would beimplen�enteddu�n�constn�c�on ' . � ERC Report 14-000241d/cx l / City of Renton Department of Community&Economk Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RiDGE LUA.14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 4 of 11 including hay bales,siltation fences,temporary siltation ponds,controlled surface grading,and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with City of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions,NW(dated February 5,2014) (Exhibit 7)was submitted with the project application.According to the submitted study,the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet.Vegetation consists primarily of field grass,trees,and blackberries.The Soil Conservation Survey(SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site.Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff.They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits(TP-1 through TP-6)were excavated across the project site.Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations.Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade.The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits(TP-1,TP-3,and TP-6)at depths ranging from 2-3 feet According to the submitted geotechnical study(Exhibit 7)groundwater ' seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material;therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site,particularly during the winter,spring,and early summer months.The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore_groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7)provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading,foundations,seismic design,slab-on-grade floors,retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes,utility support and trench backfill,and pavement sections.Due to the high moisture content,the geotechnical report(Exhibit 7)recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months.Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions,NW(dated February 5,2014)(Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures:Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions,NW (dated February 5, 2014)(Exhibit 7). Nexus:SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland,Streams,Lakes impacts:A wetland report,prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting,Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8)was submitted with the application materials.According to the report,the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red-osier dogwood);however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation,hydric soils,and hydrology)were not present. Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation required ERC Report 14-M241-doa .• t . Gly of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENC1AVEATERIDIERIDGE LUA14-0=44 ECF,PP i jReport of March 31,2014 Page 7 of 11 I improvements including paving,curb and gutter,5-foot sidewalks,and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However,the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line(see previous discussion above under Vegetation). j A Traffic impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27,2013)(Exhibit 10)was submitted with the application materials.The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 I. ! average weekday vehicle trips.Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site.Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips,with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)also includes a Level of Service(LOS)review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.The Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 10)concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service(LOS)with the exception of the southbound approach to the 15Avenue SE/SE 142nd 6th Place intersection.This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds.The report(Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156u'Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds.The report(Exhibit 10)anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds,which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development_ The report concludes(Exhibit 10)that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development.The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection.Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees.Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters(Exhibits 11 and 12)-citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report,the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection.The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A .7. Fre&Police ERC Report 14-000241.d= I Gly of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 8 of 11 Impacts:Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment of code required impact fees. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus:N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable,their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or"Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period(RCW 43.21.0.075(3);WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m.on April 18,2014.RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall—7t'Floor,(425)430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are notsubject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock(7:00)a.m.and eight o'clock(8:00)p.m.,Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m.and eight o'clock(8:00)p.m.No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year.The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report 14-000241.docx . �..r' Environmental Review Committee Report Gty of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development WA14-MZ41,ECF,PP THE ENaAVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31,2014 Page 9 of 11 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). if the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required ! within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed"to support a-30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water. I 1. Water service will be provided Water District'90. z. A water availability certificate from.Water District#90 will be required. 3. New hydrants.shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots_ 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer. 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection. with SE 144th Street and ext6ending the sewer main into,the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line.The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property.line- 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main-in the internal access road,to the east property line(with a 10-foot sewer easement).A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer'stub. ed on the size of the new domestic water meter that 3. - System development fees for sewer are bas will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on%-inch or 1-inch water is$2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is$63,023.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance'of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is$438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. S. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. Surface water: 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in*the report.The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates ERC Report 14-00024)-door city Of Renton Department of ommunity&Economic Development EnWronmental-Review Committee Report THE ENCLA VE A TBRIDLE RWE LUA14-000243,ECF,PP Repwt of March.33,2014 Page 10 of 11 for the f6rested.condition extending from SGYo:of the.2.year U 'to the 50 year flow. The engineer t has designed a combined detention. and wet nd to be located at the southwest corner of the PO r site.A I runoff Appropriate individual lotAwcontrol BMP.s-will be required to.help mitigate the:new runoff createe d 6.Vthis development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NWJ LLC_ The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till,. These soils- will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pi�is. a geotech Pue to the high moisture content,the recommends site grading to be linifted to the sijinmet months_ 3. Surface-water system developmentfea is$1,228.00 per new lot.Fees arepayable priorto:issua issuance .. of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is$36,840.00. 4. A Construdion.Stormwater Gpneral Permit from Department of Ecologywill be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one :acre. AStDrrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. TranSPDrtafion: L The current transportation impact fee rate is$1,430.72.per new lot.The transportation impact:fee that is current at the time of building permit application.will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit 2. A traffic.analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed K - lot subdiVisiort would generate 297 average weekday veWicle trips.,Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips,with 17 vehicles Ip_,avjtng and 6 vehicles entering the site.Weekday peak hour PM trips would,generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 -vehicles entering and 11 vehicles' existing the site..An analysis focusing on the.inteirsectiowof 156.Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to. defQrmine:what; if anyjmpacts*the anticilpated,new*peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection.on. This intersection 'is controlled by a stop, sign a each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F_ The result of the study indicates this Ifiterseffion.would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9'-trips-to. the 1,37-5 total trips passing throughthe intersection.. Increased traffic created by the developrneht Will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination vVjll be made by the City's transportation department at a:later date. 3. A looped roadway with Ith stub: ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access..The.cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements.To,meet the City's .complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed. to meet the residential access roadway per City. code 4-6-060_ The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot.planter strip and a.5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road-will be marked No Parking. As per code, the.minimum separation of:intersections. along an arterial is 125 fieet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to:and from the south loop of the internal.public. street onto 156th Ave K; the City traffic-operations may impose left turn_ restrittions, at that intersection.. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 1560'1Ave.SE shall inciucle.22 feet of paving.from the.center-line,gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb",an& foot planter strip.an'd a 5-foot roadway per City c6de'.4-6-060.To build this street section,five and half fe-etof right of way dedication will.be required, It is shown on the plans. 5-. Paving and trench. restoration will comply with the Cjty's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. ERC Report 14-000241-docx Gty of Renton Department of community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report THE ENCLAVEAT BRIDLE RIDGE LUA14-M241,ECF,PP Report of March 31,2014 Page 11 of 11 i 6. Street lighting is required for this plat_ LED lighting plans will be included. with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: L Separate permits and fees for, water meters,side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Report 14-"241.docx . �rrr `'r✓ EXHIBIT 1 6 'ME ENCI f e r � Y A � A woA�OftY A ' UlW AlO1Q� I tFr4 a s m� y� leN Al4ffY A l _ t m� - hyo z 10� EXHIBIT 2 THE ENCLAVE IS IF vz • lit, :\•o -Ir .. .»`' - _r P�1�•'�1 1j� d T. ' p- t ?�R� •# r ; I � �» ;�{�:t sJitkr REr t i�k`il , ppp _ .. I :ems' 1•�t N I•t F� �t'k�S � ��A YiC 51, !j. i P Fix 4 a ® A� l•` •y 'y I ,i ; '/�k�;� '__�_�i i Y - j ; Lett:E��� �� C{■F`.Ei�•• t F y�%' C'•jt t L I t I 1 j TF ji� t &P r. 53+1• '~ 1 .. � t,.�-•C � C ; �g,• 1 1 •�^ �I •-la � � I 'd �33 d_ '.i.J'__,.—i 'y'•• f�__-''--r f I_�--�-E_ (�1 'i I i� c'�i:r Fye at ij to RPm r t 1 lit t •iI ;i r .t' •.�• L,.�•" I •'r' it �' 'r�_ �' r'k� `JO , 77 77 E, .;'.;II-�'�" i�• �a r;° sl � '�� qi ,••.��,�i, i '�li� ��fir;F ••I$�• - 1 •{i, I� �1p i. 'f� ~ j k2 i,'--=i ; t• i O �',•}[i �.1` 'k"4' r".• x •4 r,� {' I I3. ' '�' �� 3���i �" i r- '� i.'`'•--�" ' ' � �`�oi�~-ti '-+��7`�� � ��4d' Y•R t�2 , Ch •a � ��b :./i i k , i k�c � a;i 1 :� ; :�' , �: ��ti c••�l:J:'',I �'�,,.-r '_ q�•'lit ffjj n 9 s Lcc:pttotox V J i aatat«tt Ell ZEE om A ae111—H 4�a 11 9991 i La I pp e !ty! !! l� _© t mow- o.r' EXHIBIT 3 • y E . i2 M Fi¢ f. A J �°�� d._�_.._..�� • �3 IJ�-•".`: mac. �_ �_ IN-�� .irr.•r---�1 { t ml:.i: t i e ..3'. „i��.••tF�1 f 5 3 S� f' NIJ7 L .M • i i l 1 1 �, F � � 7 rt'• � yam. 1 .1: L� f �`'' fY.4 ����t'"� _. i - ,. �. a-t�i ��` ji a-t � �' g•�i-: fes ` : L- ��.., ;�_`Fl� - i e.tl ii ��yl ,1 ��is r ,�;,. !,`Yil".::�"�t '..�.'.•e`"-'����- —O t: •—=�-��(`�..'�. j .� � - -3.�� �Y�r-• L �� a(•` 5 2: fi P . ; �� 5,,, `�Itr�� y-ntI�-`-do-bfiI It a--:.a'k-�iiI,tr•—��a`7-i l-.}i'(:_+�;��t. l�, 411 3 OF ]�`y�,•1 i `L' 9r._ �F �._� ��, ��'�I;�_—r 1' F_�t a �� a C.•ems+ �g __ •I• 'rL- �:... :��' -� "icy P.' e jf�." .'.n'�'a Z'*�l k�A� m t 8SA y y Cl is xy y¢ - y d -10 _ � I ........... .......... ............ EXHIBIT 4 RE ENCU E Eg gig '7 r�fl .............. 41 IM F1 �Mlrq"V MIN n 7. 1 11 bw-j. fr., I W— E.11 ta xb ci r ;on 00 Z_q .10 0 Vail' EXHIBIT 5 THE ENCLAVE : ft: mA 14 r N N+ - . .�• _ i °C - -yam '� •a I - � I All g..� �F HP RF lit BB� l R o s 10 � z 'taw L" EXHIBIT 6 Greenforest IncarporateU Consulting Arborist 2j18j2014 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 Justin Lagers,Director of Land Acquisition&Development PNW Holdings, LLC CITY 0-r1=iti3QlV 9675 SE 36th St.,Suite 105 PLANA NG DIVISION I Mercer Island,WA 98040 RE:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection,14038156th Ave SE,Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr.Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist.My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023,9057,&9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week-and inspected the trees indicated on-the sheet,which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels.Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated.'A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed,and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if.a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. 1 identified the species of each tree,confirmed trunk diameter(DBH),estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary(Near tree 6185)is an infection center for a root rot disease.This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area(actually,semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary)with standing dead trees,recently or previously failed trees,and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus,as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs;oozing resin flow,and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street,Seattle,WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 EXHIBIT 7 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 4ten H. Ayr eologist R. CaA,; � yv flr67 SNAL `2`<, Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ���r1� frD ES-3220 C 1V C FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PtaNNiNG D'VIS1ON 1805 - 1360'Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 .Fax:425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 .�. :.Illy. s • F - .F•^4 r ATA tl a ~`.,iSa �4�al ;'�'�L��'S'`'t•��.. i' a �+r Es =c EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL. INFOR MATIO�l REPORT for THE ENCLAVE-AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 9403815e Aven.:ue SE Renta n,Washington 'R• A..RIp �o DRS Prdle'et No. 13117 Renton FileNo� Oivner4Applicant 1" /CI E PNW Holdinjs LLC'. `_ �- E , 9675 SE 36'� Stfeei,;Shite 10.5 : . fE82 7 10:f4 Mercer Island, vvA 98040CITY Repolt.Preparedby 'p . 01V 10 _ �NNlN,^�pt��cjQfY IN D. R. STRONG'CO'h'Wting Engineers, Inc.. 620 7t'Avenue Kwklan4 WA 98433 (425) 827=3063 - -Report.Issue Date -:..Februaryy19 2014 02014 D_R_STRONG Coniu[fing Engbeem Inc. EXHIBIT to V • . is THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS i I CITY OF RENTON Prepared for is Mr.Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36' St.,Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 i Prepared by NCRTHWES T TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124 'St,##590 Kirkland,Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27,2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY 01:RENToN �l �N/VtyG QlVfSlO� `"WO` ' EXHIBIT 11 David Michalsid I 6525 se 5th pl Renton,Wa 98059 March 21,2014 ' I Jill Ding,Senior Planner c Planning Division i 1055 So Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 i This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SESth pf and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156th Ave Se.Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the traffic on 156'ih ave se is unbearable_ Coming.out of any of the side streets off 156th ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate'up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hitt slow traffic down,there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the Westside of 156th.I feel that an-immediate traffic study be implemented.I am really surprised there l isn't more accidents than 1 see_Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? _ VtD Sincerely, %QR 2 David MichalskiQr�ktAfr jV Cr Email:dcmichalPmsn.com N,Na Ph#425-271-7837 I �- EXHIBIT 12 March 22,2014 I i i Ms.rill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdin a entonwq,gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge i Dear Ms.Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge",Project#LUA14-000241,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts j The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5d'Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to j supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE P Place in light of.the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service . associated with A.M.Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave- This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop"situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current,the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156fl'and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse_ While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself,the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156fll north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5"'Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139x'Pl.)in the morning hours between 6 and 9 am.is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way strop at 142°d,and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156 'north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity"created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop",and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph,making access to 156`h even more difficult Noe The addition ofANY new trips to.SE I56`h between SE 5`h PIace and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project,and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this proiect to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health,safety and welfare for the existing residents who access I M4 from SE 5'b Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also verry concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat,and the existing 156 /142"a intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn(to the south)from the plat access streets,due to the lengthy trafftc back-up that routinely occurs on 156°i during the afternoon commute hours,blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality,in favor of studying the 156`x'/142d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval_ Based upon nothing more than common knowledge,it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156a'/ 142'd intersection,including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies,and is clearly warranted by the level of service prof ections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City`s utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines,septic tanks and drain fields are all Iocated on the south side of the homes,and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5`h Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents ithas annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat toacco�odate future waste water access to the new sewer lines keine ;nctalled as partof�his project While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this,it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes,common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project 7 .... ........ .-- Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4,it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot.of this irregular lot configuration rests with the Cit/, s Planning Division Director(per City Code),I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard do proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review.of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City,it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property,and occasionally have observed owls,hawks,eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally,I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice ofApplication for this project is inaccurate,misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence,and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice(both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached)states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 20 deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22'public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided,but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus,anyone who comments before April 22'd,but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to providein put on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination_ Giventhe factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter,I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's*intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. r.r/" If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsgR@cs.com Sincerely, Sent Electroxzically Without S€gnature fo Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application +.rr • I City Of,;L NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) i A Master-Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CED)—Planning Division ofthe City of Renton.The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER: 111A.14­000241.ECF,PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge j PROJECT DESCRIPTION., Proposed subdivision of a 8:8 acre project site located within the R-4 (ReMdential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result In the creation of 31 Lots and 2 zracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from S,OSU square feet to 12,566' square feet Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which Will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical areas are present on the project site- PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156`Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21G116,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Sgnificance- Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPUCATION DATE: February 27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 10,2014 i i APPLICANT/PROJECTCONTACTPERSON: Justin lagers/PNWHoidings,LLCj9675SE36's'Street SuitelOS, Merrerfiland,WA 98040/TML•lustin@amedcandassfchomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Envronrrhental(SEPA)•Review,Preliminary Plat.Review Other Permits which may be required:; Construdlorir Building,Fire Requested Studrem Drainage-Report,Geotechnical Report,Traffic Study- Location where application may be rgvlewed: Department of Cominunlly&Economic Development(ffD)—Planning Division,Sixth FioorRen6n City Hall,1Q55 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Publichearinht is tentatively scheduled for Aonl ZZ 2014 before the Renton 'Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10 0 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1OS5 South Grady.Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,coriiplete this form and return to:City of Remdn,CED—Planing Division,1055 So.Grady Way,Renton,WA 913057. Name/File No_The Enclave at Bridle Rldge/LUA14-000241,ECF,PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: City/State/7iip:. TELEPHONE NO.- City Ofr colpsTevcyDVESVIEW.- ZoninglLand Use: The subject site is designztr-d Readentiat Low Density(COMP-RID)on the iaabf of Renton CDmpmeheathre Laud Llse.Map and R.4.on the i7z* coning hlap. Env&oatnental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project, Environinental(SEPA}Oierkljsf Development Regnlatiors Use3Far"ortiWtigatlow.. The project ;A411 be subject to the I:Ws SEPA ordinance; RMC 4.2-210 Residential Development.aid other applicable: codes and reg utafions as appmpriafe. Proposed Mitigation Measures, The:folfowing Mitigation:Measures Will!Maly be imposed on the proposed project.These recommended Mitlgafion'Measures'addr.m project impacts not. covered by'ewdrig codes and regalatiods as cited above. t Project coastrvcUan shot(be requfredto comply with the submittedgaoiechniral report .Project canstructton shaft be regnited to comply with Me subtitittrd tic siudl. [ammenls an the above applicatignmustlie submitted iA vrriting.toJill Ding,Sento Planner,CED—Planning Division, 305'-'5 South Grady Way,Aenton,WtA 98057 by S:DO Prig an Mord 24,2024.'Ibis matter Is a1S6 tentatively scheduled for a public hearing an:Apnl 22,2014,aL 1t2 00 JiM Counr3l Charctters Seventh floor,.Rerrton City Hats;LOSS South Grady Way,Renton, If you are interested inattendjng the be'arjng,please coitact the Pianriino Division to ehsure that the hearing has not been rescheduled-at(425)430-M& If comments cannot be submitted in vrFiting by the dot indicated above,you may.3tiil.appear.at the:hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Nearing Exarnirrer.. tf-.you have"que—Alcris aboufT*,proposal,or-Aish to be made a party:of reroi'd•red receive additional 'information by mail,gleam,contact the project.manager. Atiyont who submits-vatten corrtments v+il7 auiQmzticalty beimme a partyat record anti a ill be nottfled D any deasion.on this ptaJeG CONTACT PERSON: .fill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-8598.E Erni:jtting@rentoriwa.)�ov' PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER.WHEN CALLING FOR-PROPER FILE If7ENTl:F;CA N if you would.like to be made a.party of record'to.receive further Infarr.Iat'ian on t ils proposed ptojett,cor tpleEe this fore and return to:Ccty o 8ertan,t�—Planning DNisiott SOSS So,Grady l4'ay$eriinn,Yi A 98057 ijarnelFle N=fne Enclave at Srid1e Ridge1i.UAl4-DD32A3.Kf;PP NAME; MAILING ADDRESS: GtyjstatsJi'i•s,:. TELEPHONE W2. J EXHIBIT E P City of I) NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Department of Community&Economic Development (CEO)—PIannIngDlv!sIon of the City of Renton.The following brleflydescnbes the application and the necessary. Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION:: March 10,2014 LAND USE NUMBER; CUA14-00241,ECF,PF PROJECT NAME. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION, Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 ave ProjectS,ite. located within the R-4 (ResidentiaE4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal.would-result In the creation of 31 lots,and Z tracts-(Tracts A and B).and'a new public.street.The proposed lots would range In size frorri.8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue 5E.A lot line adjustmezit(WA14-000250)is proposed between.tax-parcels 1423059057 and 1423059i22 which will result 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision.No critical-areas are present on the project site. i. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156o Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS-M):-As the Lead Agency,the city of Renton has determined that signiflpht environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 4311C.111;the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be issued.Comment periods for the projecizad the proposed DNS-M are'integrated Into a single comment period. There willb6 no comment period following the issuance of the Tbreshold Determination of Nan Significance- Mitigated(DNS--M).A144;ay appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMITAPPUCATION DATE. February.27,2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: maich io,laM APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Justin Lagers./PNWHoldlngs,LI-C-4 9675 SE 36th Street Sulte 105, Mercer Island,WA 98.040/EMU jisti.n@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested. Environmental(512P.A:)Review,Preliminary Flat Review Other Permits which may besequired, -Construction,Building,Fire Requested Studies: Dralnagiefieport;Geotiiitliiiiia�l: Location where application may be reviewed: Department of.Comm*unity&Economic Developm ent(CED)—Planning DWIsfim,Sixth Floor Renton Cit ii,1055 ' yth'trady way,Renton,WA �y.Ha So 98057 PUBUCHEAR!NG: Public hearini-Ii tentatively scheduled.fi5rAorfI ZZZ0141:iLfarethe Renton HearingExamintirin Lenton CouncllChambers at_LDO­ AIVIonthe 7th floor of Renton Oty Hililmited at 1655 South Grady Way, if you would.like to be made.a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete this form and retum.to:City of'Rentonj CED—Planning-Di0sion,1055 So.Grady.Way,Renton,WA 48057. Name/File No.:The Englave at:13indle Ridge/LUA14-000241,ECF,Pp NAME. MAILING ADDRESS: City/statelzip: TELEPHONE NO:: City of,� 1,. '�-� rte' 4•a ?�,} � t f .. , � 1 r CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW... Zoning/Land Use: The subject site:fs designated Residential Low Denslty.(COMP RLD)on the City of RentaMC-omgrehensW Land Use Map and R4 on.the City's Zoning Map,, Entriranmental Documents that. Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental(SEPA)Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mltigatlon: The project will be subject to the Citys SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-Z-110 :Residential Development,and .other applicable, codes and regulations as appropriate: Pro osedMitlgatfoftMeasures:... The:followfng'MitigotiortMe�asures;will likely beimposed.o&..'.the-proI46kd: ,_. pro}ect'These recommended Mitigation Missures address project impacts not ccvered by exiting codes and regulations.as cited above. Project eonstructloa shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnlcol report prmjectcorrstructlorr:shallbe required to comply with the submitted tn>flistudy. -comments an the above application must besubmitted In writing toXII-Ding,SenlorPlanner,.CED.-7Planning Division; 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 4$053,.by 5,00'FM on March 24 ZMA. 'this matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on.April ZZ,2014,-at imob AN%Council ChambaM*Seventh Poor,Renton City Flail,1DS5 South Grady Way,Rentfln.:If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled:at(425}436-6578. if comments cannot be submitted in writing.by the date indicated above,,You may stilt appear at the hearing and present your:c",mments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have'questions`aboiit this propasat, or with.to be made a party of record and receive additional fnformation by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who.submits.written comments will automatically become a party ofrecord and-will be notlffed df any decision on this project, CONTACT PERSON' ,fill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Eml:idinggrentonwa.goy. 1 rot X'YN: Q PLEASE.INCLUDE THE PRO}EcrabMSER lhi'NEN CAL:UNG FOR.PRO PER fl LE IDENTIFICATION if you would like to be made'a party of reeord to recefve`fu0tr inform.zition=on this proposed project,complete this forma nd return to:City.of Renton,GED Planriir Division 1055 So:Grady Way,itentan;vUA 98057. NameJFle No_*The Enclave at Bridle.Ridge(LUA14-00024.1,EGF,PP NAME: MAILING ADRItESS: Gly/Staie(Zip TELEPHONE NO—` EXHIBIT 30 Denis Law Mayor . ' .city-of-to U, Community.&EconomicDevelopmernt-Department j May-19,.2014-.. - C.E"Chip"Viricen t,Ad ministrator. `CV,OF RENTON MAY 2 0.2014 Roger Paulsen .. :.: 5617 SE 5th Place RECElVE� ,.. :. .. Renton,WA 98059 CITY CLERIC'S.OFFICE Z. Subject: RE0014SE10 REQUEST'FOR RECONSIDERATION. Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP;ECF . Dear Mr.,Paulsen:.. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC):held.a meeting on.May 19;2014 to,consider your Request for Reconsideration, submitted April.16 :?014.:Please:find attached to this letter a copy of the dEcision of ydur Request for Reconsideration signed:by We members of the ERC including.one.ne.w.SEPA mitigation measure:. Ff you have any questions, please contact the project manager,Jill Ding; at(425).430-6598 orvia.em.a'il at.jding(grehtohwa.goV. - Sincerely) Gregg.Zimmerman Environmental Review Committee,Chair. Attachments =.. cc: Bonnie Walfon;_City Clerk.; i Just:! Lagers[applicant Sally.Lou Nipert/Owner. G.Richard Ouimet./Owner. f Parties.of Record, Renton City Hall=_1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057.- rentonwagov. .. City Df DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O- R A N D U M j DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Environmental Review Committee(ERC) j I FROM: Jill Ding,Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge(LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31,2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth ' Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). i The Did&=lel was- uW1shed orf..Apr-44;.,201-4:with an a pppea-1 period that ended on 2014.A request for reconsideration of-the SEPA determination was received"on April-17; 2014 from Roger Paulsen.The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts I and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) prepared by TraffEx(dated December 27, 2013)relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the SEPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item#1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment:The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service(LOS) analysis.After the receipt of the request for reconsideration,the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis(dated April 29,2014).The e submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156 'Avenue SE/SE St' Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis.After conducting the additional analysis,the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system.The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed - i h-.Nce41anningNca==t planning\prDj=ts\14-000241.jiiU\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dot-dor-x Environmental Review Cominitto: Page 2o[4 May 19,2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street / system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation atthe 1SGmAvenue SE/SE 14I"d Street intersection. Based onthe City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction ofthe proposed subdivision.Miththe installation ofatraffic signal atthis ! intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve.The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),therefore transportation impacts � fees would not fund the installation ofasignal. Due tothe existing LOS | designation F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact � that the required traffic impact fees would not fund atraffic signal atthis intersection,staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 1S6th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection.A fee in i the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips ' � =O.DOG87x$5DU,D8O=$3,435)shall bepaid prior tothe recording ofthe final plat. .3 ThsubmittedTk�provided | of ( the � , �i — . 'v��c/oc �+� �u m`nor'nouoeou�� �»rtUe^~ ' , enue Staff Com m ent: Item#2of theCity's Guidehnes for Traffic |mpa ct Ana lysis states that the"study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5%increase in'peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development".The proposed development would not res'Ult-in a 5%increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection � i was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th | Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. ' � The submitted Addendum included ananalysis ofthe 1S6mAvenue SE/SE Sth Place intersection.According tothe addendum the LOS for the I �SG Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently 'operates ataLOS[and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision.The current delay for westbound traffic is l5.1seconds,the delay isanticipated toincrease tu15.O seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project.Therefore, according 10the submitted addendum,itisanticipated that the proposed subdivision would result inanadditional delay ofO'3seconds for vehicles atthe 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection.The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the / | jDD==uusidm-aboozmc000uco8adonmcmo.dmtdocx. ' | . | Napo Environmental Review Committee Page 3 of 4 May 19,2014 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the j proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed-subdivision was misleading. People who didn't ' submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090.The notice states that i individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public j hearing. In addition,any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination,which provides a 14 day appeal period.The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving-the notice would have been notified of the public comment period,the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City,which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection,staff recommends that the ERC retain the ,_ .- - ` existing DSN=M'inrith one n.ew mitigation measure as fellows:. . 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW(dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to,the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of F at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation,the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection.A fee in the amount of$3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips=0.00687 x$500,000=$3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6,2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. I I h:lcedlplanniag\current planning\projects\14-000241 jiU\erc reconsidetaiion recommendation memo.dotdocx **awe Environmental Review comtiee Page 4 of 4 May 19,2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 1114 signatures: Gregg Zim'rnVrarOAdininiArator Mark Peterson,Administrator Public Works department Date Fire &Emergen Services Date Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community& Date Economic Development Z L h--%ceAplanting\cmTentplmminglpmj=tsNI4-000241.jiU\ercreconsiderationrwommendationmemo.dotdocx ' v f1/d7fd7-"WST17AFTIL, 11410 NEJ24th Std# Wand,USA PhnnW 425. . ,118 F4425�5n.431 j; April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers -PNW,Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3e St,, Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton f Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA)report i i for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response i to questions conceming the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The i additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. .The analysis is summarized as foll6gs; • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • .Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. i • The 142"d.PI. SEISE 156t''intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. ! AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th PI/156th Ave SE and 142"d PI. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing,future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 9 ---- ----------- FUBLFC WORKS DEPARTMENT Of M E M- © R A N. D U B DATE: May 5,2014 i TO: Chris Barnes,Transportation Gperations Manager ! FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations E SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142 P€ace at 156t'Avenue Southeast E Issue: Should we iristall a signal az the intersection of Southeast 142°d,Place and 156 'Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cm5ayne@gmail.cnm?. Recommendation: € We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a -newsignal. Background: '. f We have analyzed the intersection of Southr ast 142nd Place and 156'x'Avenue Southeast for signal warrants accordingto Section 4C ofthe Manual of Uniform Traffic Contra! ! BeviceE. This proposed location meets Warrant 1,interruption of ContinuousTraffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Uolurnes-for Four Hours. Please find.attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table.4C-1 from the Manual of Vnr}arm Traffic Control Devices,Figures 4C-1 through 404 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and.a copy of the Signa€Warrant Analysis. - t This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since.2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156 'Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles r-un offthe road to avoid hltgng a deer. Of these,only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156' Avenue Southeast The othei four accidents occurted at least-two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.. h.�dn�ionsltransporlat�operatio\ran\tiom\tom9545a_do� •_ - - i PPFP_ .✓ tirr✓ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M- 0 R A N D U KI BATE: May 5, 201.4 TO: Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager ; i FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal,Southeast 142"0 Place at 156ei Avenue 1 Southeast Issue: Should we iristall a signal at the intersection of Sout#ieast 142 Place and 1561"Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayneogmail.com?. Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a i -new signal. 17 Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156 'Avenue Southeast for signa I warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Coatiol Devices, This proposed location meets Warrant 1,Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes-for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manua!of Vniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4!24 from the Manual of Uniform � Traff c Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. I . This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since,2009,there have I been five recorded accidents on 156 Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end I accidents and the other two involved vehicles run oflthe road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these,only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142°a Place and 156u`Avenue Southeast_ The other four accidents occurred at least-two blocks away from the intersection in' question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents.- . h%diyi.sionAtr nspar.tat\operatio\ion\tom\tom9645a.doc I � ���� ` ,°^"°�`'"� .'^�^............ COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT an � � � ` , K8 E M 0 R A N D 0 M DATE: April 18,2014 TO: VanessaDo|bee Current Planning Manager Steve Lee,Development Engineering Manager | FROM: Neil Watts,Development Services Director | � � SUBJECT; Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle RiftePreliminary-Plat � The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots,with a calculated � daily trip generation ofanadditional 287trips. The project passes the City ofRenton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.Dasfollows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes . | Project subject to transportation mitigatio' h or impact fees? Yes 77� ������ Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes � Evaluation of Test Criteria fmplementation of.citywide Transportation Plan?: / . / Asshown onthe attached citywide traffic ' concurrency summary,the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130%ofthe scheduled expenditure through IO13. Within allowed growth levels?: Asshown onthe attached citywide traffic concurrency summary;the calculated dtywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. The | i transportation impact fees attime ofbuilding permit. � Site specific street improvements to be completed by : The project will berequired to ' complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Anyadditiona| off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording ofthe plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code(RM[)4-6-]7O The specificconcuneocytest requirement iscovered in � RMC 4-6~O7O.C\which islisted for reference: | | ............... Transportation Concurrency Test-The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18,2014 D. CONCURRENCY REWEWPROCESS: 1. Test Required.A concurrency test shag be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shag determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test 2.Written Finding Required.Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity.A written finding of concurrency shag apply only to the specific land uses,densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit 3.Failure of Test. If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concuriency.,test;-the%.prqjectappiicatfbn shag be denied by the decision maker With the-*authorffk-fd'`;`f` approve the accompanying development activity pen-nit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan,payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation,development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 EXHIBIT 31 CITY OF 'RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANnnNt3 uivi�auiv AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22 day of May, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA reconsideration/determination documents.This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Applicant Sally Lou Nipert Owner G. Richard Ouimet Owner See attached Parties of Record See attached Agencies (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) -�� � POP,,110III�% COUNTY OF KING ) _ � ?4th �► i I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante %, '00�4�� `4 � signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for 'b► e39n oses mentioned in the instrument. 4P Dated: W1 Shp N t ry Public in and for the State of Washington- Notary ashingtonNotary(Print): �D I[U PnA)'W-5 My appointment expires: A Qj'ec a The Enclave at Bridle Ridge of et e . LUA14-000241, PP, ECF LUQ, ,.,j00241 THE ENCLAVE AT BRID, AGE OWNER/APPLICANT/PARTIES OF RECORD M.A.Huniu DAVID MICHALSKI Wade Willoughby 6608 SE Sth PI 6525 SE STH PI 6512 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 Justin Lagers Roger Paulson Richard Ouimet PNW Holdings LLC 6617 SE 5th PI 2923 Maltby Rd 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Renton,WA 98059 Bothell,WA 98012 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Sally Nipert Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 140041S6th Ave SE 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 SE 5th PI Renton, WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98333 Renton,WA 98059 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept.of Ecology** WDFW-Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Environmental Review Section . 1775 12th Ave.NW Suite 201 Attn:Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah,WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Auburn,WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region* Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* Attn:Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev.Serv.,MS-240 Seattle,WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn,WA 98092-9763 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp.of Engineers* KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn:Gretchen Kaehler Attn:SEPA Reviewer Ms.Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S.Jackson ST,MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia,WA 98504-8343 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers*** Depart.of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia,WA 98504-7015 KC Dev.&Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn:SEPA Section Attn:Tim McHarg Attn:lack Pace 35030 SE Douglas St.#210 Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev.Director Snoqualmie,WA 98065 12835 Newcastle Way,Ste 200 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle,WA 98056 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Kathy Johnson, Steve Lancaster,Responsible Official Gary Kriedt 355 110`h Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Mailstop EST 11W Tukwila,WA 98188 Seattle,WA 98104-3856 Bellevue,WA 98004 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura Attn:SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle,WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an"Optional DNS",the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,&Notice to the following email address:sepaunit(a)ecy.wa.eov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT, &Notice the following email address:sepacenter(aDdnr.wa.eov template-affidavit of service by mailing Denis Law Ci of _. EXHIBIT 32 Mayor '\rr+ . `7 Community,_&Economic Development.Department. May 22,,2014 -C.E"Chip"VincentAdmin.istrator _ CRY OF PENTON' Roger Paulsen'' MA 2 2014 6612 SE 5 _Place Renton;WA 98059 RECEIVED- CITY CLERICS OFFICE- RE: Enclave at Bridle.Ridge Prelimina'ry.Plat/ 4UA14-000241; PP; ECF . Dear Mr. Paulsen: As-part of the review of your Request.for Reconsideration,the-City conducted an independent study of the 15.6'. Avenue S-E%SE.142nd-Place:intersect_ion.The study concluded that the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d:Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signa-I.The City'-has added and is,prioritizi the installation of.a 1raffic signal at-this location to its,Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).:Although it has been.determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the developmentof the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not - significantly impact the existing traffic situation at�the 156th-Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place` intersection;the City's'Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the. developer to.pay their fair share-forthe installation of•the trafficsignal as an-:additional mitigation measure hrou.gh SEPA: It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal ..wo.uld.o'ccur as apart of this project, but would occurat a later date as additio.nal-funding* becomes'aysilable: If'you have any-further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at X425) 43.0=6598 or via email atjdin@rentonwa. ov. Sincerely; : G.E. "Chip„ Vincent ,CED Administrator. Attachments . cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton,City Clerk Justin Lagers,Applicant _. sally Lou Niper,Owner G.Richard Ouimet,.Owner. Parties of Record Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way . Renton,Washirigton 98057 . rentonwa.gov.. Fr' .. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ® M�e M E M- O R A N D U M . DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Chris Barnes;Transportation Operations Manager FROM: Ronald Mar,Transportation Operations SUBJECT: Proposed Signal, Southeast 142nd Place at 156thAVenue Southeast Issue: Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne ofcmbayne@gmail.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2,significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes,Table 4C-1 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 404 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009,there have been five recorded accidents on 156th Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer: Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h-.\division.s\tra nspor.tat\operatio\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc Page 438 = `awl 2009 Edition t: Standard: r" The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the C ,foIIowing conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: De A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist ori kx tr the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection;or, B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist tined the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches;respectively,to the intersection In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street,the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of ., these 8 hours. Option: Sl 05 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph,or F I ai the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000i,the , (t traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. {{ �' 7 r Guidance: a 06 The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations tivhere Condition A is not d> satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives..' r �] that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. ,03 Standard: . �nl 07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of they y �' following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: ySec1 A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on u the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection,and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on ,. the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the intersection These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, '. t `he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. pllo, F S On the minor street,the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of °2 the 8 hours. _., . plt x ' Vie, Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Volume i- Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicles per hour on higher-volume traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) minor-street approach(one direction only) t` YStie k� Major street Minor Street 100 V 80%b n 70%, 56%d 100 80 b 70 56 1 1 T' 500 400 350 28Q 150 i,20 I05 84 = 1 2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 2 qr mora :� 2 ar r�o�e 800 480 420 336 200 160 j40 ',112 °'_ "' 1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 ' ti}_ Condition B—interruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major str0 trafficat Vehicles per hour on higher voltime i { on each approach (total of both approaches) minor-street approach(one direction only) Major Street Minor Street c 0 56% 100%- BOl 70%0 56%" 1 750 600 525 420 75; 60 53 -02_: r s _. or more 1 900 720 630 1 5D4 75 60 53 42 ` a 2 of_morei.. 2 or moria 900 720 630' S0�4 �_ "f 00 BO a0 1 2 or more 750 600 525 420 100 BO 70 1 = a' 56 Basic minimum hourly volume -e e Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures Maybe used when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than Imoo 3 May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the s` a r major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community With a population of less than 10,000 ") SaCL 4C.02 - >, DCCT mbtt ss� R Page 440 2009 Editioi,: ` Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 500 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MOHLANES400MINOR 2 OR MORE LANES STREET Sop 1 LAN „z HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH s. 100 115• Bo` 4 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 14001 t = MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— :1 VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume fora minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower - threshold volume for a minor-street approach with,one lane. '•vF -u Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) F (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) . 400 �2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES 300 MINOR ' 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LAN STREET HIGHER- 200 1 LANE& 1 LANE ' VOLUME APPROACH- VPH 100 r:t BO' 60' x 200 300 400 500 600 700 Boo 900 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:BO vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Sect.4C.04 Becrniberx u- ex-, �D09 Fclition Pale 441 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 600 500 -NN 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES MINOR STREET 400 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE HIGHER- 3 300 VOLUME APPROACH - ( 1 LAN &1 LANE VPH 200 "* 150* 100 100' S 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note:150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. ,f Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour(70% Factor) k4. (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MO I E LANES ` MINORII 1 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE STREET 300 HIGHER- , 1 LANE& 1 LANE VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH = 100 t00` 75* 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH) r• *Note:100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. 1�. ,rmb r 2Iv,)4 SccG YC.W _: Signal Priority Ratings: A=Number of correctible accidents in a 12 month period AR=Accident Rating =100/5 x A Vm=Average of the 8 highest hours of main main street volume in veh/hr(total both directions) Vs=Average of the 8 highest hours of side street volume in veh/hr(total both directions) Note:right turns on red and/or free right turns are subtracted from the side street volumes. K=reduction factor= (0.97 In(Vm/Vs))-0.32 Cv=Capacity constant Note:When the 85th percentile speed of main street is>40 MPH, MUTCD volume warrants are reduced therefore, reduce Cv so that Cv=0.49 x Cv Number of Lanes Main Side Street Street Cv 1 1 750 2+ 1 900 2+ 2+ 1200 1 2+ 1000 VR=Vehicular Volume Rating=(Vm x Vs) (K x Cv) Pm=Average of the 8 highest hours of main street pedestrian in ped/hr(total both directions) Wm=width of main street in feet Cp=pedestrian constant=78000 PR= Pedestrian Volume Rating=Vm x Pm x Wm/Cp Total Rating=AR+VR+PR Intersection A ::;4A: Vm Vs : :::;f :'::=: Cv 1::X-VR Pm Wm ::)?f ::::: ojat Dorae� SW 41 st ST/Oakesdale AV SW 5 :1:00: 615 407 ::::i3;fl8::: 900 c 345g;1i5': 0 56 S 4th ST/W i[liams AVS 0 ;:::0:::: 442 357 10001,1-1398:4:x: 12 43 :9.2.j-,#396: NE 44th ST/1-405 NB Ramps 3 ::fi0;: 539 476 0;2Ct:: 900 1429;4-2: 0.5 SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 :1:2Q: 783 306 ::::Q:59'- 1200 ::33 : 4> 0.5 51 ::O: fi:: :::458;::done S 7th ST/Talbot RD S 0.3 :=56::: 990 1 315 ::(1:. 9:::: 900 NE 12th ST/Union AV NE 0 :::0::: 449 220 ::::0:37::; 750 :,354;0.6::: 6.25 45 SE 31st St/Benson RD S 2 :=:40:: 1221 270 :-::t_t4:= 1100";2f'Z0,4::: 0.33 51 ':0:26:: :::302;: done NE 4th ST/Hoquiam AV NE 2 ::4U> 1899 153 .'•2-.12;:� 588 :::232:7.4:: 0 62 :::D:i)0': >2T3.:: done S 55th ST/Talbot RD S 3 :::60.: 898 174 #;2T: 750 ?:1:63.:8D::: 0.37 36 N 44th STA-405 SB Ramps' 3 460 179 Ds6 ;' 1000 138;26;:; 0.17 56 . 6 06.:: NE 12th ST/Kirkland AV NE 6 ::1:2b: 542 120 :: :4: 900 _ 25_::: 5 j 38 SE 142nd PL/1 56th AV SE0 0 976 167 750 ISfi;{#7:: 0 39 Q QO;:: X56, S Eagle Ridge DR/Benson RD S 3 ::$Q': 1148 93 2.32:::: 539 0 39 N LandingLN/Garden AVN 0 : :(1>: 504 158 ::0$: :: 750 > 16 41 NE Sunset BUHoquaim AV NE 2 ::7 =:4!]: 638 69.5 >2::SQ ? 368 ; 5:65";:: 1 37 ::QAO:: :11.6•: done S Carr RD/Mill AV S 1 ::-20;: 1887 44.5 :::3::31:;:;: 441 ::::57:44;::: 149 :::1::39:: ::::7.3::; NE 4th ST/Bremerton AV NE 2 :: 0:: 2035 20 :::4 I6::: 441 :::;22:46::: 4 56 ::5;f34::::: 88:::: SW 34th ST/Lind AV Sw 2 :: 0 1161 49 F:::2;75? 1200 #7:2x:5: 0 58 NE 21st ST/Duvall.AV NE 1' :::20:: 1310 37 lj'�-P8.7- 441 ::::3��:OQ:;: 0.5 53 ::Q;4��:: .::;5 ` done NE 12th ST/Duvall AV NE 994 37 441 ::::30;g4::= 7 51 . ::4*%':: :$4:::: 5 26th ST/Benson RDS 0 :: 0:: 1008 27 368 :?: 3,:17:::= 15 47 ?9 ;t= :32: : done NE 6th ST/Duvall AV NE 0 `a::: 949 38 441 :: 9:19: 2 58NE 10th ST/Duvall AV NE 0 ;-:-0::: 458 48 441 ;:26:59;:' 6.38 58 ::2:1:7:: :`29:>: NE 4th ST/Queen AV NE 0 :;;4:;`. 1641 16 ':;:? 17 441 1427: 0.16 66 [:0:221-.-'A-4'::: TOM 9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142nd Place/156th Avenue Southeast WARRANT 1 Meets warrant—volumes meet Condition B for eight hours. WARRANT 2 Meets warrant—four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-1 for seven hours. WARRANT 3 Does not meet—this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. WARRANT 4 Does not meet—the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. WARRANT 5 Does not meet—this is not a school crossing. WARRANT 6 Does not meet—there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. WARRANT 7 Does not meet—there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. WARRANT 8 Does not meet—We classify 156th Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142"d Place as a residential street. WARRANT 9 Does not meet—This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. FK:TOMBo2G4V JFQ- 'dN M CA rrCr 00 'trO ti � pO i N00N O N O N:cy7 %t f-- CD 00 titiPr} M ri'Otd Lo : rim co ED En. - �I d'':r`�-:r (V CO CO'r!� (m Od :r'y (Dip 0 (o co c- Ldco N N ". T- tq cf7;d :�,r ;M.p1O '(fl,(p pp;I� C7S [t r (D,O: LO WI N:l- O O:CD!Lr) �;lt3 t[)'tZ:0jer- — p (D "t ce)'N'eN N M' .tfNM'O N 'O c);1m co (D M. O (DM o �f r1 ; OWd M :DO (fl N �:0 NNN;NM co N N,r n : -- N W m i O 03 00 N:O O L� N 1``Co 00 tI3 00 M`(D M O M r O'N N Vi Nr -'tn'NLO'o0r0 d-,(fl.pu) ONN;1` d' Mh- OCfl! N Q- rNNNNNNiM;d Col� t` tnM;Nrr- LO: O CD Lo O 'd An r.�` 1` t C);N r:d ;O M M (Y} M p N r O 'r N.N N;N fit-.'(`') d c+? � p X— O O m , r- N:M'NNNNNCNCOc7;Mc) NN;rt-,(D � � Z LU m r,00,N'(r}.M r-00 O�N M 'f`:ct�:N (D :ti CD cc7 N O ce) ao �. . CD 00;0'0 r c~-.�i� T-!C) h'd :M O LO m f�'Cp N 00 O'Ln;0)LO (0 CN "t ('0 00'(D;r-- �--0 cD Z r-;M,oO.� N CD M M,N �-;O Co (D:tD (D M 0 O r 'M to r.N r' r r r r r �-':t- O r p7 - N : t1) O,O O OO O.O O'p o 0 O+O OO O:OO O .O O Z O O O O O O O O.O O O O ,O O;O O;O .O :O O O O 0 0 (D W r N (*7 �t O ti aD,O O r N;('? d':Lo co 1`:0o O,O r'N (O �F; N'N N N N ; C). ;ooO o o o o o o 0 0 0 0' p ; Cl o; .0000oooO0000000;00000:o C7 �' � co 00:0 O.r;N M �{ LO;co r W'O r NM 04 04 N'N. EXHIBIT 33 Angelea Wickstrom From: Terrence J. Flatley Sent: Wednesday,April 30, 2014 4:13 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Jill, I concur with the arborist report. It's unfortunate that the trees in this area cannot remain in their natural state and development occur beyond them. From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:54 PM To: Terrence J. Flatley Subject: FW: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Hi Terry, Were you able to go out and look at the trees for this project? Thanks! Jill From: Justin Lagers [mailto Justin(�bamericanclassichomes.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:27 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 We never heard back after Terry's visit? What were his findings? On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jill Ding<JDin (cr�rgntonwa.gov>wrote: Thank you Terry! Please let me know if you need anything from me before visiting the site. Justin, please make sure the gate is open so Terry has access to the site. Thanks! Jill i From: Terrence]. Flatley Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 1:21 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: 'Justin Lagers' Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Hi, I can schedule this for Tuesday, April 151h at 1 p.m. From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 6:52 AM To: Terrence J. Flatley Cc: 'Justin Lagers' Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Hi Terry, I was hoping you could review the Arborist Report and Tree Cutting plan that was submitted with a plat that I am reviewing. In particular, the City is interested in retaining as many trees along the east property line as possible. Several of these trees have been identified as diseased, dangerous, or dead in the submitted arborist report. I have attached a copy of the arborist report and tree cutting plan, I've also highlighted the trees in the report and on the tree cutting plan that are of particular interest for possible retention. The developer of the plat has requested that we contact him before you go out to the site as the property owner likes to be informed when people come to the site, also the site is fenced and he needs to open the gate. Let me know if you need anything else for your review. Email is the best way to contact me as I primarily work from home, however I am in the office on Thursdays from 10 am- 2 pm. Thank you! Jill 2 Jill Ding , Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton j dinggrentonwa.gov Justin Lagers American Classic Homes,LLC Director of Land Acquisition&Development 9675 SG 36th Sweet.Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 Office:106-588-1147 Cell:253-405-5587 iustin(@,americanclassichomes.com www.americanclassichomes.com 3 iawweR4etNVnnVWm�VwM\a�-aanvnN L+4m�smarYm ' THE ENC EXHIBIT 2 r � . Li w q � g 1520 AWY"Y F �s {gq� n O 4 V IStM AKM.F g R a a g rri� 13]IX rulz se t I\i Hill IYM ACAL£W 1 "1 � oow f60M A1iNLF g O N m2 e 't AI W v Acs q Z=a 00 Z-9 a �. ICfM Alg m �O N = f*1 Nq 4 O A I v �� I� O � � r �m D o I m Z a z7 0 � z i 0 THE ENCLAMI EXHIBIT 3 Its y ,mol..•E sere. .-- -.� i 1 I TI I � k I p I � gk I :}�•� � I-'�� 7� I _ -I- A� g. I---------- co I I —� i. r'' �8ry •i 9 y—. I 44 14 Tj- _Zn 7'b I � `�, b I o I ,� � I 1• �- - r � 1 „.rn i k *e � i Hw 4, ;'i &�i i ,� gi �I x�,.:•,>E a s g { �#"-r-i.r` — I w t• s ��� I I, cn. I i I y, � m I . .-.� --�A _F Ill VZ �-zx £� i� I I S rwa,a.—� I � i I ;h I I .� I r •i"� � ffi�I � �� a u s O r om ,VT,JI cC SS R ' a 8 EqgBqbqdq 1111 pLMM i IL> a ggy5 AXRRRRFRFAARpFF � Rt V 3p€• ?,;>14 11 IN � 'Nap � a�yH i ��"Njl a o x _ I N m © p e a a � -02 QP3 co s x D° - ne.c�laf„1aTaW+�•VrhW.nm*nr�LNC aaa w,m EXHIBIT 4 THE ENCLAVE AT F . `t ILA po m�8 - ti �' 6• o' N "ro, y y A e� mZ LIS Q4 11 A $ tc a � Acs „I- m� y 00 E Z� t I E I � 1 mlmOZ ZD" R`r�w6 \T:ff 1 )'� pY n all ~ A Fn p I 22 1 m Z g Z Z � 0 r � a a E ' a s� 0 0 a 00 a 11111 SIMMONS I : MISSION liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii MINIMUM SCHEME RESUME :111111111111111 1111:811:1111111111111111111 MISS Rik nme SIA � liii n � nm� mn0 OPINIONS: :11�IN�NIA99IAI� IN �IIWI 9SIIG9E A9911 111111 � nm� i THE ENCLA\ EXHIBIT 5 I C . Li i 8 r � , I "-i. r 'E. .:.'6 An�'_4 .. '4°0..0° — -•-- B ,. � yAD / w N r Z r ; mz� z- 00 z� Y a m o I`1 A N m V VZ ti o >D jm vA sIn D A Tm Z z Y z s S A Oga sI U� ` �� 53�ie'a.1�es.�Yae�d�ti`!�lls!!�a ie,iBB�a+BB.�dw.87e�„aL.�IBP,���ir ri .Ail SJk!! ,l:;,��,��n iJ .-.;_,i.� -;�.n c< „�i �?rte.-.�-. .! -��� �y� ■ ill i E WIN Y 3° e y� IL nu �p il Ut iii zi q" ^1 hl '- �� ���� �� ' e! e[F...'�` '•'.I X44 � 'NIZ6i6�®�_mw.X."! ®I- WWI Y Y• - Y Y cc �� .iii �:.��.i►. �...— ��®� _ .� smopmFR-i�!,�c�®.�Y. 8e�e' p,0 raRpoe�ae ��: uqa �� ��, oee �� 1'!�,.��7 i►��.'.► �,.►1,��� 24 ._gv�.��.tz9�i�/.►1i�/t:.-.. fe® Q®'DBm6b0ass;t��B�../.. ok '41 , (� �i► �'1►� �� . � ' ill° �)hi '��ii�1 �� � � If i��• g \ 6 .rl Irllij e 0 MUM Loll. �; � 'a"��.�T.1_:Il"l:! � = •�ee4 e �a 6��F®�€a�� �s�r.=:�aana8 ry � � ¢.lti�•R:����l��or����rg � —�■ IN VA&M-A MA ��� �� �°�9ea®� °°•' ��� °°°° gra ®® ®®�®©®�� ��� Fee'_" ( 0® C"fi5r�'1�� ,`"Ed 52+00 �'..-ice -- __i rl__ - L_ - �\ (•� I I P) ,1 I 1Cb1 r : ya II �r 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 _ , m _ ------------ ------------ , �.. .\ f � - I I �qHy I cb --------------- t i ------------____ �___ ,I I I, S w ;• I CR CCC ,1 �1 ----------- So ---, - JDo \ _ C> Lo -? T1 -' I - g ""MA1CNLIN�W 5N 1'5 L-4 and L-5 FNW NOWIN65 LLC �Y REVISIONS E .. w 4 TNF �NCLM at PFl U pinG� y.��h� . f LAnnIn 174 1 .We,M V V 5j`CM p�AN �.,-�minnl vwyn f.mm.reie�,avbr4— 25-4 9 P y r�^Y r ti _1_____, . r________,_______, r___ �______.____, _____- i � •� 1 �cn _SII 'u/ co \ I I -l'--------------- -- 1--=--- ; A. ■ 71 N \� Z ® Q D e � N 11A t1 � ;.ES ,Ep�gEpG�� #5 �g 77 E � N N � yPtlS@pi lTiiZ _Z'9:2!===-=?= ;e o - - =s W N N N .WA� FNW HOWIN65 L�C y� �Y• $ ,N . REMS'mms �NCLM at PFIL?�� pinGE '"� LAN75CAPMAN -�— 9.�i�v-xir rlw 5zz-t y N?, ---------- -/I --------- ------ ------ CTI 'A 75 �7 73 C-) � 77 O PNW HOLPIN65, t LC REVISIONS THF �NCW� at PFM� FWCAN EM L AN P,- 42 wrwc=yernr\rnrN W°-+nW+r1^1mNmrnnw°aM/xr°.r.x nr rsr _ _ THE ENCS EXHIBIT 7 Pig � o = � w�a�H•n'�r+,rv"I�M'e+ r.�'____ - (,' -�S. .v�or i xrogCai`;xaa'� ' A� �A - A ,•a•' i � � �a I, ,; it ,,,'�G1 •& `�, Rr, < aa1X� rk ,; Q ,i ^.p ".t,r'• �_�m � ems ` ,2 ZWPI H 1 I �/ ,.a •� d dd rG. .� p R� �• % 9• •�,✓�••"'kL?�l�L� i,� `yam a�Q; � ••0^�.%;'d i'���.ar "'$�4a �C.i �w�-n+�".3�a; I ,ga-_,�i;, dk� .40 $ ,.aC•�1.y":. �£$ OZ �cn 0002 K m4 - �� 0c) i e Q m ga"a g �a4 Pq R, Igo'o Oo A R � 6�'� 8R - m a@ IV© q � gg � ggra �o w 4## R ill 'Ag € '< [� 11 a Y assay A gp � g C_! !" s, g R '� 0 omn Fi A ��E � '4i 3g a44cP i Ink a�pg�� � �a ��� � €' i jn p Rai _ jT5 Gig; � ���ggUV'-" € � R� �1 g g 4 g `4 Pig R E15 �_ 11 22 $Q$ € p narrct W.+1+1�nVlwryy+ry�lmaasrnlrr y1rM+•r�0�m THE ENG EXHIBIT 8 € Bit 74 .y b� S v4 s — 15G7HAVESE —> �I ;.t � l� p gggg2 � �yj I I - I I I C I p s { I � 8�1 -�86i �; A' too' ._J a5 i —__ -- i @fir L �2 F 3S_V�FLIB.�SL fill @cI - ZO_J L �J�. _J L __s7� J l� ••--// �� Soo AZ 2 E �C� x 5� ♦ R` o yD Y +� %x V z1mp €JF € F np�s R4mYrrlrnnyyrr.ywMlmwnani+RrMr ems wrm i THE E EXHIBIT 9 f � ..:0)-Hoo• F` - - - - I,; - psy rc 756 A 77 tkg - a T A I 1 Ni I 3 I 7 ti ;70" a !• ;= " , v, r i I 1 I 1 - 1 I L -r" ;uc-) m--I z- E S OO \ e � n m { r —'—' —'—' Ifq ' \ __ - U Az ly rel 3� 3<W I �~ - � ro ' D ~F I m Z z 21 � g 2 npvwaYw�rlrxo�.yyyu�y��saananr.La-Y1<sary rar THE EN( EXHIBIT 10 � -kip g F n0n -------_.----------------- IN IN rA I -- _ --_ , m� ----- ---- - -1 - ------- ZU, y i o.c.a Wir C� ^ � J IT to a Rqp m� s ' J A C7 E z o-Tj I \� ----------- --- v N y$+ m a dAn FFnnms o- o A �A p Mfr D op o a_ m z z A J - e s nw.c.yvWrlwrNlo.+wMsMls-+ar+irri yaNw aa�n wlm W EU N E s THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX r � 9 �$p $� 9 t � -- -- - --- II mea a aur �4 G o -- - _ - INA lVJ u i ....-- .......... y ^' - _- `,- p a A 'y All �g ,e g a __— ------------ --------........ nen. 00 PM �RaR o 0 a P � amt I % I Ir' i I m i ' g 4 W ¢glDv �r I I I v y NAMMAW STA 78+84 SEE SH&7 CIO D gA nur.�symTryarTaW.ra.yrv��ro-aewranr.Lava.a�muam - - - P Ea NOME s THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX r Q Q E fi a NA ifMf JW STA 19+60.SSE SHEET C9 F � o � 0 ..- ----- - —'--- - - ----I- --- I i i I � m:r«aa �'tj - I y ..------ b � i I my �A i m I yb $ 1 ' )ell a rn2 sZAt& iE 0 �- 5 1 o m _ so dam,., 8t8 C rr �m ----- --- z ------ - ----- ----- o e m o o � gs n�..VnNUniTTaMNa\+q-av�m+r�y/apn�evezrvm THE ENCLA EXHIBIT 11 m At z i \4 \ .— 4, 561}�AVESE 6 L. r 1 I \\ — � ym T _ z 4 5 I �� � 1587H�VESE _ ro mi 14 z c8 � $'Fa `� Zai �i $i3�a a 00 r a�q N III-MVIN, 19 �HAd fI it All aAz naaAla a' $s � qN y �m k fll V �O 5� D � A m Z EXHIBIT 12 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by NORTHWEST TRA.FF/G' EXPER'T.S 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland,Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED r '�EB 2 7 2014 C'Ty OF P�j�j'TpN PLANK;JG DIVISION EXHIBIT 13 I TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE I Preliminary Plat 14038156th Avenue SE Renton,Washington A. Jo WASHI� o� 5232 �r I NAL I DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant �� ���� PNW Holdings LLC ED I 9675 SE 36t' Street, Suite 105 FEB 2 7 x'014 Mercer Island, WA 98040 TY Report Prepared by e OF RE NTON 1ANNINv DIVISION D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6207 th Avenue .Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. EXHIBIT 14 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 1 Q,. Ste en H. Avr� S Geologist R. CA 'A NAL Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON RECEIVED ES-3220 V +L FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC PLANNING DiViSIpN 1805 - 136t" Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 . Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 EXHIBIT 15 _ Greenforest IncorporatE corisudLing Arborist 2/18/2014 RIVED Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development FEB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC CITY &._ O 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 PLAMJiNG DMSION Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, &9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet,which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels.Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated.A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter(DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary(Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease.This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary)with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees,and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street,Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 Sewa EXHIBIT 16 27641 Co February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island,WA 98040 RECEIVED RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton rEB 27 2014 SWC Job#13-187 CI Y1 -!`F NN 0 3 �'LANINING D VISION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge"plat, which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington(the "site"). 41252000,0 391 2i'10� 2i 00039 9J252000/0' 25200070 5423200D'2 "� 9J2 4(25200080 6 1.123059037 Jfi3�YJ068 i l2301tt02 IJG3! !Ii'40006 16 00069 ■„ �t 00005 — • `'* 2 SW4 7903 '0 5 .00070 127059027 33670M13M1 3367000 0 (230390 T13o5 1:20 33367000 53% ]5 L 9 ��2 la 1J !63+00061 B 1a63{ Vicinity Map f: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EXHIBIT 17 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP I APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street.The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 1561h Ave SE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton .Environmental Review Committee Department of Community& Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant I adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW j 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14)days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: April 4,2014 DATE OF DECISION: March 31,2014 SIGNATURES: ' ) z Gregg Zimmerman,Administrator Mark Peterson,Administrator Public Works Department Date Fire&Emergency Services Date Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, dministrator Community Services Department Date Department of Comm pity& Date Economic Development I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY EXHIBIT 18 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND. ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC I PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would .be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single, family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156th Ave SE I LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: j 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise'approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock(9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90)days.Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year.The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. -The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit: This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required.A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5- inch storz fittings.A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from Water District#90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156t' Ave SE near the intersection with SE 1441h Street and ext6ending the sewer main into the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line.The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156"'Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street.The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement).A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is$63,023.00.This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is$438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of$0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot.Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. Surface water: ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 4 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report.The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report,dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC.The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content,the geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is$1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit.Estimated storm fee is$36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot.The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest.The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips,with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection, increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards,the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE,the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards,frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8-foot ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 4 — - planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench. restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan . submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals.Alf utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer j shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special I Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. I i I i 1. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 4 City of EXHIBIT 19 N OTI CL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION - PROJECT NAME: Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241,ECF,PP LOCATION: 14039156'Ave SE DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre)zoning designation.The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts(Tracts A and B)and a new public street.The proposed lots would range In size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the new lots would be provided We a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE.A lot line adjustment(LUA14-000250)is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result In 30,175 square feet of parcel 14230591757 being removed from the proposed subdivision.The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage.An existing residence Is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057.All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process.No critical are.are present on the project site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.on April 18, 2014,together with the required fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL,1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY,RENTON,WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 22,2014 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE"CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,SHORT PLAT,ETC.*. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN.CALLING F09 PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. v a-. ,Ihereby certify that copies of the above document were p sted in _ conspicuous places or nearby the descri property on Date: Z�' Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �^��t�ly(tet—CL7T� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: rp .4� 4" Notary P Ic in and for the State of Washington CIA =� - • " z Notary (Print): iOu ��t► �O _ �{n � l��'w�r� s 1 -ti. �ly1p15ointment expires: �0 17 a CITY OF RENTON :. kt DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&"ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION z `AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE.BY MAILING" On the 3rd day of April, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA determination documents.This infyormation was sent to: .�y, 4a Agencies See Attached See attached Owner, Applicant, Contact, Party of Record (Signature of Sender): ; e STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa M. McElrea signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for# i6$es mentioned in the instrument. %, 8 SO = Dated: ; f 3, � o(y Nota ublic in and for the State of Notary(Print): t My appointment expires: 20{� - _" ro�ect SUMI The Enclave @Bridle Ridge p e"c umber " LUA14-000241 IN template-affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept.of Ecology** WDFW-Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave.NW Suite 201 Attn:Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah,WA 98027 39015-17f Avenue SE Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Auburn,WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region* Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn:Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev.Serv., MS-240 Seattle,WA 98106-1514 39015 17fd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn,WA 98092-9763 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp.of Engineers* KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn:Gretchen Kaehler Attn:SEPA Reviewer Ms.Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S.Jackson ST,MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia,WA 98504-8343 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers*** Depart.of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia,WA 98504-7015 KC Dev.&Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn:SEPA Section Attn:Steve Roberge Attn:Mr.Fred Satterstrom,AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave.SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev.Director Renton,WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle,WA 98059 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster,Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868,MS:XRD-01W Tukwila,WA 98188 Seattle,WA 98104-3856 Bellevue,WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn:SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle,WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an"Optional DNS",the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT,&Notice to the following email address:sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist,Site Plan PMT, &Notice the following email address:sepacenter(@dnr.wa.gov template-affidavit of service by mailing I r ,e Enclave at Bridle Ride.: LUA14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant . Engineer owner PNW Holdings LLC p.•._ �� Maher Joudi Richard Ouimet 9675 SE 36th St, 105 D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers 2923 Maltby Rd Mercer Island,WA 98040 10604 NE 38th PI,232 Bothell,WA 98012 (206)588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com Kirkland,WA 98033 Owner Party of Record Party of Record Sally Nipert u M.A. Huniu°^ ~ ....T° _ . ..... .. _ .•,_.a. (DAVID MICHALSKI ' 14004 156th Ave SE 6608 SE 5th PI 6525 SE 5TH PI Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98059 RENTON,WA 98059 (425) 226-6594 (425)271-7837 Party of Record Party of Record Roger Paulson Jason Paulson 6617 SE 5th PI 31 Mazama Pines Ln Renton,WA 98059 Mazama,WA 98333 (425) 228-1589 Page 1 of 1 David M EXHIBIT 20 6525 se_ Renton,Wa 98059 March 21,2014 Jill Ding,Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SESth pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156th Ave Se.Since the building of the bridge across Cedar River the..,_,_.,...._----- - traffic on 156th ave se is unbearable. Coming out of any of the side streets off 156th ave se is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down,there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156th. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, ,�- 2 Z0+/ Q t�L t'.�'ACllb' David Michalski j oP p NT Email:dcmichal@msn.com ,�ANNI/�IG� rCfON Ph#425-271-7837 March 22,2014 EXHIBIT 21 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED—Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jdingarentonwa.,-ov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project#LUA14-000241,ECF,PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the"rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions,the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142nd, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited"capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation(e.g.those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality(also ignored by the traffic study)that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a"rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threatenup blic health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality,the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization(4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further,the topography and development pattern of these adjacent,neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes—particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed,provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve"and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot#4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director(per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval,where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat,there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot#4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination)provided by the City(see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline,that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner,not after. Further,the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided,but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal,per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application,providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures,they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. If you have any questions regarding the comments above,please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsenkcs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application Jill Ding EXHIBIT 22 From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday,April 09, 2014 6:38 AM To: 'DAVID C MICHALSIG Cc: Rohini Nair Subject: RE: concerns:the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP Dear Mr. Michalski, Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding.Your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review.The City is aware of the delay at the 156`h Avenue SE and SE 142nd Place intersection. Unfortunately,the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project.According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 2.3 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road,the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing )to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development to the City of Renton street system. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22, which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. If you have further comments or concerns, I encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again for your comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner From: DAVID C MICHALSKI rmailto:dcmichaMmsn.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP 1 Angelea Wickstrom EXHIBIT 23 From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:46 AM To: 'Roger Paulsen' Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Mr. Paulsen, Thank you for your comments.They have been included in the file for official consideration by the decision maker. Below I have attempted to respond to the concerns raised in your letter. 1. In your letter you cite the proposed development's impacts on transportation. Per the submitted traffic study the current delay at the southbound approach to SE 142nd PI and 156th Ave SE is 94.8 seconds. The future delay without the project is anticipated to be 133.2 seconds and the future delay with the project is anticipated at 137.1 seconds.Therefore, it is anticipated that the traffic generated by the proposed project would result in an additional delay of 2.3 seconds. I also understand that you have concerns regarding the traffic heading northbound through the SE 142nd PI and 156th Ave SE intersection as it makes a right turn from SE 5th PI difficult. According to the submitted traffic study the northbound traffic at the SE 142nd PI and 156th Ave SE intersection is currently operating at a Level of Service (LOS) B and is anticipated to continue operating at a LOS B with the construction of the proposed project.The City's transportation department has reviewed the proposal and has concluded that the payment of a traffic mitigation fee by the project proponent would sufficiently mitigate the additional trips generated by the proposed project on the City's street system. 2. You also indicated in your letter that you would like the opportunity to connect to the sewer being constructed with the proposed project. It is my understanding that the City cannot require the applicant to provide sewer to abutting properties. In order to gain access to the sewer being constructed,you would need to contact the developer(Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings Inc. 253-405-5587).The City would then review any plans for additional connections. 3. You also noted that additional wildlife, not identified on the SEPA checklist is present on the project site.Thank you for this information. 4. You expressed concern that adequate public comment has not been provided for the project and that the City's notice of application is misleading. The posted notice of application is in compliance with RMC 4-8-090B.The notice advertised the 14 day public comment period on the project and also advertised the date of the public hearing.Any comments on the project not made during the public comment period can be made at the hearing, currently scheduled for April 22nd at 10:00 am. If you have any additional comments or concerns, I would encourage you to attend the public hearing on April 22 at 10:00 am in the Council Chambers as an opportunity for public comment will be provided at the hearing. Thank you again for your comments. Jill Ding Senior Planner From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:46 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair;jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 1 Jill, Please find attached an electronic copy of my comment letter for the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I'm sending this via e-mail while traveling in order to meet the March 24th comment period deadline. I'll be entering an area of the country (southern Utah) where Internet access is unreliable. I'm copying my son, Jason Paulsen, on this is so he can address any questions or issues you may have if I'm unable to respond. Jason can be reached at jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication via e-mail to both Jason and me. Thanks!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing @Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(c-)cs.com> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(d_)Rentonwa.gov>; Lisa Marie McElrea <LMcElrea(d,)Rentonwa.gov>; Rohini Nair <RNair(a�_Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 6:38 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Thank you for your email. Could you send us your mailing address so that we can add you as a Party of Record? The plan reviewer assigned to review the Enclave at Bridle Ridge for utility compliance is Rohini Nair. I have copied her on this email. I do not have her direct line, but she can be reached by contacting the front desk at 425-430-7200. I primarily work remotely. I do go into the office once a week on Thursdays from 10am-2pm. I will also be happy to answer any questions you have on this project via email. I will let Vanessa respond to your request for public records, as I am not sure if we grant them electronically. Thank you, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [rogerapaulsen(cbcs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:41 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Fwd: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Jill, I'm forwarding an e-mail I had copied you on --but had your address incorrect. Hopefully this one works!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(a.)cs.com> To: VDolbee <VDolbee(aDRentonwa.gov> Cc:jding <idingQ_renton.wa.gov>;jasonmpaulsen <jasonmpaulsen a gmail.com> 2 Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 10:37 pm Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, This is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence regarding the project named "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", file number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP (see below). Now that the project has officially been posted, I request to become a party of record. Attached is an electronic copy of the required form, with my contact information. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, I am traveling out of the area, and won't return until after the end of the comment period on March 24th. I am an adjacent property owner(parcel 9425200080), and this project is of vital interest. I had arranged for my son (Jason Paulsen)to watch for official notice of the proposed development, and have been copied on Jason's correspondence with Jill Ding, of your department. Apparently Ms. Doing is out of the office on vacation until March 20th, and was unable to assist Jason in obtaining an electronic copy of information on the project. I'm writing you in the hope that you can help. If possible, I'd like to receive an electronic copy of application materials and supporting studies pertinent to the SEPA decision so that I can comment prior to March 24th closing date. I am especially interested in reviewing the traffic study. I am quite willing to pay the reasonable cost of providing this information. Let me know the best way to provide payment. Now that the project application has been officially accepted by the City, I'd like to pursue my question regarding sewer service. Can you tell me who I can/should contact to determine whether this project will provide an opportunity for adjacent properties to connect to the Renton Sewer system?? Thanks for any help you can provide!!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(a�Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(@cs.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:28 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Yes you are correct, as long as you are the property owner. The City uses the King Co. assessors data to mail out to the 300 ft. surrounding neighbors, so whatever address the assessor have for tax purposes is where the City will mail the notice. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(d-)cs.comt Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:33 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, 3 Thanks for the update!! My wife and I will be away from home for the next 6 weeks, so I won't be able to watch for the pink notice posters. Based on my conversation with Chris on Monday, I understand that we'll also receive a letter in the mail because we are within 300 feet of the development. Is that correct?? Our property actually abuts the development. We're having our mail forwarded, so I should receive the notice in time to become a party of record, and submit comments on the project. I'm assuming my question about access to the Renton Sewer system will need to wait until the City has actually accepted the application. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(a)Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsenCcDcs.com> Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 12:25 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, The name of the project based on your photos is "156th Ave. SE Assemblage" This project did go through the City's pre-application process but has not been submitted to the City as an official application. The developer is required to install these public notices signs prior to application to the City. At this point in time we do not have an official application to add you to as a party of record. Please keep an eye on the big white sign, once you see a bright pink "notice" poster stapled to the front of the sign, the application has been submitted to the City for review. At this time please contact the identified person at the City that is noted on the pink "notice" sign requesting to be added to the party of records list. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen fmailto:rogerapaulsen(d_)cs.coml Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for getting back to me!!! Attached is a zip file with photos taken of the "Proposed Land Use"sign recently posted on the property. The address is 14038 156th Ave. SE. I believe the project number is 13117. 4 Does that help?? Roger -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(d_)Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(cD_cs.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 5:23 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, have searched the City's permit system for a project with the title "Enclave at Bridle Ridge" or a variation of this title. We do not have any records of a project with this name in our system. Can you please provide me a site address or tax parcel number so I can identify what project you are inquiring about. If you would like to become a party of record for any project, the City has to have an application to assign "you" to. In order to do this I need to identify what application you would like to become a party of record for. Thank you for the additional information. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen fmailto:rogerapaulsen(a.cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:09 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, By way of introduction, my wife and I live on the East Renton Plateau, adjacent to the NE corner of proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I had some questions about the development, and met yesterday with Chris in your department. He suggested that I forward one of my questions to you. Our property has a 50-year old septic system. It's currently functioning correctly, but I anticipate it's life is limited. I wonder if the new development will provide us an opportunity to connect to the Renton sewer system?? If you're not the right person to address this question to, please direct me to someone who can. Although we haven't yet been formally notified of the development, I would like to become a party of record. Can I do that via this e-mail?? If so, the following is my contact information: Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th PL Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 RogerAPaulsenCa)-cs.com 5 EXHIBIT 24 r G'y of.,. Department of Community and Economic Development Development Services Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water)Standards REFERENCE: N/A SUBJECT: Landscaping,fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. BACKGROUND: The current drainage code (RMC 4-6-030) references the current King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for compliance with stormwater standards. Requirements for landscaping in stormwater facility tracts are included in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Section 5.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM restricts planting in berms that impound water or within 10 feet of any structure. Requirements for pond geometry and side slopes are listed in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. Adopted standards allow for the side slopes of an open detention or water quality treatment facilities (pond, wetpond, stormwater wetland, etc) to be steeper than 3:1 if a fence is provided along the wall and/or around the emergency overflow water surface elevation.This standard is resulting in facilities that are difficult to maintain, expensive in labor and materials for maintenance,and create a safety hazard to the maintenance crews. Fencing requirements are also standardized in section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton.A fence is required to discourage access to the stormwater pond, prevent litter, allow efficient maintenance, and in consideration of worker and public safety. JUSTIFICATION: Recognizing that requirements for landscaping and tree planting contribute to the aesthetics and value of new surface water installations while needing to ensure proper functionality and maintenance of facilities, both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community and Economic Development desire to clarify standards H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\CI-38\Code Interpretation.doc EXHIBIT 25 caz r vA H o as o N � C L UZ. y N Q 1p O N U w ''a N W Q a W O taw) Z z u ►. a � � — _ z or mom L9 E.0 > Ar a O C z q E E O 0 E lab O L «? EE w :E 3 l0 c O m 0 o ° o w 0 R F- L) a o O V O N 6 Z U.L. LO w Q ey N N Od Cl) M N i6 I- ~ N O l0 U O w' N d aw N d E 0_0 +ef t F N O •— L O ) C o a. m o E o N O � ■_ w D ML o W a LL W CO m d L p (q V NAm Q I W `o Oca m` a v� � rn I C IIP��"ilil p i 11 yI I III I �'1'I rll�i u � I/ II I II I � p �11pIII�lidl I iIP I �r� �.' .'i, rIINC try h < rn - I - I ' �II�IIP�IIP �.I, �.)malTA,re NE III �I I� f II III 4 I M I dil � III � L. �IIIu�PyyI'� II� P I'IIII' rg�III�I�I41 Nj " I I !: ° Ni«IIhll�ple P IiVI� �flll,�hI III IPI IIII�IIIII I rn _ J a u HGq l_ll.:u 11�.�.�� h�dL IT Ill aco P1 SE ---!'"- t�44xh Ave !Oeric_ho Avg.' Jericho Ave NEiz ii—' kricho,Ave N rn Po fM - aII I R I Q. NE CD `�1 Y 1dAh Pl r if !� I Av(, NE r, - 146th ISE _ fA - CD m r"-file P1 NE a) =r CL sx:o Dr NE Pa rcc I ter mil rt �'I 0; rn y (juin: O Tr Y '� Rc»Yirlri a,e 15r1J tr1'.'e S _ Fri Fc ra r n gym_.. o 7 N +� a O J r tiJ 'Il ; JI:5f;tll A'rr 5E _ 3 4 O 1— r i rn� n 7) I'll � l "j 7th FI ��E �' i `` -1 � I 1 nl:l I Ave `•E D c { O- rn rfl ^y .+f++,� lc',�. = Q rn 0 R n a O J1, co rn ],<alh I'I SE V, _.: M. r rn a n Lr, r u =-r rli } (l I E6ktl PI `=,L 76)rl)PI SE If; o. 169th :Ave SE In Jill Ding From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 01, 2014 3:34 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com;Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re:Traffic Study Comments Attachments: Traffic Study Comment Response.pdf Jill, Because I believe the record will show that I have until Wednesday, July 2nd to submit my response to comments from the City and Developer, I am forwarding the attached letter to the Hearing Examiner. It is in response to the June 27th e- mail from Mr. Carson. If the City provides comments before the end of today(Tuesday, July 1), 1 reserve the right to respond to those comments before the end of day tomorrow. Roger -----Original Message----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> To: JDing <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: olbrechtslaw<olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>;VDolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 2:49 pm Subject: Re: Traffic Study Comments Jill, My understanding, from the Hearing Examiner's comments at the hearing, is that I had until Friday, June 27th to submit comments on the two "eleventh hour"Traffic Study documents. Both the City and applicant then had until today (Tuesday, July 1)to respond to my comments. I than have until tomorrow(Wednesday, July 2)to respond to the City's and Applicant's comments. Please let me know if that is not true, and on what basis your finding is being made. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDinga-Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(@_cs.com> Cc: olbrechtslaw<olbrechtslaw(cDgmail.com>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(aD_Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 1:33 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, The record was closed on June 27th, as such the City will not be providing a response to your June 26th comment letter. Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(c)cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 7:42 AM To: Jill Ding 1 Cc: olbrechtslawCa)gmail.com Subject: Re: Traffic Study Comments Jill, Will the City be submitting a response to my June 26th comment letter?? Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(-Rentonwa.gov> To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw(o-gmail.com>; 'Justin Lagers' <Tustin(o�americanclassichomes.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsom(c-)Rentonwa.gov> Cc: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(ocs.com>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(a)Rentonwa.gov>; Rohini Nair <RNair(o)Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 8:29 am Subject: FW: Traffic Study Comments Phil, Please find attached a copy of Mr. Paulsen's comments regarding the traffic studies (Exhibits 4 and 5) which were submitted by the applicant and the City at the June 24th Hearing for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge. Thank you, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(a�cs.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:19 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Traffic Study Comments Jill, Please find my comment letter, attached. Because of the time sensitivity of my response, I request that you provide confirmation of receipt. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(D-Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(c)-cs.com> Sent:Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, The hearing examiner has indicated that any comments/questions you have should be emailed to me. I will forward your questions to the applicant and hearing examiner. Thanks, Jill 2 From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen(cD-cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:01 AM To: Jill Ding Cc:Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Traffic Study Comments Jill, I realize should have been more specific with my question. At yesterday's Appeal Hearing, the Hearing Examiner provided me an opportunity to submit comments about the two "eleventh hour"Traffic Studies by 5:00 PM Friday, June 27th, but he didn't say how those comments should be submitted. -Can my comments be submitted via e-mail, or should they be in the form of a hard copy letter? -To whom should the comments be addressed? - Is it necessary to copy others parties when the comments are submitted?? If so, what addresses should I use?? I assume I should continue to use you as my City of Renton contact person for all questions related to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. If that is not correct, please let me know. Thanks for any guidance you can provide!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(c Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(ci_)cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:45 am Subject: RE: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Rohini would be your contact for traffic related questions. Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mai Ito:rogerapaulsen(a)cs.corn Sent: Tuesday; June 24, 2014 12:07 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Jill, To whom should I address my comments on the traffic studies??? Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDinW5_Rentonwa.gov> To: Phil Olbrechts<olbrechtslaw(o),gmail.com>; 'Justin Lagers' <iustin()_americanclassichomes.com>; 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsena,cs.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsom @Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014,12:04 pm Subject: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 I am going to be sending all the exhibits in separate emails as the files are so large. Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton 3 jdinq(a,rentonwa.gov 4 July 1, 2014 Dear Mr. Examiner, The following is my response to Mr. Carson's June 27th comments. a) Neither the City nor the applicant has demonstrated that an additional traffic study was not required to support the City's May 19th Environmental Determination. b) Neither the City nor the applicant has demonstrated that the City supported their May 191h Environmental Determination with a traffic study which analyzed the impact of the proposed new traffic signal. c) When I filed my Request for Reconsideration and appeal on June 5th,there was no such traffic study in the public record to support the City's May 19th Environmental Determination. d) if I hadn't appealed, there most likely wouldn't be a traffic study in the public record today to support the City's May 19th Environmental Determination. e) If the City had accepted my June 5th Request for Reconsideration, and completed the traffic study it requested, an appeal wouldn't have been necessary. The record shows that Request was denied—without proper justification, in my opinion. f) As a direct result of the City's denial of my Request for Reconsideration my appeal was filed. At that time, all of the fallowing was true: The first reason for this appeal is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern, including the intersection at 156th Ave.SE f SE 5th PI., and the intersection of 154th Ave. SE/SE 142"d PL.. The City was aware of the plan to install the new traffic signal, but failed to consider its impact on the proposed development when it issued its threshold Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated on May 19th. g) Acceptance of my Request for Reconsideration would have allowed the City to obtain a traffic study to support their decision, and would have allowed all parties of record a 14- day appeal period to examine the new information. h) Thanks to my willingness to pay the$250 appeal fee, the City did obtain the requested Traffic Study. However,with the exception of the City and the applicant,the appeal process allowed only one party of record (myself) 3 %days to review the new information—and then only due to the generosity of the Hearing Examiner. ! understand that the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) allows jurisdictions a certain amount of discretion, but SEPA exists to inform the public's understanding of the likely impacts of a proposed action, and that was not done when the City issued its May 19th Determination. I ask that my appeal be upheld, and that the City be directed to re-issue their Environmental Determination, including the supporting traffic studies, and that all parties of record be given a 14 day appeal period to review that new information. Thank you for your consideration of my response. Sincerely, Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5`h PL Renton, WA 98059 Iq Jill Ding From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday,June 27,2014 4:13 PM To: Phil Olbrechts; 'Justin Lagers'; 'Roger Paulsen'; Garmon Newsom II; 'brc@vnf.com' Cc: Rohini Nair;Steve Lee;Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: City Clarification of Outstanding Questions for Enclave at Bridle Ridge FYI,see below.A couple of projects I had identified as having preliminary approval, have approved utility construction permits. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 3:52 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee Subject: RE: City Clarification of Outstanding Questions for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Hi Jill, Both Liberty Gardens and Maplewood park East have approved utility construction permits—just wanted to let you know. Sincerely Rohini From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 3:40 PM To: Phil Olbrechts; 'Justin Lagers'; Garmon Newsom II; 'brc@vnf.com' Cc: 'Roger Paulsen'; Rohini Nair; Vanessa Dolbee; Steve Lee Subject: FW: City Clarification of Outstanding Questions for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Phil, I received some additional information on the projects listed under#5 below. Liberty Gardens is only 36 lots, not 46 lots. The 29 lot project identified on Exhibit 14 has had a pre-application meeting with the City, the project name is Alpine Gardens, PRE14-000293 with 29-31 lots.The property is located within King County, a formal land use application cannot be submitted to the City until the area is annexed. Thank you, Jill From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:59 AM To: Phil Olbrechts; 'Justin Lagers'; Garmon Newsom II Cc: 'Roger Paulsen'; Rohini Nair; Vanessa Dolbee; Steve Lee Subject: City Clarification of Outstanding Questions for Enclave at Bridle Ridge 1 Phil, Below are the responses to the outstanding questions for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge: 1.Clarification for the question regarding the 2%annual traffic growth for this proiect-The Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Developments mention that the forecasted volumes include the projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. For this project, when I discussed with Transportation,2%annual traffic growth rate was recommended for this area (this was based on historical data on this area). Until 2010 we were using 3%annual traffic growth rate, but due to the recession,the rate recommended for this area after 2010 was 2%. The applicant engineer used 3%annual traffic growth rate,which was okay with us because the engineer was analyzing a scenario that included more background trips. 2.Clarification for the question if we have adopted the ITE Trip Generation Handbook by code or if we use it by policy—It is by policy. The Rate study for the Transportation Impact fee that was adopted by the City uses the data reported in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, latest edition (8th edition at that time). 3. 20 trips to trigger a traffic study is this code or policy -Policy. 4.The am and pm peak our times, is this code or policy - Policy. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook also mentions the 7 to 9 am as the AM peak hour of the adjacent street traffic for single family detached housing. 5. Exhibit 14 submitted at the hearing was a map that included 10 new projects with the corresponding number of new lots anticipated. I have identified the names and file number of the projects located within the City of Renton and have been able to confirm the status of these projects.Two of the projects were located within King County's jurisdiction and I was unable to verify those projects. For your convenience I have identified the projects by the number that was identified on Exhibit 14: 1. 17-Saddlebrook I & II (LUA12-077 and LUA13-000626)total 17 lots,status: recorded 2. 2- Mair SP LUA14-000708 totals 2 lots, status: preliminary review 3. 8-Mindy's Place LUA14-00093 totals 8 lots, status: preliminary review 4. 36- Liberty Gardens LUA08-093 totals 46 lots, status: preliminary approval 5. 14(north of NE 2"d Street, not the 14 located on the west side of 156th Ave SE across from Enclave)- Maplewood Park East LUA12-018 totals 14 lots,status: preliminary approval 6. 7- Renton 7 S.P. LUA13-001214 totals 7 lots,status: preliminary approval 7. 46+-Copperwood LUA14-000550 totals 47 lots, status: preliminary review and Dewitt short plat LUA12-085 totals 4 lots, status: preliminary approval. 8. She had identified two projects within the County,one with 14 lots and the other with 29 lots. I could not find these projects on the County's website at the locations identified on her map. Please let me know if additional information and/or clarification is needed. Thank you, Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton iding@rentonwa.gov 2 Jill Ding &� From: Brent Carson <brc@vnf.com> Sent: Friday,June 27, 2014 11:51 AM To: Iolbrechtslaw@gmail.com' Cc: Garmon Newsom H,Jill Ding; 'rogerapaulsen@cs.com'; 'Justin Lagers (Justin@americanclassichomes.com)' Subject: Response to Appellant's June 26, 2014 Letter Mr. Olbrechts, At the close of consolidated hearing on Tuesday,June 25th regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge,you gave Appellant Paulsen until Friday June 27th to review and comment on the traffic studies submitted into the Record as Exhibits 4 and 5. Mr. Paulsen submitted his comments in a June 26,2014 letter. On behalf of the Applicant, here is the Applicant's response to Mr. Paulsen's June 26th letter. On the issue of traffic impacts, Mr. Paulsen's SEPA appeal (Exhibit 1) raised one issue. He alleged "that the record lacks any analysis of the impacts of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service . . .." Mr. Paulsen's appeal then assumed,without any analysis,that the signalized intersection would cause longer queues and a worse level of service. Exhibits 4 and 5 provide the analysis that Mr. Paulsen's appeal indicated was lacking. These studies demonstrate that a traffic signal will improve level of service and reduce queue length. Mr. Paulsen's June 26th letter admits these results and provides no counter to these facts. Instead, Mr. Paulsen continues to argue,without merit,that these studies are not relevant to his appeal because they were not available at the time of the Environmental Determination. As the Hearing Examiner noted during the hearing,the purpose of an open record hearing on a SEPA Appeal is to allow the parties to present evidence to address the issues raised on appeal. Exhibits 4 and 5 directly respond to the traffic issue raised in Mr. Paulson's appeal. As a result of these studies, Mr. Paulsen's appeal should be denied. Brent Carson I Partner Van Ness Feldman LLP 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 Seattle,Washington 98104-1728 (206)623-9372 1 brc@vnf.com I vnf.com This communication may contain information and/or metadata that is legally privileged,confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient,please do not read or review the content and/or metadata and do not disseminate,distribute or copy this communication. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone(206-623-9372)or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. 1 Jill Din From: Brent Carson <brc@vnf.com> Sent: Friday,June 27, 2014 12:15 PM To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com' Cc: Garmon Newsom R;Jill Ding; 'vince@nwtraffex.com'; 'Justin Lagers (Justin@americanclassichomes.com)' Subject: Enclave at Bridal Ridge - Response to'Public Testimony Exhibits Attachments: 6-27-14 Response to Exhibit 14 Pipeline Projects.PDF; 6-27-14 Response to CARE Traffex comments.PDF Mr.Olbrechts, At the conclusion of Tuesday's public hearing on the subject preliminary plat,you allowed the Applicant to submit, by Friday,June 27,2014, responses to the exhibits that were submitted into the record by members of the public. Attached please find two letters from the Applicant's traffic consultant, Mr.Vincent J.Geglia of TraffEx. One letter responds to the traffic related comments in Exhibit 13 presented by CARE. Mr.Geglia's letter further supports the record established at the hearing that this preliminary plat meets all applicable city road standards (including intersection spacing and sight distance)and will not cause public health or safety concerns. The letter also addresses the background for using a 3%annual growth. Mr. Geglia's other letter responds to Exhibit 14 and the testimony by Ms. Hydh regarding additional houses expected to use these roadways. Mr. Geglia's letter demonstrates that his 6%growth assumption over the next two years more than adequately considered traffic from projects that have submitted applications or have been approved. Brent Carson ( Partner Van Ness Feldman LLP 719 Second Avenue,Suite 1150 Seattle,Washington 98104-1728 (206)623-9372 1 brc@vnf.com ( vnf.com This communication may contain information and/or metadata that is legally privileged,confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient please do not read or review the content and/or metodato and do not disseminate,distribute or copy this communication.Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone(206-623-9372)or by return e-mail and delete itfrom his or her computer. 1 rraffm, A(oRTHNrEBT TRAjrrto E'XPERTB e . 25211Ph 425,52418N 43. 243 June 27, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Review of Exhibit 14 and Analysis of Pipeline Projects Dear Mr. Lagers: Purpose: We were asked to review the attached Exhibit 14 and the number of alleged new pipeline project housing units identified and determine whether the trips we had estimated from an annual 3% background growth adequately addressed the anticipated development. Short Answer : Yes Background : Our TIA estimated a growth rate of 3% per year over a 2 year period for total growth rate of 6% which added 68 PM peak hour trips to the SE 142nd PI./156th Ave SE intersection. The basic distribution of trips for residential projects in the area is 70% to the north and 30% to the south. One lot roughly generates one PM peak hour trip per ITE Trip Generation. Pipeline Projects: We have reviewed the pipeline projects in Exhibit 14. We included 7 projects that were either approved or have submitted applications. We did not include 2 projects in the gre-app stage, namely the 29 lot Alpine Estates or the 14 lot plat on the west side of 1561 Ave SE. Trips generated by the 7 valid pipeline projects that pass through the SE 142nd PI./156th Ave SE intersection were estimated as follows: 47 lots of Copperwood plat - the 70% north oriented trips will go up Jericho and not 156th, 20% of the south oriented trips turn right from SE 142nd St. to SE 142nd PI. and do not pass thru the SE 142nd PI/156th Ave SE intersection . Therefore only an estimated 10% go actually thru the intersection = 5 trips 17 lots of Saddlebrook -only the 30% south oriented trips go thru the intersection = 5 trips Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridae Traff,, 14 lots of Maplewood Court East - 30% south oriented trips = 4 trips 9 lot short plat - 30% south oriented trips = 3 trips 2 lot short plat - 30% south oriented trips = 1 trip 8 lot short plat - 30% south oriented trips = 2 trips 36 lots of Liberty Gardens - north oriented trips go up 160th Ave, therefore only the 30% south oriented trips go through the SE 142nd PI/156th Ave SE intersection = 11 trips The total trips the generated by the 133 lots of the pipeline projects passing through the SE 142nd PI/156th Ave SE intersection = 31 trips Conclusion: The 68 PM peak hour trips background growth trips estimated in the TIA more than adequately addresses the estimated 31 trips generated by the pipeline projects plus other general background growth passing through the SE 142nd PI/156th Ave SE intersection. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(a)-nwtraffex.com or larry(a)nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 2 as wF�°rnaa, �' -- --3SWv7,gt Id k6a -- _ LibertGardens c A•-s' me Estates 6 3 a`clr+~at IN Enclave 159 d8lebrook; s�o }; N 3�a-iq t119S1 �;� •� - .5"o,P-A, 3 Maplewood Ct `� 2 s, .14 EastF. -== rz , — s 3NN R:1 !? s. v L � �. alt+'•vit�a�l "L IN i:. wY� 97 y OSCraI[ �•' o Coperwood ' 47 11�� •d v� v = rrafto, NORrHWE-07 rRAFF/C EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St. #594 KirWM WA 98034 Phone.425.522.4118 Nx:4S,522.4311 June 27, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Review of Exhibit 14 and Analysis of Pipeline Projects Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to provide the following response to comments from the CARE letter dated June 24, 2014. Comment: `95e Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions.' This is a true statement,but it is insuffiicient to fully describe the situation. 5t 142—PL is not straight 21tnis location and has terrible sight distance.When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 156`h Ave SE,any vehicle waiting to turn either right or left from SE 142 PL onto 156`x`AVE SE will not be able to see. This will be particularly dangerous when vehicles is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project.The driver wiH be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of the stop sign and the southbound car,and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street In a scenario with a southbound vehicle turning left into the project,the driver will be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation. If the tractor trailer truck that fives at parcel#5336700015 is parked where is usually is—the driver will see that truck and very little else. Please see the accompanying SightLinelilustration.pdf. Response: The posted speed limit on 156th Ave SE just north of SE 142nd St. is 25 mph. The required stopping sight distance for a design speed of 25 mph is 155 feet. The distance from the center of the SE142nd PI/156th Ave SE intersection to the center of the 156th Ave SE/Enclave south site access street is 247 feet, therefore stopping sight distance requirements are met. Furthermore, northbound vehicles departing the intersection are from a stopped position (since the intersection is an all way stop) and will be in the process of accelerating from 0 to 25 mph thus increasing the elapsed time to reach the Enclave south site access street. Additionally, the City noted in their May 5, 2014 memorandum that the historical accident data since 2009 for the SE 142nd PI/156th Ave SE intersection does not meet warrants for crash experience. There were a total of 5 accidents on 156th Ave SE. There was only one accident recorded at the intersection. The other 4 accidents were at least two blocks away. The low accident rate is an indication of adequate sight distance and comparatively safe operations. Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge rraf f Comment: A 390 per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period(for a total of 6%)from the 2013 frafBc count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3%per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years." Response: The City requires a 2% per year growth rate to be added to existing traffic volumes. The 2% rate included traffic from pipeline projects. The Traffex TIA used a 6% background growth rate (3% per year for a two year period from now to the horizon year of the project)to insure a conservative analysis. It is our experience that traffic volumes have remained float over the last several years since the recession and therefore we believe the 6% increase in background traffic is in all probability greater than what will actually occur. Comment: The southbound stop sign and crosswalk for this intersection is located about at the center point of parcel# 5336700015 which is approximately 70 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Figure 2 of the TIA shows that the stormwater tract is proposed to be 85.24 feet wide and Lot 19 is proposed to be 94,59 feet. This yields a measure of 189.x6 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site as the proposed location for the south access to 15e Ave SE. 189.86-70 yields a measure of 119.86 feet which fails to meet the intersection distance standard of 125 feet. Please see the accompanying 156thAveSEintersectionLocation.pdf. Therefore,we request that the street access as proposed be rejected. Response: The distance between intersections is measured from the center of the intersections. The distance from the center of the SE 142nd St/156th Ave SE intersection to the center of the 156th Ave SE/Enclave south site access street intersection is 247 feet and therefore the 125 ft. intersection spacing requirement is met. Comment: The original Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit l3 - Traffic Impact Analysis,pdo states(bottom of page 2)that 156th Ave. SE is a"minor arterial". Based on the traffic volumes Renton reported as a result of the citizen recommendation to investigate the need For signalization earlier this year(and which Roger Paulsen graphed)the road segment including this intersection should be classified as at least a minor arterial(12K Average Daily Trips). Response: 156th Ave SE is classified as a minor arterial by the City. Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Trdifar If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(cD-nwtraffex.com or larry(cDnwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 3 Jill Ding From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Thursday,June 26, 2014 9:19 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re:Traffic Study Comments Attachments: Traffic Study Comment Letter.pdf Jill, Please find my comment letter, attached. Because of the time sensitivity of my response, I request that you provide confirmation of receipt. Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(a)Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(a-)cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, The hearing examiner has indicated that any comments/questions you have should be emailed to me. I will forward your questions to the applicant and hearing examiner. Thanks, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(o)-cs.com] Sent:Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:01 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Traffic Study Comments Jill, I realize should have been more specific with my question. At yesterday's Appeal Hearing, the Hearing Examiner provided me an opportunity to submit comments about the two "eleventh hour"Traffic Studies by 5:00 PM Friday, June 27th, but he didn't say how those comments should be submitted. -Can my comments be submitted via e-mail, or should they be in the form of a hard copy letter? -To whom should the comments be addressed? - Is it necessary to copy others parties when the comments are submitted?? If so, what addresses should I use?? I assume I should continue to use you as my City of Renton contact person for all questions related to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. If that is not correct, please let me know. Thanks for any guidance you can provide!! Roger 1 -----Original Message---- From: Jill Ding <JDing QRentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(a)cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:45 am Subject: RE: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Rohini would be your contact for traffic related questions. Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen(a)-cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:07 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Jill, To whom should I address my comments on the traffic studies??? Thanks!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing(a-)Rentonwa.gov> To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw(�gmail.com>; 'Justin Lagers' <lustin(cr).americanclassichomes com>; 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(-cs.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsom(a_Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:04 pm Subject: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 I am going to be sending all the exhibits in separate emails as the files are so large. Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton iding(a)rentonwa.gov 2 June 26, 2014 Dear Mr. Examiner, Thank you for allowing me additional time to review the traffic studies performed by the City and the applicant for the Enclave At Bridle Ridge proposed plat. The studies appear to confirm that, if this signal is constructed and operational by the study horizon year (2015),the intersection at 156d'Ave. SE and SE 142nd PL.will improve in level of service from a failing level to a functional level. This is important information relative to the City's approval of the plat itself, as it is clear that appropriate provision for streets cannot be made for this plat, pursuant to RCW 58.17, absent an installed and functioning traffic signal at this location. Neither of these studies confirm nor guarantee that the signal's construction is certain, let alone likely. In fact, based on the City's current prioritization of the signal in their 2014-2019 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program,the signal won't be installed for approximately 18 years. Therefore these studies confirm this plat cannot be constructed as proposed, without contributing traffic to the failing intersection for which the City has identified the need for project specific mitigation. To approve the proposed plat based on the record is clearly not in the public interest. With respect to the applicability of these new traffic studies to my appeal of the Environmental Determination, I have confirmed that both were completed AFTER the date that the City issued it's most recent Environmental Determination for this project(May 19th). My appeal is of that Environmental Determination, and the information that was part of the record as of that date. For this reason,these traffic studies are not relevant with respect to my appeal of the Environmental Determination and I ask that you take this fact into consideration as you consider my appeal based upon the record. Sincerely, Rog auls 6617 SE 5" PL Renton, WA 98059 Jill Ding From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Friday,June 27, 2014 10:40 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Bonnie Walton; Chip Vincent;Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Jill, Thanks for getting back to me!! I do disagree with the City's interpretation because I believe it deprives the pubic of their rights under the law. I will pursue this with City Administration and the City Council once the Bridle Ridge plat approval process has been completed. Thanks again!!! Roger -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing @Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Cc: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov>; Chip Vincent<CVincent@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 8:15 am Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Roger, I have been asked to provide a response to your request for an explanation regarding why your second request for reconsideration was denied. Requests for reconsideration are governed under RMC 4-8-110E.2: 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: a. When a reconsideration request has been submitted, the matter shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration. A new fourteen (14)calendar day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. b. In order to request reconsideration, the person or entity must have been made a party of record, or submitted written comments to City staff prior to the issuance of the determination for which the reconsideration is being requested. Under subsection a. above, it states that "A new fourteen (14) calendar day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration."We have interpreted this sentence to mean that once a decision on the reconsideration has been issued, the next step is an appeal and no further reconsiderations are considered. I hope this answers your question. Thank you, Jill From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:11 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Jill, i Can you please respond to Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Chip Vincent Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:52 AM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Vanessa, could you please handle the following. Thanks, Chip From: Bonnie Walton Sent:Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:20 PM To: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Chip, Can you or one of your staff please respond to Mr. Paulsen on this issue? Thank you. Bonnie Walton City Clerk From: Roger Paulsen rmailto:rogerapaulsen(cDcs.com] Sent:Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:36 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Ms.Walton, At your suggestion, I requested from Mr.Vincent an explanation for the denial of my June 5th Request for Reconsideration. It has been over a week since I made that request(see below), and I haven't received a reply. That seems a reasonable amount of time. Please advise on the best way to proceed to get the requested information. I'd prefer not to escalate my request, but will if necessary. Thanks!!! Roger Paulsen 2 -----Original Message----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(a-)-cs.com> To: cvincent<cvincent(cr).rentonwa.gov> Cc: bwalton <bwalton(c)-rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 7:01 am Subject: Re: Appeal Mr. Vincent, Please see my question below to Ms. Walton, and her reply, suggesting that I forward my question to you for clarification. The only reference to a Request for Reconsideration that I am aware of is in code section 4-8-110, which is titled "Appeals". Therefore, I assume a Request for Reconsideration is a form of appeal. Is that a correct interpretation?? If so, it appears my June 5th Request for Reconsideration met the requirements of the ERC letter dated Mayl9th, which leads to my original question: What is it that disqualified my Request for Reconsideration? Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton(d-)Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen(c)-cs.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 2:01 pm Subject: RE: Appeal Mr. Paulsen, I see that the response to the request for reconsideration issued by Gregg Zimmerman did not state the option for filing of a second request for reconsideration, but it did allow for an appeal process. So that is why the appeal is being processed next. I am not an expert on state law or land use, but it seems to me that doing this fairly preserved your right to be heard and your viewpoints to be considered, but it also preserved the rights of the applicant to receive timely processing of the land use application submittal. The better person to contact for this clarification really would be Chip Vincent, CED Administrator, however. His phone number is 425-430-6588, and his email is cvincent(a-)-rentonwa.gov. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen65�cs.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:31 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Re: Appeal Bonnie, Welcome back!! I also was away much of the week, but did have a chance to review the copy of code section 4-8-10 that came in the mail. 3 I'm curious what in that code section disqualified my Request for Reconsideration?? From my perspective, the ERC modified their determination, and it was that modification that created a nexus to the proposed installation of a problematic stop light. That appears to qualify as "any administrative decision made". Thanks for any clarification you can provide!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton(o)-Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen (rogerapaulsen(Qcs.com) <rogerapaulsenCCDcs.com> Cc: Jill Ding <JDing(a-)Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Sun, Jun 8, 2014 5:16 pm Subject: Appeal Mr. Paulsen: I'm going to be out this week, but you can look for the attached to come in your mailbox. As you can see, no Request for Reconsideration process is available at this point. Instead, we will be proceeding with the appeal process. The appeal hearing notice will be coming to you by separate letter this week from my office. The appeal hearing will be held on June 24th which is when the plat hearing also will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. I'll be out of the office this week, but if you have questions, feel free to contact Jill Ding or my main office number and someone will be able to help. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6510 4 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 27641 Ca*gbn Way SE#2 253859-0515 C Axjbn,WA 98042 February 3,2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 - --�, Mercer Island, WA 98040 rEB 2 7 011 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton SWC Job#13-187l ;r 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed"The Enclave at Bridle Ridge"plat,which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington(the"site"). 4f 52(KgTO - f 4i a5a000�� ' a320W . 2 9fa5a00.5TU , 9A� z za2afo4o s3focase f fa3ox�o2 7f 30.4 <6_"fU00BT�"'- ffG 0000 �+' 2 . S a3w Zdbf .a 3 T000 fy T000 3 23034120 3 35 4073- ffi3f00081 a Vicinity Map Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. February 3, 2014 Page 2 The site is 8.54 acres in size and contains a single family home with associated sheds, lawn and landscaped areas, as well as gravel driveway. The site is located in the SE '/4 of Section 14 Township 23 North,-Range 5 East-of the W.M. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site on January 24, 2014. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual(WADOE,March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The site was also inspected using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement(Version 2.0)dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990). The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual/Regional Supplement all require the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation,have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50%of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands:Northwest(Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5%or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5%of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres,water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. February 3, 2014 Page 3 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1.1 NRCS Soil Survey According to the NRCS Soil Mapper website,the entire site is mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Alderwood soils are not considered wetland or hydric soils. NRCS Soil Map of the site 3.1.2 USFWS National Wetland Inventory According to the mapping done by the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory,there are no wetlands or streams mapped on or within approximately 2000' of the site. Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. February 3, 2014 Page 4 USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map of the site 3.1.3 City of Renton Stream Inventory Map According to the City of Renton Stream Inventory Map,the closest stream to the site is approximately 1,000' west of the site. Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. February 3, 2014 Page 5 UJ Liberty . SE 138th Pl - - t SE 138th P1_ x - '' Lane .. Ui SE 139th Pl. 9! SE 139th P1, SE MUi PI. SITE SE il 142nd St u SE 143rd St- SE t; 143rd P1. 144th -st,fl SE E SE 146th P! n -rXd, r c0. f Et?'3tf jt . .. es tb 51 City of Renton Stream Inventory map 3.1.4 King County iMap Wetland and Stream mapping. The King County iMap website with the stream and wetland mapping layers activated (see vicinity map Page 1 of this report) depicts no wetlands or streams on or near the site. 3.1.5 WDFW Priority Habitats According to the WDFW Priority Habitats mapping website, the closest"priority habitat" is a biodiversity corridor mapped along the stream ravine approximately 1,000' west of the site. Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting,Inc. February 3, 2014 Page 6 Above: WDFW Priority habitat mapping of area of the site. 3.2 Field Observations As previously mentioned,the site currently contains a single family residential structure located near the southwest portion of the property as well as scattered remains of farm buildings, sheds and old foundations a gravel driveway and an old well house. The site slopes from a high point on the northeast corner of the site to a low on the southwest. The majority of the site is fallow pasture although the eastern and northern side of the site contains some third growth Douglas fir forested areas. Scattered native overstory trees including douglas fir, big leaf maple,red alder and several cottonwoods are found on the site. Understory species in the forested areasinclude Himalayan blackberry, indian plum and sword fern. The pasture is vegetated with a mix of upland species such as orchard grass, tansy ragwort, Himalayan blackberry and scotch broom. Soil pits excavate din these areas revealed a dry gravelly loam similar to the Alderwood soil profile with no soil saturation or wetland hydrology indicators present. Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting,Inc. February 3, 2014 Page 7 A small patch of buttercup is located near the driveway where a roadside ditch overflowed onto the site just north of the driveway. This area was investigated and found to have dry, upland soils with no wetland indicators. In addition, a low spot where a former pig wallow was located according to the owner was investigated as it contained small patch of red-osier dogwood. This area was found to contain a dry, loam with a soil color of 10YR 3/2 during our January 2014 site visit in the wet, non-growing season. This area was determined not to be a wetland. 4.0 CONCLUSION No wetlands, streams or buffers are present on the site. If you have any questions regarding this report,please call us at(253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 Stewart Plat/#13-178 Sewall Wetland Consulting,Inc. December 19, 2013 Page 8 REFERENCES - ---City of Renton Municipal Code---- -- -- -- - - - -- - Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79- 31, Washington, D. C. NRCS Soil Mapper website Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,Mississippi. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore,Maryland. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Misc.Publ.No. 1491. USF&WS,National Wetlands Inventory Maps. Reed,P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St.Petersburg, Florida. Reed,P.B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest(Region 9). USFWS supplement to Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9)May 1988. USDA NRCS &National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, September 1995. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States -Version 2.1 US Army Corps of Engineers, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement(Version 2.0)June 2010 WADOE, Washington State Wetland rating System for Western Washington, Revised, Pub#04-06-025,2004 r I f ig -tt I 1---1 I 2 o 4�8 1111^I I I I o m�� Zg � g$g 8 �yel.. sc r ir » e a ♦ (Y �gp g 4 � �. � I � � o s � illl� illll� kllllllllill� III IL a I n � � � �� � IIIII Illlll �llllllllllli I ! I 2 � _ � f 6 g lell3 s LI C £� Fgl -" E m oS �$gg�Q a y 3 3 F 1, S - 3C gill dills _gym 0 I I I�vxx xB Jaz � 03 _ i 3 o1 it fig T i ?sp � � illl �Iilll �llllillllil � n a o N � � r � � _ Illl� lllli� lllllllllll� ll� � � a � �� . �� IIIII � IIIII :IIII11111111 I � It LL kS < J M M Z-3� \NI _E LL Fg 03 7 5 t 9 Ol Hai a _ 91 I E E ss = E Jig i� I s I � eel 3 m^ m g I /VS E < < <n � b � � � �r � g �� � Illl� �lllll��llilllil { II � II 9 � � � ��o � Ilill�llllll�lllllllllifl III C G Z Y Z a it III t A I gay j rc FQ Greenfo_rest Incorporated Consuffing Arborist 2/18/2014 E C EF IV E D Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development EB 2 7 2014 PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 C IE Y w',�ej- K E N T 0 N Mercer Island, WA 98040 ` �v, / w,c% RE:The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, &9112). 1 received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet;which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels.Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary(Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease.This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary)with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street,Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 2 of 12 The results of this inspection are based on what is visible at the time of the inspection and is limited by the extent of feasible root excavation. The attached inventory provides the following information for each tree: Tree number as shown on the attached plan. Tree Species Common name. DBH Stem diameter in inches measured 4.5 feet from the ground. Dripline Canopy radius measured in feet. Dangerous Tree Certification Trees that are certified as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous.' Notes Obvious structural defects or diseases visible at time of inspection, which includes: Asymmetric canopy—the tree has an asymmetric canopy from space and light competition from adjacent trees. Branch dieback- Mature branches in canopy are dying/dead and the tree is in an active state of decline. Canker- Disease cankers are established on trunk/branches. Dead—tree is dead. Diseased—foliage and trunk/branches are diseased. Dogleg in trunk—bow or defective bend in trunk. Included bark- Bark inclusion at attachment of multiple leaders and is preventing a wood-to-wood attachment Lean—Trunk has significant lean from vertical and at risk of failure. Multiple leaders-the tree has multiple stem attachments,which may lead to tree failure and require maintenance or monitoring overtime. Root Rot Infection—tree infected with root rotting decay fungus. Suppressed—tree crowded by larger adjacent trees;with defective structure and/or low vigor. Retain tree only as a grove tree, not stand-alone. Trunk failure—Tree trunk previously broken and defective. Taper(Slender) -change in diameter over the length of trunks, branches and roots. Root Rot—The tree is infected with a root rot fungus. Suppressed-Tree is suppressed by adjacent tree canopies. Trunk decay—Advanced wood decay is visible in the trunk. 1 Renton Municipal Code. §4-11-200 DEFINITIONS T:(Accessed online 2/12/14) Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 3 of 12 SIGNIFICANT TREES The attached tree inventory identifies 305 significant trees. Eighty-one of these trees are considered dangerous as defined by City code. Sincerely, Gre rest, Inc. OW By Favero Gree orest, M ISA Certified Arborist# PN -0143A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist®#379 PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor#579 Attachments: 1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2. Tree Inventory Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 4 of 12 Attachment No. 1-Assumptions & Limiting Conditions 1) A field examination of the site was made 2/13/2014. My observations and conclusions are as of that date. 2) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however,the consultant/arborist can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 3) Unless stated other wise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2)the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees from the subject property, without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the subject tree may not arise in the future. 4) All trees possess the risk of failure. Trees can fail at any time, with or without obvious defects, and with or without applied stress. 5) Construction activities can significantly affect the condition of retained trees.All retained trees should be inspected after construction is completed, and then inspected regularly as part of routine maintenance. 6) The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made. 7) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 8) Unless required by law otherwise, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 9) This report and any values/opinions expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result,the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 10) Ownership and use of consultant's documents, work product and deliverables shall pass to the Client only when ALL fees have been paid. Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers-PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 5 of 12 No. 2 -Tree Inventory Tree No. Species DBH DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 5024 Black Locust 8, 12 14 Asymmetric Canopy Double Leader With Included 5027 Black Locust 8 10 Yes Bark 5029 Douglas-fir 8 10 5030 Douglas-fir 18 16 5111 Red alder 16 12 Yes Diseased, Branch Failure 5124 Red alder 12 12 Yes Diseased, Decayed 5128 Douglas-fir 20 18 Asymmetric Canopy 5130 Douglas-fir 8 0 Yes Dead 5133 Douglas-fir 14 14 Yes Trunk Decay 5134 Douglas-fir 18 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5139 Douglas-fir 26 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5142 Douglas-fir 10 10 Suppressed 5143 Douglas-fir 18 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5144 Douglas-fir 28 20 Asymmetric Canopy 5173 Douglas-fir 14 14 5174 Douglas-fir 10 12 5175 Douglas-fir 10 10 5176 Douglas-fir 8 6 Asymmetric Canopy 5177 Douglas-fir 8 6 Asymmetric Canopy 5178 Bigleaf maple 8,8, 10 12 5179 Bigleaf maple 8 14 Asymmetric Canopy 5180 Douglas-fir 8 10 5209 Douglas-fir 44 20 5210 Douglas-fir 36 20 Double Leader 5211 Douglas-fir 32 16 Yes Trunk Failure 5229 Douglas-fir 28 18 Yes Dogleg In Trunk 5230 Douglas-fir 26 18 Double Leader 5231 Douglas-fir 24 18 Asymmetric Canopy 5232 Douglas-fir 16 12 Asymmetric Canopy 5233 Douglas-fir 12 6 Yes Dead 5234 Douglas-fir 10 8 Asymmetric Canopy 5235 Douglas-fir 8 14 Asymmetric Canopy 5236 Douglas-fir 22 18 Yes Trunk Girdled Multiple Attachments With 5237 Douglas-fir 26,26 24 Yes Included Bark 5276 Douglas-fir 10 12 Suppressed 5277 Douglas-fir 18 14 1 Asymmetric Canopy 5278 L Douglas-fir 20 14 Asymmetric Canopy Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 6 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 5285 Douglas-fir 22 16 5295 Black cottonwood 20,40 24 5297 Black cottonwood 38 24 5298 Bigleaf maple 8,8 10 Multiple Leaders 5300 Black cottonwood 36 24 5301 Black cottonwood 20 18 Asymmetric Canopy 5306 Douglas-fir 24 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5307 Douglas-fir 24 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5308 Douglas-fir 32 16 5313 Bigleaf maple 10,10,12 18 Multiple Leaders 5394 Black cottonwood 10 12 5398 Douglas-fir 58 25 Deadwood 5399 Douglas-fir 36 20 5400 Douglas-fir 26 18 5401 Douglas-fir 32 20 5402 Douglas-fir 32 18 5403 Douglas-fir 18 14 5404 Douglas-fir 10 6 Suppressed 5406 Douglas-fir 10 12 Yes Root Rot Infection 5408 Douglas-fir 10 12 Yes Root Rot Infection 5409 Douglas-fir 18 16 Yes Root Rot Infection 5410 Douglas-fir 18 12 Yes Root Rot Infection 5411 Douglas-fir 12 10 Yes Root Rot Infection 5412 Douglas-fir 14 16 Yes Root Rot Infection 5413 Douglas-fir 18 16 Yes Root Rot Infection 5414 Douglas-fir 16 14 Yes Root Rot Infection 5416 Bigleaf maple 8 12 5417 Douglas-fir 20 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5418 Douglas-fir 24 16 5419 Douglas-fir 22 18 Asymmetric Canopy 5420 Douglas-fir 22 18 Asymmetric Canopy 5421 Douglas-fir 18 18 Yes Girdled 5422 Douglas-fir 22 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5423 Douglas-fir 8 8 Suppressed 5424 Douglas-fir 26 16 5425 Douglas-fir 18 12 5426 Pacific dogwood 8 6 5427 Bitter cherry 8 8 Yes Top Failure 5428 Bitter cherry 8 1 Yes Trunk Failure Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 7 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 5433 Douglas-fir 8 10 5434 Douglas-fir 10 12 5436 Douglas-fir 8 8 5441 Douglas-fir 8 8 5442 Douglas-fir 28 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5443 Douglas-fir 22 14 Asymmetric Canopy 5444 Douglas-fir 26 16 5445 Douglas-fir 38 20 5446 Bitter cherry 8 10 5447 Douglas-fir 12 14 5448 Douglas-fir 12 14 5449 Douglas-fir 32 20 Asymmetric Canopy 5450 Douglas-fir 20 18 Asymmetric Canopy 5451 Douglas-fir 22 14 5452 Douglas-fir 32 16 Asymmetric Canopy 5453 Douglas-fir 14 12 Suppressed 5454 Douglas-fir 22 16 5455 Douglas-fir 26 18 5456 Douglas-fir 8 10 5457 Douglas-fir 12,16 16 Double Leader 5458 Douglas-fir 24 16 5459 Douglas-fir 18 14 5460 Douglas-fir 18 14 5486 Douglas-fir 10 12 Asymmetric Canopy 5487 Douglas-fir 28 18 Asymmetric Canopy 5488 Douglas-fir 10 8 5489 Douglas-fir 12 14 Asymmetric Canopy 5490 Douglas-fir 6 10 Asymmetric Canopy 5491 Douglas-fir 8,18 16 5493 Douglas-fir 14,14 18 Asymmetric Canopy 5494 Douglas-fir 10 12 5495 Douglas-fir 10 0 Yes Dead 5496 Douglas-fir 16 14 Asymmetric Canopy 5497 Douglas-fir 12 12 Asymmetric Canopy 5498 Douglas-fir 10 8 Suppressed 5499 Douglas-fir 26 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6000 Douglas-fir 16 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6001 Douglas-fir 16 14 Asymmetric Canopy 6002 Douglas-fir 1 20 1 18 Asymmetric Canopy Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 8 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 6004 Douglas-fir 38 18 6005 Douglas-fir 22 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6006 Douglas-fir 12 8 Suppressed 6007 Douglas-fir 18 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6008 Douglas-fir 24 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6009 Douglas-fir 28 18 6010 Douglas-fir 24 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6011 Douglas-fir 20 14 6012 Douglas-fir 20 14 6013 Douglas-fir 36 18 6014 Douglas-fir 20 16 6015 Douglas-fir 28,34 25 Double Leader 6017 Douglas-fir 20 14 6018 Douglas-fir 10 12 Yes Stem Canker 6019 Black cottonwood 12 14 6020 Douglas-fir 16 14 6021 Douglas-fir 26 16 6022 Douglas-fir 28 18 6023 Bigleaf maple 12,16 16 Double Leader 6043 Black cottonwood 24 18 6044 Douglas-fir 28 20 Asymmetric Canopy 6045 Douglas-fir 16 14 Asymmetric Canopy 6046 Douglas-fir 14 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6047 Douglas-fir 8 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6048 Douglas-fir , 24 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6049 Bigleaf maple 6 8 Asymmetric Canopy 6050 Douglas-fir 18 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6051 Douglas-fir 16 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6052 Douglas-fir 22 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6053 Douglas-fir 14 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6054 Douglas-fir 16 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6055 Douglas-fir 16 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6056 Douglas-fir 16,20 18 Double Leader 6057 Douglas-fir 14 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6058 Douglas-fir 20 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6059 Douglas-fir 20 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6060 Douglas-fir 26 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6061 Douglas-fir 28 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6062 Douglas-fir 8 1 6 1Suppressed Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 9 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 6072 Red alder 8 10 Yes Diseased 6073 Douglas-fir 26 18 6074 Douglas-fir 26 18 6077 Douglas-fir 24 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6078 Douglas-fir 26 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6079 Douglas-fir 16 14 Asymmetric Canopy 6080 Douglas-fir 14 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6081 Douglas-fir 28 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6082 Douglas-fir 14 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6083 Douglas-fir 26 18 6084 Douglas-fir 24 16 6085 Douglas-fir 26 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6086 Douglas-fir 22 16 6087 Douglas-fir 20 14 6088 Douglas-fir 14 12 6089 Douglas-fir 16 16 6090 Black cottonwood 18 18 6091 Douglas-fir 12 14 Asymmetric Canopy 6092 Douglas-fir 18 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6093 Douglas-fir 18 16 6094 Douglas-fir 10 8 6095 Douglas-fir 6 6 Suppressed 6096 Douglas-fir 14 16 6097 Douglas-fir 16 14 6098 Douglas-fir 22 16 6099 Douglas-fir 20 16 6100 Douglas-fir 20 16 6101 Douglas-fir 20 16 Yes Dogleg In Trunk 6102 Douglas-fir 20 16 6103 Willow (6)6 0 Yes Dead 6104 Douglas-fir 18 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6105 Douglas-fir 8 6 Suppressed 6106 Douglas-fir 14 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6107 Douglas-fir 18 16 6108 Douglas-fir 6 6 Suppressed 6109 Douglas-fir 26 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6110 Bigleaf maple 10 0 Yes Dead Asymmetric Canopy, Double 6111 Douglas-fir 10,24 18 Leader 6113 Douglas-fir 18 16 Asymmetric Canopy Greenforest (� Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 10 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 6121 Red alder 10,12 16 Yes Trunk Failure 6123 Red alder 6 8 Yes Branch Dieback 6124 Douglas-fir 6 6 Suppressed 6125 Red alder 6,8 14 Yes Trunk Dieback 6127 Red alder 10 14 6128 Red alder 8 10 Yes Lean 6129 Red alder 8 4 Yes Trunk Failure 6130 Red alder 8 12 Yes Trunk Failure 6131 Black cottonwood 8 2 Yes Trunk Failure 6132 Black cottonwood 20 16 6133 Red alder 10 14 Asymmetric Canopy 6134 Douglas-fir 8 10 Asymmetric Canopy 6135 Red alder 8 6 Yes Branch Dieback 6136 Douglas-fir 8 10 Asymmetric Canopy 6137 Red alder 6 6 Yes Suppressed 6138 Douglas-fir 16 12 6139 Douglas-fir 20 16 6141 Douglas-fir 32 18 6142 Douglas-fir 40 20 6156 Douglas-fir 14 16 6157 Douglas-fir 8 10 6159 Douglas-fir 16 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6160 Douglas-fir 6 8 Asymmetric Canopy 6161 Douglas-fir 8 8 6162 Douglas-fir 8 10 Yes Root Failure 6163 Douglas-fir 8 8 6164 Douglas-fir 8 8 Suppressed 6165 Black cottonwood 16 18 6166 Black cottonwood 8 6 Yes Lean 6167 Douglas-fir 12 14 6168 Douglas-fir 6 8 Asymmetric Canopy 6169 Douglas-fir 6 8 Asymmetric Canopy 6170 Black cottonwood 8 10 Yes Slender 6171 Douglas-fir 8 10 Asymmetric Canopy 6172 Red alder 10 10 Yes Trunk Decay 6173 Red alder 10 8 Yes Trunk Decay 6174 Red alder 8,10 14 6176 Douglas-fir 6 8 Yes Top Failure 6177 Douglas-fir 26 18 Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 11 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 6178 Douglas-fir 16 14 6179 Douglas-fir 14 16 6180 Douglas-fir 24 16 6181 Douglas-fir 24 16 Yes Root Rot Infection 6182 Douglas-fir 20 14 Yes Root Rot Infection 6183 Douglas-fir 22 16 Yes Root Rot Infection Root Failure; Root Rot 6184 Bigleaf maple 26 14 Yes Infection 6185 Douglas-fir 12 0 Yes Dead 6187 Bigleaf maple 8 10 6223 Red alder 8 6 Yes Trunk Failure 6226 Douglas-fir 8 0 Yes Dead 6229 Red alder 8 6 Yes Trunk Decay 6230 Red alder 10 8 Yes Trunk Decline 6231 Red alder 8 6 Yes Lean 6232 Bigleaf maple 10 14 Asymmetric Canopy 6233 Bigleaf maple 10 14 6234 Bigleaf maple 8 8 Yes Trunk Decay 6236 Bigleaf maple 10 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6239 Red alder 8 0 Yes Dead 6240 Red alder 10 12 Branch Dieback 6241 Bigleaf maple 16 18 6242 Douglas-fir 8 10 Yes Suppressed 6243 Douglas-fir 10 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6244 Red alder 8 10 Yes Trunk Failure 6245 Red alder 6 0 Yes Dead 6246 Red alder 8 10 Yes Trunk Decline 6247 Douglas-fir 10 12 6248 Douglas-fir 20 16 6249 Red alder 6 3 Yes Trunk Decline 6250 Red alder 8 10 Yes Branch Dieback 6251 Douglas-fir 8 10 Asymmetric Canopy 6252 Douglas-fir 44 18 6253 Douglas-fir 16 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6254 Douglas-fir 18 16 6255 Douglas-fir 6 8 Asymmetric Canopy 6256 Red alder 8 0 Yes Dead 6257 Douglas-fir 8 10 6258 Douglas-fir 34 18 6259 Douglas-fir 1 34 18 Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers- PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 12 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 6260 Bitter cherry 8 10 6261 Douglas-fir 42 18 6262 Bitter cherry 8 10 6263 Douglas-fir 26 18 6265 Red alder 8 0 Yes Dead 6266 Red alder 8 12 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 6267 Bigleaf maple 10 10 6268 Douglas-fir 48 20 6269 Red alder 14 18 Yes Top Dieback 6270 Red alder 8 8 Yes Suppressed 6271 Red alder 10 12 Yes Trunk Decay 6272 Red alder 8 6 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 6273 Red alder 8 8 6274 Red alder 10 6 Yes Asymmetric Canopy 6275 Bitter cherry 8 0 Yes Dead 6276 Red alder 8 6 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 6277 Douglas-fir 10 10 6278 Red alder 8 6 Yes Branch Dieback 6280 Red alder 8 8 6281 Douglas-fir 10 12 6282 Red alder 14,16 16 Yes Branch Dieback 6284 Red alder 8 10 Yes Branch Dieback 6285 Red alder 10 14 Asymmetric Canopy 6286 Bigleaf maple 8 0 Yes Dead 6287 Red alder 8 10 Asymmetric Canopy 6288 Red alder 6 8 Yes Trunk Failure 6289 Red alder 8 8 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 6290 Red alder 10 14 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 6291 Red alder 8 12 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 6292 Red alder 6 8 Yes Lean 6293 Red alder 8 6 Yes Lean 6294 Douglas-fir 34 18 6295 Douglas-fir 26 18 6341 Black Locust 32 1 16 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline Greenforest O Registered Consulting Arborist THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by rj /VC7RTNWEST 2 � TRA FF/C EXP.--R 7-s 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 vr, sr N o;�; NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERM 11410 ONE 124th Sl. #590 I(Umd WA 98034 Ph�e:425.522.4118 Fax:423,572.4311 December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156th Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156th Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Trips per unit Entering Exiting Total Average Weekday 9.57 148 149 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 25 6 717 23 PM Peak Hour 1.01 620 371 31 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156th Ave. SE Minor Arterial SE 142nd PI. Residential Access Page 2 The Enclave at Bridle Rid-ge Traff 156th Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156th Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142nd PI. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. - The 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. is an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156th Ave SE or SE 142nd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156th Ave. SE and the 156th Ave SE/SE 142nd St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156th Ave SE/SE 142ndPl. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS)for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traf TYPE OF A B C D E F INTERSECTION < >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. Signalized 10. <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 0 — — — — Stop Sign Control <1 >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%)from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft. from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page 4 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge r approximately 250 ft north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PI. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of$75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(c-)nwtraffex.com or larrya(�nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, 4O�A L Q 0251 ti c`r S T k�'3, /DNAL Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXIST/NG 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA E NA �WB (B 11.2) 156th Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd PI. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 Traff ORTHWEST TRAFF/C EXPERTS st rna r l m v, SE 135#h St a,: -•561, SE 136th Ln 2►' -SE 137th St -- _._ -' i a sn 37th St`_ SE Terrac"e`Sf a m A SE 3rd PI SE 3rd PI _ SE"4th St o SE 5th St m CA rn.., SE 135th Pi CA a m. i, cri m SE 141 st PI 7 i Yp _ "' Project SE=142nd S#.. Site SE 142nd St y�� 2rdP� o.SES �`�d PI " s A A- SE 143rd St m rn SE 144th St .� SE 1 SE 144th N' Unrn : m l R' SE 145f PI m: v rn SE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge- City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map ZVORrHWEST TRAFF/C EXPERTS �SBTHAWESE I - _ .iiifff yy., I Y I � � : p, �V'' MI � I • I I p I _; i �V i e 1 ; C�' � ; �►� I � Iv W I 8M, I no mm no, yaw I ' L y r N The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure Site Plan 2 a T�af O T: E ti NORTHWEST TRA FF/C EXPERTS cis i ' SE 139th W [T S N a 1 m Project : .... .. - _ . : .:.Site Q SE 14 1 s1 Pt 7 f M 0 to SE 742nd 57 ' o°�° `_SE 142nd St PI o A I SE 143d St m O ro N rn cn ` 4 O 1 t rr2 V M N Access/ 156th ave N N 2O�4 t rr1 M M S Access/156th Ave 4-0� + PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume ), t Legend Enter 20 o N Exit 11 15% Percentage of Project Traffic Total 31 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution 3 - - -� t - Traf�` 00 TRA FF/C EXPERTS -SE139th Pt cn CL 1 us m Project _ ' 'Site -. . A SEI 41 st Pr ? 9 c� Cl) :t � O M M <p SE 142nd St �� SE 142nd St,, ty+zt►�p� ..SE 7q�1 J► rn d PI � A C:) i c SE 143rd St rn M rn Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project r- o O " ' ` 0 0 t4 + `t4 O O r O r t r 0 t r 0 t r 2 t r 2 O M O � M ^ M N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave M 04 O r-- O N r— 1` + X10 + r O�t0 + `�4 + `�4 O O O t r 0 t r� 0 t r,-1 t r� 1 M O CO O M M M S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave S Access/156th Ave CO CO CO N CO 309 r + 328 r + 4,r + 332,r + 100' O � O 0� O O r 106 t t 106 04 t 0) CO O N 00 M 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI 156th Ave/ SE 142 PI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 TECHNICAL APPENDIX .0 Prepared for. Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phone(253)926.6009 FAX:(253)922-7211 E-Mail:Team@TC2inc.com WBE/DBE Intersection: 156th Ave SE&SE 142nd PI Date of Count Tues 12/172013 Location: Renton,Washington Checked By: Jess Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) I From West on(EB) Interval Interval 156th Ave SE 156th Ave SE 0 SE 142nd PI Total Ending at T L S R T I L S R I T L S R T L S R 4:15 P 2 0 16 126 0 32 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 28 283 4:30 P 6 0 13 172 1 1 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 27 308 4:45 P 2 0 18 156 0 28 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 29 345 5:00 P 0 0 18 179 2 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 70 0 20 328 5:15 P 1 0 19 148 1 28 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 24 306 5:30 P 1 0 20 148 0 19 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 28 297 5:45 P 0 0 29 1 151 0 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 93 0 29 339 6:00 P 0 0 24 144 2 18 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 74 0 17 291 6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:OOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Survey 12 0 157 1224 6 1 179 117 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 618 0 202 2497 Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM Total 9 0 68 655 4 92 1 63 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 309 0 100 1287 Approach 723 155 0 409 1287 %HV 1.2% 2.6% n/a n/a 1.0% PHF 0.93 156th Ave SE 1095 723 372 _. .. f--p-7Bike SE 142nd Pl 655 68 0——'Ped 747 I Ped1�0 Bike 0 1156 309 409 I 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM 100 PEDs '-^"— A— N S E W Ped;_ 0 _j 92 63 r13801 1.0 PHF Peak Hour Volume INT 01 ___..� 0 Bikes 0 _ PHF %HV INT02 0 EB n/a NT 03 _n _ 0 168 155 Check WB n/a INT oa 0 In: 1287 NB 2.6% INT 05 0 323 Out: 1287 SB ._=; 1.2 INT 06 NO PEDS 0 156th Ave SE INT 07 T Int. 0.93 1.0 _ 0 Bicycles From: N S E W SB ueues INT 08 _.. 0 INT 01 0 5-8 INT 09 1 0 INT 02 - -. _.. 0 15+ NT 10 0 INT 03 INT 11 10 INT 04 INT 12 f 0 INT OS 0 15+ 0 8-10 01 01 0 INT 06 NO BIKES 0 8-10 S ecuu Notes INT 07 - j --- - 0 8-10 Rolling queue headed SB-at most there INT 06 1 - . 0 5-8 were 5-8 vehicles actually stopped. INT 09 -� f 0 15+signifies rolling queue as far as I could see. INT 10 INT 11 .._.. _. .. ,_._. 0 INT 12 - -_.._ __ ___0 01 01 01 00 0 0 0 0 TRA13184M 01 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 '% T 4 Lane Configurations 4 T+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 309 100 92 63 68 655 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 332 108 99 68 73 704 111111111 Volume Total(vph) 440 167 777 Volume Left(vph) 332 99 0 Volume Right(vph) 108 0 704 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree Utilization,x 0.75 0.30 1.12 Capacity(veh/h) 572 526 679 Control Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach LOS D B F .v.. . s 'aIN Delay 62,9 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 I *� Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 328 106 98 67 72 695 Peak Hour Factor - 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 353 114 105 72 77 747 Volume Total(vph) 467 177 825 Volume Left(vph) 353 105 0 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 747 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.3 Degree Utilization,x 0.80 0.33 1.22 Capacity(veh/h) 571 518 665 Control Delay(s) 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach Delay(s) 29.8 12.9 133.2 Approach LOS D B F Delay 85.8 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd PI & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 T 1 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 332 106 98 69 73 697 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 357 114 105 74 78 749 Volume Total(vph) 471 180 828 Volume Left(vph) 357 105 0 Volume Right(vph) 114 0 749 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway(s) 6.2 6.7 5.4 Degree Utilization,x 0.81 0.33 1.23 Capacity(veh/h) 571 516 662 Control Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach Delay(s) 30.7 13.0 137.1 Approach LOS D B F Delay 88.1 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 Lane Configurations Volume(veh/h) 2 4 177 3 7 774 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0%0 _ 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 2 4 190 3 8 832 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1039 192 194 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1039 192 194 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 99 99 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 256 855 1392 EROSION Volume Total 6 194 840 Volume Left 2 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 r t �► l Lane Configurations Y 1� Volume(veh/h) 1 4 176 3 7 769 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0%o Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 4 189 3 8 827 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 1033 191 192 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1033 191 192 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4,1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 99 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 258 856 1393 FSMA Volume Total 5 192 834 Volume Left 1 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 585 1700 1393 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 3 c u a y - N n • Earth 7 ,1111, Solutions NWLLC 3 X . x S" 1805 - 136TH PLACE N.E., SUITE 201 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 PHONE, (425) 284-33.00 OR (425) 449-4704 Fax (425) 449-4711 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 �. St.� upfien H. Avri� S Geologist' R' CA ii5-rgv, X14% �ccl'JNAL � 2t<`ly Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RErNEIVED RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 E� 2 7 2014 C'Ty OF gENTON Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 itP1801 1HIOPMetion Ahout UP Geotechnical Engineeping Repopt Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. The following information is provided to help you manage your risks. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight of the Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure, Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team,or their clients.A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- • project ownership. neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer.Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique,each As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project geotechnical engineering report is unique,prepared solelyfor the client.No changes---even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which —not even you—should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed. except the one originally contemplated. Subsurface Conditions Can Change Read the Full Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the time the study was performed.Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- engineering report did not read it all.Do not rely on an executive summary. ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of Do not read selected elements only. time;by man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events,such as floods,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctua- A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on tions.Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors to determine if it is still reliable.A minor amount of additional testing or Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique,project-specific fac- analysis could prevent major problems. tors when establishing the scope of a study.Typical factors include:the client's goals,objectives,and risk management preferences;the general Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional nature of the structure involved, its size,and configuration;the location of Opinions the structure on the site;and other planned or existing site improvements, Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where such as access roads,parking lots,and underground utilities. Unless the subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.Geotechnical engi- geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional erwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the • not prepared for you, site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report.Retaining the geotechnical engineer • not prepared for the specific site explored,or who developed your report to provide construction observation is the • completed before important project changes were made. most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your parking garage to an office building,or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engi- to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion.Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical have led to disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or of such outcomes,geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations" construction observation. many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsi- bilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical Misinterpretation engineer should respond fully and frankly. Other design team members'misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Lower that risk by having your geo- Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- submitting the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.Contractors can study.For that reason,a geotechnical engineering report does not usually also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report.Reduce that risk by relate any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations; having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or conferences,and by providing construction observation. regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures.If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs vironmental information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon agement guidance.Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.To prevent errors or someone else. omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable,but recognize Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,construction, that separating logs from the report can elevate riskoperation,and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be Give Contractors a Complete Report and devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- Guidance prehensive plan,and executed with diligent oversight by a professional Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold prevention consultant.Because just a small amount of water or contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations,a num- they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent costly problems,give con- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report,but preface it with a While groundwater,water infiltration,and similar issues may have been clearly written letter of transmittal.In that letter,advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are conveyed in-this report,the geotechnical engineer in charge of this report's accuracy is limited;encourage them to confer with the geotechnical project is not a mold prevention consultant;none of the services per- engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- need or prefer.A prebid conference can also be valuable.Be sure contrac- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed tors have sufficient time to perform additional study.Only then might you in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, growing in or on the structure involved. while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engmeer for Additional Assistance Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical Some clients,design professionals,and contractors do not recognize that engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.Confer plines.This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE The Best FoeBle eo Eerth 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail:info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE,Inc.Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with ASFE's specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M E 5, 2014 ES-3220S-3220 Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences American Classic Homes 9675 - 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Attention: Mr. Justin Lagers Dear Mr. Lagers: Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge, Residential Development, 14038 - 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington". In general, the site is underlain by a weathered soil zone grading to very dense sandy glacial till deposits. In our opinion, the proposed residential buildings can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils, re-compacted native soils, or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades at most locations. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with a suitable structural fill material will be necessary. Groundwater seepage was observed at three of the test pit locations. The groundwater seepage can be characterized as a perched condition and was observed at an average of approximately three feet in depth. Seepage should be expected during grading activities, particularly during winter, spring and early summer months. Recommendations for foundation design, site preparation, drainage, and other pertinent recommendations are provided in this study. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC JeoStepnH. Avril logist 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,WA 98005 (425)449-4704 FAX(425)449-4711 Table of Contents ES-3220 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Proiect Description 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Surface 2 Subsurface 2 Fill 2 Topsoil.................................. 2 Native Soil 3 Geologic Setting................................... 3 Groundwater 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 General 4 Site Preparation and General Earthwork........................... 4 Wet Season Grading............................................. 5 In-situ Soils 5 ImportedSoils............................................................... 6 Structural Fill 6 Foundations 6 Seismic Design Considerations...................................... 7 Slab-On-Grade Floors 7 Retaining Walls 7 Drainage 8 Excavations and Slopes.......................................................... 8 Utility Trench Backfill 9 Pavement Sections 9 LIMITATIONS........................................................................ 10 Additional Services....................................................... 10 Earth Solutions NW,LLC Table of Contents Cont'd ES-3220 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Testing Results Earth Solutions NW.LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 - 156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed residential development to be constructed south of the intersection between 156th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 5th Place in Renton, Washington. The site is located on the east side of 156th Avenue Southeast; and is comprised of a large residential parcel currently developed with single-family residential structure and outbuildings. A large portion of the site is occupied by now un-used pastures; and livestock paddocks. The purpose of this study was to explore subsurface conditions across the site and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Excavation, logging and sampling of six test pits on the site; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the test pits; • Engineering analyses, and, • Preparation of this report. The following documents/maps were reviewed as part of our report preparation: • Proposed Site Plan for 156th Avenue Assemblage, Sheet SP1, dated January 7, 2014, provided by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers; • Geologic Map of Washington, Northwest Quadrant, Dragovich, Logan, et al, 2002, and; • Washington State USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS). Proiect Description We understand the site will be developed with 31 residential lots, access roads, a drainage tract located within the southern portion of the site, and associated improvements. The remainder of the site will be developed with general landscaping and paved driveways. Given the topographic change across the site, grading activities will likely involve cuts and fills on the order of ten feet or less to establish the final design grades. American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 2 Building construction is anticipated to consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing and slab- on-grade floors. Perimeter foundation loading is expected to range from approximately one to two kips per foot. Slab-on-grade loading is expected to be on the order of 150 psf. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to confirm that the geotechnical recommendations included in this report have been incorporated into the project plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is located on the east side of 156th Avenue Southeast south of the intersection with Southeast 5th Place in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the property is illustrated on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map) included in this study. The site is irregular in shape and consists of a single residential parcel. The site is currently developed with single-family residence and out buildings. The majority, however, of each parcel is occupied by green space. The existing site topography descends from the north towards the south; with elevation change on the order of 20 feet. Vegetation on the subject site consisted primarily of field grass, cedar and fir trees, and blackberries during our fieldwork (January 2014). Subsurface ESNW representatives observed, logged and sampled six test pits excavated with a trackhoe and operator provided by the client across the accessible portions of the site. The approximate locations of the test pits are depicted on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Fill Fill was not encountered at any of the test pit locations. There is the potential for limited amounts of fill surrounding the existing residential structure; and along road alignments and existing utility trenches. If fill is encountered it may be suitable for support of foundations; however a representative of ESNW should be retained during the construction phases of the site development to evaluate the suitability of any on-site soils for use as structural fill or bearing of foundations. Topsoil Topsoil was encountered at all test pit locations ranging in thickness of six to ten inches below existing grade. Topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill nor should it be mixed with material to be used as structural fill. Topsoil or otherwise unsuitable material can be used in landscaping areas if desired. Earth Solutions NW, LLC American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 3 Native Soil Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grades. The glacial till soil consisted of silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification, SM); and soil relative density generally increased in depth, from loose in the weathered zone to very dense within the unweathered glacial till. The weathered glacial till was generally observed extending to an average depth of three feet; where it transitioned to an unweathered dense condition. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource identifies glacial till (Qgt) deposits across the site and surrounding areas. The referenced SCS soil survey identifies Alderwood series soils across the entirety of the site. Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff; and are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam at depth. ESNW did not observe the presence of volcanic ash in any of the test locations; but the presence of gravelly loam and sandy loam was observed at all of the test pit locations. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with glacial till deposits. Groundwater Perched groundwater was observed at several of the test pits during the fieldwork (January 2014). The groundwater was observed at an average depth of three feet. Based on our experience, groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material; therefore, seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring and early summer months. Our fieldwork occurred during an atypically dry winter period; as such we anticipate groundwater volumes to normally exhibit higher volumes than what was observed during the fieldwork. The seepage was present at the base of the weathered native soil and where soil conditions became dense. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. Earth Solutions NW. LLC American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General In our opinion, construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed residential buildings can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils, re-compacted native soils, or structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on dense native soil or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with a suitable structural fill material will be necessary. Recommendations for foundation design, site preparation, drainage, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this study. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of American Classic Homes and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Site preparation activities will involve removal of existing structures, site clearing and stripping, and implementation of temporary erosion control measures. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with site preparation activities include building pad subgrade preparation, stormwater pond construction, underground utility installations, and preparation of pavement subgrade areas. Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least 12 inches of quarry spalls can be considered in order to minimize off-site soil tracking and to provide a stable access entrance surface. Erosion control measures should consist of silt fencing placed along the down gradient side of the site. Soil stockpiles should be covered or otherwise protected to reduce soil erosion. Temporary sedimentation ponds or other approaches for controlling surface water runoff should be in place prior to beginning earthwork activities. Topsoil and organic-rich soil was encountered generally within the upper six to ten inches at the test pit locations. Topsoil and organic-rich soil is not suitable for foundation support, nor is it suitable for use as structural fill. Topsoil or organic-rich soil can be used in non-structural areas if desired. Over-stripping of the site, however, should be avoided. A representative of ESNW should observe the initial stripping operations, to provide recommendations for stripping depths based on the soil conditions exposed during stripping. Earth Solutions NW,LLC American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 5 Subgrade conditions expected to be exposed throughout the proposed building and pavement areas will likely be comprised of silty sand deposits. After the completion of site stripping and rough grading activities ESNW recommends a proofroll utilizing a fully loaded solo dump truck in order to determine the suitability of the exposed native soils for support of foundations and roadways. ESNW should be retained during this phase of earthwork to observe the proofroll and other earthwork activities. The soils exposed throughout subgrade areas should be compacted to structural fill specifications prior to constructing the foundation, slab, and pavement elements. The subgrade throughout pavement areas should be compacted as necessary and exhibit a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to the proofrolling with a loaded solo dump truck. Structural fill soils placed throughout foundation, slab, and pavement areas should be placed over a firm base. Loose or otherwise unsuitable areas of native soil exposed at subgrade elevations should be compacted to structural fill requirements or overexcavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill material. Where structural fill soils are used to construct foundation subgrade areas, the soil should be compacted to the requirements of structural fill described in the following section. Foundation subgrade areas should be protected from disturbance, construction traffic, and excessive moisture. Where instability develops below structural fill areas, use of a woven geotextile below the structural fill areas may be required. A representative of ESNW should observe structural fill placement in foundation, slab, and pavement areas. Wet Season Grading Perched groundwater was present at a number of the test pits near the contact between the weathered soil and underlying unweathered glacial till soil. This condition coupled with the moderate to high moisture sensitivity of the soil will make grading during periods of rain moderately difficult. Mass grading should take place during the late summer months when conditions are more favorable. If grading takes place during the wetter winter or spring months, a contingency in the project budget should be included to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill as described below. In-situ Soils The soils encountered throughout the majority of the test sites have a moderate sensitivity to moisture and were generally in a moist to wet condition at the time of the exploration (January 2014). In this respect, the in-situ soils may not be suitable for use as structural fill if the soil moisture content is more than 2 to 3 percent above the optimum level at the time of construction. In general, soils encountered during the site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction. Conversely, soils that are below the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning through the addition of water prior to use as structural fill. If the in-situ soils are determined to not be suitable for use as structural fill, then use of a suitable imported soil may be necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 6 Imported Soils Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557). Soil placed in utility trenches, pavement areas and in the upper 12 inches of slab-on-grade areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Additionally, more stringent compaction specifications may be required for utility trench backfill zones, depending on the responsible utility district or jurisdiction. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soils, re-compacted native soils, or structural fill. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, competent native soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill, may be necessary. Provided foundations will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of new foundations: • Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf • Passive earth pressure 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) • Coefficient of friction 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor-of-safety of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and differential settlement of about one-half inch is anticipated. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Earth Solutions NW, LLC American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 7 Seismic Desiqn Considerations The 2012 IBC recognizes the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for seismic site class definitions. In accordance with Table 20.1-1 of the ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual, Site Class C should be used for design. The referenced liquefaction susceptibility map indicates the site and surrounding areas maintain very low liquefaction susceptibility. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated or loose soils suddenly lose internal strength in response to increased pore water pressures resulting from an earthquake or other intense ground shaking. In our opinion, site susceptibility to liquefaction can be characterized as low. The relative density of the native soils, as well as the absence of a uniformly established groundwater table, were the primary bases for this characterization. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors for residential buildings constructed at this site should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade. Where feasible, the existing native soils exposed at the slab-on- grade subgrade level can be compacted in place to the specifications of structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If a vapor barrier is to be utilized it should be a material specifically designed for use as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Retaining Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters can be used for retaining wall design: • Active earth pressure (yielding condition) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) • At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 55 pcf • Traffic surcharge for passenger vehicles 70 psf (rectangular distribution) (where applicable) • Passive resistance 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) • Coefficient of friction 0.40 • Seismic surcharge (active condition) 6H* • Seismic surcharge (restrained condition) 14H* *where H equals retained height Earth Solutions NW,LLC American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 8 Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other loads should be included in the retaining wall design. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3. Drainage Perched groundwater was observed during the fieldwork (January 2014). As such, groundwater should be anticipated in site excavations. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps. ESNW should be consulted during preliminary grading to identify areas of seepage and to provide recommendations to reduce the potential for instability related to seepage effects. Final surface grades should slope away from structures at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of ten feet. In our opinion, foundation drains should be installed along building perimeter footings. A typical foundation drain detail is provided as Plate 4. Excavations and Slopes The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, the weathered native soils encountered in the upper approximately three to four feet of the test pit locations, and where groundwater seepage is exposed, are classified as Type C by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils must be sloped no steeper than 1.5HAV (Horizontal:Vertical). Dense to very dense native soils encountered below about three to four feet where no groundwater seepage is exposed would be classified as Type A by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils must be sloped no steeper than 0.75H:1V. The presence of perched groundwater may cause caving of the temporary slopes due to hydrostatic pressure. ESNW should observe site excavations to confirm the soil type and allowable slope inclination. If the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2HAV, or flatter, and should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. A representative of ESNW should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations, and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations, as necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 9 Utility Support and Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations should generally be suitable for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. The native soils are moisture sensitive and will therefore be difficult to use as structural trench backfill if the moisture content of the soil is high. Moisture conditioning of the soils will likely be necessary prior to use as structural backfill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable City of Renton specifications. Seepage should be anticipated within utility trench excavations. Caving of the trench sidewalls due to hydrostatic pressure should be anticipated by the contractor. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted as recommended in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions will require remedial measures such as overexcavation, cement treatment, placement of a geotextile and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. For lightly loaded pavement areas subjected primarily to passenger vehicles, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: • Two inches of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Two inches of HMA placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). For relatively high volume, heavily loaded pavements subjected to moderate to high, loaded truck traffic, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: • Three inches of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Three inches of HMA placed over four and one half inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The HMA, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All soil base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Final pavement design recommendations can be provided once final traffic loading has been determined. Earth Solutions NW, LLC American Classic Homes ES-3220 February 5, 2014 Page 10 Given the presence of shallow perched groundwater, in our opinion, additional drainage measures should be considered for pavement subgrade areas. Such drainage measures could include the installation of drainlines along the sides of crowned roadways and along the centerline for roadways with inverted crowns. If areas of seepage are exposed in roadway excavations, drains should be installed in these areas to allow removal of the water. Specific recommendations and details for roadway drainage can be provided upon request. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC < SE___ 4 TFi,m 7 :—s 5TH' 9f. CIA SE 114TH ai ST �J 4TH x �N ... .., PL 'II E 4 H LCT . H L --�JE 4THs NEI bRrt CIA SE P 128TH`r :; ST �' x TW ST — W � le NE 157 ST, — -(. s_?0 sy 30rn F U EAST SE 128TH K ST T 7No"�r 2ND ST <N1 k € ,E .•r 1,151 'TS "I"- y 1 ' - SE 1st S7''' " `I+ k 16 SE 13ZND ST SE $ � � ", Q L P 132ND PL SE L2ND r ,}- e z 0 _ t } x <,FL2Ay i. 3ta a-'2ND 5T ST 3 SE 133RD ST^ 4 .'� -12 n IT ¢ SE 733RDo '33RD _ = r:^ —.w �., SE' -. > _Q..SL: 13-.10_ «R ,,.,.. SE 34TH Si, c.,, o •�' >i 'T Q' €'�`FA c[mi st 10 _I SE :., ^ >F 33fiJ PL_ .F. u� m 734TH PL SE 1357H 'iO r c 13gTH >µg�y ._ SE 34Th 414 T s t71 :�_ -.....�.��4.. k�f �'< t Tk a� -ST ST a. S5 134TH ST - 5e 15_ n — P SE 136TH —T—TT SE—�>136TH _ST _E Ee .. SE 135TH $7 t i5d r; se t3 rH SE 136TH o, -- PL S€_ tiv '� , �-�E, 137 H LIBERTY - ST Sc _..- 136IH - $1 "'13n Y,N 137TV,Pl�IS�.E iH r z PL HS ;E •� SF liTH SE 138TH _ a " ST L ,aA"a MR. 137 1HST138 x H SE 739TH 51 54fi at PL " ' S- Fl _. SE Q r U h_1 1415Nu HEIGHTS o 1, 140TH S1, .= SF__. 4n7H PL_ F'i ¢ SfT '": MAPLEWOOD x . .- ST ,� SE 140TH 14151 P( ® 141— ST 5T1 y. _ _ _ _ST- aD > P :. .,Pi .A2ND $ PARK " i SE 144 _..._SE Q �:.. vx N c ST ST = ST 0 .SE x' 'z yl m - PL �c IE SE tt RD ST � 'a 743RD Pl F 'a3pD :T Sr 143P,DS A _. .. t447H �. $ 74.7TH _. S,,---- SEu4SP 1da7H�`> 'ST ___ --_SE_:t:«71H STZ SE 1 aT�l Sr , Q 'E- S`<.; 5 SE 144TH _.. Q\ " -vy`?Gcl4 $1 SF 145'11_`T `'<e`zrf SE F4 J .tet$Et746`HSE a a. SI.STh Sc a?fF� �F ,�aGSti P� PL . 148iH sz rr1 NSE 147th ST ST Z 1.9'H 117sE 'n,.. SF -. JAN Vis, ^•"� __.� 4ti 180Ti PL SE ' ndtw 5 .aF,S pi,% . . ,p a j AG SE t Ci- . — 62N0 169 .GAVAMAUGH F > POND r.. NATURAL AREA _ z SJ< 155TH P� `EI , .... �� tis t ...::`. �--SE RENTON MAPLE VALLEY S E 4 - w . .162Np SF 6 •0Dcj.N w, at 5TH' B SE 163E T SE ,., E T.� ,., •x 6a HPL.. 1 _. ____ a MCGARVfY PARK OPE PA G.� 5`v SF.165tH ��t $E 164TH ST --- MAPLE -- s c m MAPLE c VALLEY 6 ¢y a._S ;65TH SE F: titi W�-' HEIGHTS ,SE U-)I_('1 .PARK Reference: NORTH M King County, Washington Map 657 By The Thomas Guide Vicinity Map Rand McNally The Enclave at Bridal Ridge 32nd Edition 1i I Renton, Washington NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 02/03/2014 1 Proj. No. 3220 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked SHA Date Feb. 2014 [Plateresulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. 1 TP-2 uS TP-31 W ' TP-4 Z Ln C.LI TP-1 ITP-5' _ TP-61_ NORTH LEGEND TP-1—!—Approximate Location of I ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-3220, Jan. 2014 0 60 120 240 Subject Site 1"= 120' Scale in Feet Proposed Lot Number bAff,M. f I 1 NOTE:The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design =4 purposes or precise scale measurements,but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of Test Pit Location Plan existing and/or proposed site features.The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our The Enclave at Bridal Ridge study.ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes Renton, Washington or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 02/03/2014 1 Proj. No. 3220 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked SHA Date Feb. 2014 Plate 2 resulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. 18" Min. 0 U. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o mo .0 - o0 0 '-0 o ..'Q0 oQo 0 0 0 000Q Oo 00 0 0 0o O000 o 0 oo 0 O o 0 0 0o 0 0 - o O oma, 0 .0 o o 8 0 oo 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00o 0 0 0 0 O o O o0 0 o o o0 o 0 O o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0oo0O0o 000 000 oQ o 0o Q Oo 0 o oQo °o o Q o0 o Structural 0 0 0oo � 0 Fill 00 0 00 o a 0 0 0 o o R o �o� o0 o V o o 0. 00Qo°o 0 00 o 0 0000 oo 0 00 0 � o 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o00. 0 0 00 00o 00 0 o () 0000 o 0 o o 0 0 o Qtir• . • •ti•ti o y?• :l S• 'L• ti .•1.1j. Perforated Drain Pipe NOTES: (Surround In Drain Rock) • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing#4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: 0.0 . o `t E Q 00 o Free Draining Structural Backfill .r.r.r.r. 1 inch Drain Rock •r•r•r•r• RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL The Enclave at Bridal Ridge Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 02/03/2014 Proj. No. 3220 Checked SHA Date Feb. 2014 Plate 3 Slope --�► •f�ryl:j'�j•Cr�f .j:jti'j:j:fL�L• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L• L•L•L 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE 12"of less permeable, suitable NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: other to permeability material. .- Surface Seal; native soil or ,. bArp ;•r•r•r•r ' L•L L•L• Welt;. 1" Drain Rock . . . L•L. FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL The Enclave at Bridal Ridge Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 02/03/2014 Proj. No. 3220 Checked SHA Date Feb. 2014 Plate 4 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-3220 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating a total of six test pits excavated with a track-hoe across accessible portions of the property. The subsurface explorations were completed in January of 2014. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Logs of the test pits are provided in this Appendix. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of eight feet below existing grades. Earth Solutions NK LLC Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN '�� '�� WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL- GRAVELGRAVELS �:�� GW FSAND INES MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO AND GRAVELLY .Q° ,&POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) o O�o 0 GP GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE O Q oO OR NO FINES COARSE a GRAINED GRAVELS WITH °a ° SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINESo 0 GM SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE O o FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLEGC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- AMOUNT OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% SAND CLEAN SANDS X SW csLAGRAVELLY �o NOFINES OF MATERIAL IS AND LARGER THAN SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SOILS POORLY-GRADED SANDS, SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP GRAVELLY SAND,LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITHSILTY SA NDS,SAND-SILT MORE THAN 50% FINES SM MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS,ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE AND LIQUID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY GRAINED LESS THAN 50 CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS,SILTY CLAYS CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS SOILS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR NO.200 SIEVE SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CII INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS — —'' '— PEAT,HUMUS,SWAMP SOILS WITH PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 8":field grass AFTER EXCAVATION — W 1}-WUJ M U W TESTS a.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o QZ 0 TPSL —'.' 0.5 TOPSOIL Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense,moist(Weathered Till) -seepage,moderate to heavy -becomes unweathered and very dense MC=16.00% SM 5 - 8.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade.Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.0 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. 0 c� C0 z z 'a C7 d N lh WSJ S a x M w z W 0 - - Earth solutions � 1805-136th Placcee N.E.,Suite 201 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 panTelephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425 449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 6" AFTER EXCAVATION — Lu a aiK ~W _ Lu aWJ M TESTS C6 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 c� 0 TPSL '—'. 0.5 TOPSOIL Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense,moist(Weathered Till) -becomes very dense and unweathered SM 5 MC=11.90% 7.0 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. m 0 co D F_ z c� (L 0 N M WyJ a x M J W Z W U' lh�MR Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 11§0111 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 10":field grass AFTER EXCAVATION — W 2 W V) V 2 w �g a.O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a� 2z c9 0 T P S L '' ! 0.5 TOPSOIL Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense,moist(Weathered Till) -light seepage SM -becomes very dense and unweathered 5 11 L 7.0 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade.Groundwater seepage encountered at 3.0 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. Q m F_ 0 c� D H Z C7 'a c� 0 N J a x m J Q W Z 111 Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TPA 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425 449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 6" AFTER EXCAVATION — w U 2 o UJ M TESTS C6 0_0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a � Qz O U) 0 TPSL 0 5 TOPSOIL Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense,moist(Weathered Till) -becomes very dense and unweathered SM 5 MC=10.50% 8.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. 0 c� y Z 'a 6 N J a F x m J W Z W C� MEarth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 8":field grass AFTER EXCAVATION — W a. �W U _ W— w m TESTS � 0_p a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION O CL Q z (� 0 TPSL '{ o.s TOPSOIL Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense,moist(Weathered Till) SM -becomes very dense and unweathered 5 s.o -increased sand and gravel content o Brown gray silty GRAVEL,very dense,moist GM a MC=11.10% 7.0 Fines=16.10% Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. M a U) z z C7 'a C' N m J 'a _7- x m w z w bl. -- Earth solutions TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 � 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 wool I II Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 6":blackberry bushes AFTER EXCAVATION — w _ �w ww CO TESTS 0_0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _j 2Q z C9 0 PSL 'i'_'`0.5 TOPSOIL Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense,moist(Weathered Till) -moderate perched seepage -becomes very dense and unweathered SM 5 MC=8.40% 8.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade.Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.5 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. C1 0 C/i D z z c� a' 6 N a J a H x M J W Z W C7 Appendix B Grain Size Distribution ES-3220 Earth Solutions NW,LLC Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Wg Bellevue,HVA 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT American_Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT NUMBER ES-3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 100 95 90---- 85 0750 80--- 75--- 0 65 60 r 55 m o: z 50 LL I— 45 z Lu 40 w a 35 30 25--- 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SANE} SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse I medium fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu O TP-6 7.Oft. Gray Silty GRAVEL,GM a o. ao g Z Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand -/.Silt %Clay q O TP-5 7.Oft. 37.5 5.501 0.205 42.2 41.7 16.1 0 w W LU N y 2 Report Distribution ES-3220 EMAIL ONLY American Classic Homes 9675 - 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Attention: Mr. Justin Lagers Earth Solutions NW, LLC :y Yom'•' f , AT EARTH SOLUTIONS NW OUR MISSION IS TO .. _° OR HONOR OUR COMMITMENTS ® PROVIDE INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT CREATE VALUE RECOGNIZE THAT OUR POWER AND EFFECTIVENESS LIES WITH OUR PEOPLE ® TREAT ALL FAI RLY AND HONESTLY '.5 ® DEDICATE OURSELVES TO 57 "_' BRINGING OUT THE BEST IN EVERYONE + ® MAINTAIN AN ATMOSPHERE OF PROFESSIONAL, FRIENDLY g ° a CUSTOMER RELATIONS 2� ® CONTINUE TO SEEK OPPORTUNITIES FOR } � r LEARNING AND GROWTH MAINTAIN A CLEAN, WELL ORGANIZED WORK i- ENVIRONMENT P , . ® IMPLEMENT CONSISTENT, RELIABLE ACCOUNTING ,f PROCEDURES ® BE A RESOURCE TO THE COMMUNITY P ''s,t �O Engineers Surveyors �I AqLandscape Architects Full Service Engineering Since 1981 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038156 th Avenue SE Renton,Washington A. J 0 W 5232 � � ISTER' CSS S, I NAL DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by RECF/ W ED r— � " �EB272014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. CITY 0p r;EMr014 6207 th Avenue olvis�ory Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONI.......................................................................................................................1 ProjectOverview.......................................................................................... PredevelopedSite Conditions......................................................................................1 DevelopedSite Conditions...........................................................................................1 Natural Drainage System Functions.............................................................................1 SECTION11....................................................................................................................10 Conditions and Requirements Summary....................................................................10 SECTIONIII......................................................... Off-Site Analysis.........................................................................................................12 SECTIONIV ..................................................................................................................13 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design....................................13 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A)..............................................................................13 Pre-developed Hourly Time Step Modeling Input: ..................................................14 Pre-developed Hourly Time Step Modeling Output:................................................14 Developed Site Hydrology (Part B).........................................................................16 Developed Site Area Hydrology..............................................................................16 Developed Hourly Time Step Modeling Output:......................................................17 BYPASS Hourly Time Step Modeling Input: ...........................................................18 BYPASS Hourly Time Step Modeling Output:.........................................................18 Performance Standards (Part C)................................................................................20 FlowControl System (Part D).....................................................................................20 Flow Control BMP Selection...................................................................................20 Flow Control Facility Design Output........................................................................21 Water Quality Treatment System (Part E)..................................................................27 SECTIONV ........................................................................................:..........................29 Conveyance System Analysis and Design.................................................................29 SECTIONVI ..................................................................................................................31 Special Reports and Studies......................................................................................31 SECTIONVII .................................................................................................................32 Other Permits, Variances and Adjustments................................................................32 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page i of ii Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION VIII ............................................... .......33 .......................................................... ESC Plan Analysis and Design (Part A).....................................................................33 SWPPS Plan Design (Part B).....................................................................................34 SECTIONIX ..................................................................................................................35 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant..........................35 Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet..........................................................................36 SECTIONX...................................................................................................................38 Operations and Maintenance Manual ........................................................................38 List of Figures Figure1 TIR Worksheet...................................................................................................3 Figure2 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................6 Figure 3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics......................................7 Figure4 Soils...................................................................................................................8 Figure 5 Predevelopment Area Map..............................................................................15 Figure 6 Post Development Area Map...........................................................................19 Figure 7 Detention &Water Quality Facility Details .......................................................28 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page ii of ii Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project is the subdivision of two existing parcels zoned R4 (8.8 ac. total) into 31 single-family residential lots, per the City of Renton's (City) subdivision process. The Tax Parcel Numbers are 1423059122 and 1423059023. The Project location (Site) fronts on the east side of 156th Avenue SE (156th). The Project will meet the drainage requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual), as adopted by the City. PREDEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS Total existing Site area is approximately 383,129 s.f. (8.795 ac). Total proposed Project area is 390,841 s.f. (8.972 ac), which includes 7,712 s.f. (0.177 ac) for the right-of-way frontage improvements on 156th Avenue SE. The Parcels are currently developed with one single-family residence, out buildings and a gravel driveway. The remainder of the Site is pasture, scotch broom, and scattered trees. The 8.807 acre parcel is situated on a slope that discharges runoff into one Threshold Discharge Area (TDA). However, the Site appears to have two Natural Discharge Areas (NDA). See the Level One Downstream Analysis for more information. For the purpose of hydrologic calculations, the entire Site is modeled as till forest. DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS The applicant is seeking approval to create 31 lots with lot sizes ranging from approximately 8,050 s.f. to 12,566 s.f. All existing improvements will be demolished or removed during plat construction. The 31 single-family residences combined with their driveways will create approximately 124,000 s.f. (2.847 ac) of impervious area. The proposed 53-foot right of way will be improved with 26 feet of pavement, vertical curb, gutter, 8-foot planter strip and 5-foot sidewalk. The half street frontage improvements on 156th will consist of 22 feet of pavement (6' new), vertical curb, gutter, 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk. The improvements from right-of ways will add approximately 63,825 s.f. (1.465 ac) of impervious surface. The Project will result in a total of 4.788 ac of new impervious surfaces. The remainder of the developed Site (4.154 ac) will consist of landscaping and lawns. The Project is required to provide Basic Water Quality treatment and Level 2 Flow Control, per the 2009 KCSWDM (Manual). All surface water runoff from impervious surfaces will be collected and conveyed to a storm detention/water quality pond located in Tract "A". NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM FUNCTIONS The Site topography slopes from the northeast corner of the Site to the southwest. The vegetation consists of pasture, scotch broom, and scattered trees. Site runoff travels southwesterly and sheet flows off the Site to the conveyance system in 156th A review of the SCS soils map for the area (see Figure 4, Soils) indicates Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC). Per the Manual, this soil type is classified as "Till" material. The SCS Soil series descriptions follow Figure 4. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 1 Technical Information Report City of Renton In evaluating the upstream area, we reviewed King County MAP aerial topography and imagery and conducted field reconnaissance to evaluate conditions and potential problems. The upstream area for the Site is approximately 3.35 acres, entering the Site in from the northern and eastern property lines. The upstream area appears to be forested and generating negligible runoff. The potential need for a bypass system will be assessed at final engineering. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 2 . Technical Information Report City of Renton FIGURE 1 TIR WORKSHEET King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND PROJECT ENGINEER DESCRIPTION Project Owner: Project Name: PNW Holdings LLC The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Address/Phone: Location: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Township: 23 North Mercer Island, WA 98040 Range: 05 East Section: 14 Project Engineer: Maher A. Joudi, P.E. D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Address/Phone: 6207 th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS APPLICATION ® Subdivision ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline ❑ Short Subdivision Management ® Clearing and Grading ❑ COE 404 ❑ Rockery ❑ Commercial ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural Vault ❑ Other: ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ Other: ❑ COE Wetlands Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community: Newcastle Drainage Basin Lower Cedar River ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 3 Technical Information Report City of Renton Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ❑River: ❑ Floodplain ❑ Wetland ❑ Stream: ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ Critical Stream Reach ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Depressions/Swales ❑ Groundwater Recharge ❑ Lake: ❑ Other: ❑ Steep Slopes Part 7 SOILS Soil Type: Slopes: Erosion Potential: Erosive Velocities: Alderwood 6-15% Slight Slow (AgC) ®Additional Sheets Attached: SCS Map and Soil Description, Figure 4 Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT ® Level 1 Downstream Analysis None ® Geotechnical Engineering Study ❑ Environmentally Sensitive Areas ❑ Level 2 Off-Site Stormwater Analysis ® Level I Traffic Impact Analysis ❑ Structural Report ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ®Sedimentation Facilities ®Stabilize Exposed Surface ®Stabilized Construction Entrance ®Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ®Perimeter Runoff Control ®Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ®Clearing and Grading ®Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities Restrictions ❑Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation ®Cover Practices areas ®Construction Sequence ❑ Other ❑ Other ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 4 Technical Information Report City of Renton Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM ❑ Grass Lined ❑ Tank ❑ Infiltration Method of Analysis: Channel ❑ Vault ❑ Depression KCRTS ® Pipe System ❑ Energy Dissipater ❑ Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigatio ❑ Open Channel ❑ Wetland ❑ Waiver n of Eliminated Site ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Stream ❑ Regional Storage ® Wet Pond Detention N/A Brief Description of System Operation: Runoff from impervious surfaces will be collected and conveyed to the detention facility. From there it will be discharged to the conveyance system in 156th Avenue SE. Facility Related Site Limitations: Reference Facility Limitation Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ® Drainage Easement ® Retaining Wall ❑ Access Easement ❑ Rockery >4' High ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ® Tracts ❑ Other: ❑ Other: Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil en ineer under my supervision have visited the Site. Actual Site conditions as observed ere incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowl d information provided here is accurate. i 3 Signed/Date ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 5 Technical Information Report City of Renton FIGURE 2 VICINITY MAP L fi ssXto ao s +2rrrt�Ts SC 1.19T1 1 P_ �i 3i Sr 8E ArH pt G� Warm 5T _ - SC STJ t ct W ,= IWkPL "? a SITE cE la2fd_D_StJ qi v5 ;SErtsT � �, � rti 142 fiElLT,p� SE IL-MtT$7 tclR{yR. se 144T11 Srd! 744111 F-L M fi sE t;5Tk SE SE tltrr tit 1C'ed'ar.Rivi?r rriSr rr t 10 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties,express or implied,as to accuracy,completeness,timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 6 Technical Information Report City of Renton FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 7 Technical Information Report City of Renton :?NET S L�u �� J � � •jWn rl T- 1'2 FE t 10 PARKINS-1,' ` �'�7'+J( /— T'P- y j Nm n 'OP i+.H�_.i..- f_ l( _0[� G/(v i i iii f(I 1 i•,r �f W 40 PARKI: VI v Uu aQc � z cI` liti ' Z =GN Ca9!'r!Ei Lu -0 O l � U u 72W r SE=3T r-—�III Uuj iEER ._ '27 P C=37 14 TCP" 3, CFFf 23 77 NORTH FOUND fTfP' o;-17, % GRAPHIC SCALE i ) I ji" EL ECT CAaIIgE, N 0 40 80 120 n _ DRAFTED BY: OHH DESIGNED BY. nP ----- i �`C5 1 = � T_1 1 INCH 80 FT. PROJECT ENGINEER: MAJ `gym. 2"CO,E1 DATE- 02f3f4 h ' "CNS e=.;?0. PROXCT NO.: 13117 inage_Basins.dwg 2/13/2014 3.•30:27 PM PST.FDRAWING IGHT©2014, D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. SHEET: FIGURE 4 SOILS oiE Mtsp—:ting Ccun-y Area,Washington w SITE I� Q'2ff-V N gT'I�3rfi 'S!asl:+O 1C.(tr-9p11 ,��iM137 '.4fi! 5' 160 ..i W S S .hl e 20 Q W say .I o � aa0 an s } y:v�hrerswr Cnrr r ,s vx�n Edge Ids:urM zn a Bee(WCM ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 8 Technical Information Report City of Renton AgC—Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation:50 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation:25 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature:48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period. 180 to 220 days Map Unit Composition Alderwood and similar soils: 95 percent Minor components: 5 percent Description of Alderwood Setting Landform:Moraines, till plains Parent material: Basal till with some volcanic ash Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:24 to 40 inches to dense material Drainage class:Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Very low to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 37 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water capacity: Very low(about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):4s Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Gravelly sandy loam 12 to 27 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam 27 to 60 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam Minor Components Norma Percent of map unit. 1 percent Landform:Depressions Bellingham Percent of map unit. 1 percent Landform:Depressions Seattle Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform:Depressions Tukwila Percent of map unit. 1 percent Landform:Depressions Shalcar Percent of map unit. 1 percent Landform: Depressions ©2014 D.R..STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 9 . Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION II CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The Project must comply with the following Core and Special Requirements: • C.R. #1 — Discharge at the Natural Location: Runoff will discharge at the natural location. • C.R. #2 — Offsite Analysis: Analysis is included in Section III. The Analysis describes the Site's runoff patterns in detail. • C.R. #3 — The Project is located in the Level 2 Flow Control area. A detention pond will provide flow control as required. The Project is required to match durations for 50% of the two-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. Also match developed peak discharge rates to predeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2-year and 10-year and 100-year return periods (KCSWDM, Sec. 1.2.) Furthermore, the Project must meet the Flow Control BMP requirements as specified in Section 1.2.3.3 of the Manual. The project may utilize splash blocks for basic dispersion, pervious pavement, or other BMP's found in Appendix C of the Manual for a portion of the impervious area on each lot. • C.R. #4 — Conveyance System: New pipe systems and ditches/channels are required to be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at minimum) the 25-year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas. Pipe system structures and ditches/channels may overtop for runoff events that exceed the 25-year design - capacity, provided the overflow from a 100-year runoff event does not create or aggravate a "severe flooding problem" or "severe erosion ar_ablem1) as defined in C.R. #2. Any overflow occurring onsite for runoff events up to and including the 100- year event must discharge at the natural location for the project Site. In residential subdivisions, such overflow must be contained within an onsite drainage easement, tract, covenant or public right-of-way. The proposed conveyance system was analyzed using the KCBW program, and is capable of conyeying-the'EQ year--pear storm without overtopping any structures - or channels. This analysis will—b�e---- performed at time of construction plan preparation. • C.R. #5 — Erosion and Sediment Con ro : e roiec prove es a nine minlmum ESC measures. • C.R. #6 — Maintenance and Operations: Maintenance of the proposed storm drainage facilities will be the responsibility of the City. An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be included in Section X at the time of construction plan preparation. • C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees: Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant must post a drainage facilities restoration and Site stabilization financial guarantee. For any constructed or modified drainage facilities to be maintained and operated by the City, the Applicant must: 1) Post a drainage defect and maintenance financial guarantee for a period of two years, and 2) Maintain the drainage facilities during the ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 10 Technical Information Report City of Renton two-year period following posting of the drainage defect and maintenance financial guarantee. • C.R. #8 — The Project is located in the Basic Water Quality Treatment area. The combined detention/wetpond facility will accommodate this requirement. • S.R. #1 — Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements: Not applicable for this Project. • S.R. #2 — Floodplain/Floodway Delineation: Not applicable for this Project. • S.R. #3 — Flood Protection Facilities: Not applicable for this Project. • S.R. #4 — Source Control: Not applicable for this Project. ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 11 Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION III OFF-SITE ANALYSIS An offsite Level One Downstream Analysis was prepared by D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. and is included in this Section. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 12 Technical Information Report City of Renton LEVEL ONE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156t'Avenue SE, Renton, Washington A. Jo Q OF WASg j �f Cap W 45232 10 AL DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. LUA XXXXXX Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6207 th Avenue NE Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 20, 2014 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. LEVEL ONE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TABLE OF CONTENTS TASK 1 DEFINE AND MAP THE STUDY AREA .........................................................2 TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW.....................................................................................6 TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION .....................................................................................16 UpstreamTributary Area............................................................................................16 General Onsite and Offsite Drainage Description......................................................16 TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS...17 Drainage System Description ....................................................................................17 DownstreamPath TDA..............................................................................................17 TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS.........................19 APPENDIXA.................................................................................................................21 APPENDIXB.................................................................................................................26 List of Figures Figure1. Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................3 Figure2. Site Map ...........................................................................................................4 Figure 3. King County iMap Topography ..................... ................5 .................................... Figure 4. Streams and 100-Year Floodplains and Floodway...........................................7 Figure 5. King County iMap Wetlands........................... Figure 6. King County iMap Erosion Hazard Areasgs .....................................................9 Figure 7. King County iMap Landslide Hazard Areas ....................................................10 Figure 8. King County iMap Seismic Hazard Areas.......................................................11 Figure 9. FEMA— Flood Insurance Rate Map................................................................12 Figure 10. King County iMap Drainage Complaints.......................................................13 Figure 11. USDA King County Soils Survey Map .........................................................'.14 Figure 12. Downstream Table........................................................................................22 Figure13. Downstream Map..........................................................................................25 ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 1 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton DISCLAIMER: THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF PNW HOLDINGS, LLC FOR THE 8.807 ACRE PARCELS KNOWN AS A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, TAX PARCEL NUMBERS 1423059122, 1423059023 (SITE). D. R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. (DRS) HAS PREPARED THIS REPORT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF DRS, THE OWNER, AND THEIR AGENTS, FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS DESCRIBED HEREIN. USE OR RELIANCE ON THIS REPORT, OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS FOR ANY REVISIONS OF THIS PROJECT, OR ANY OTHER PROJECT, OR BY OTHERS NOT DESCRIBED ABOVE, IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION BY DRS. TASK 1 DEFINE AND MAP THE STUDY AREA This Offsite Analysis was prepared in accordance with Core Requirement #2, Section 1.2.2 of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual). The Site is located at 14038 156th Avenue SE in Renton, Washington. See Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 for maps of the study area. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 2 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 1. - VICINITY MAP IV jan s= k Site SE5riST lArrh 9k sgr sEohj sr SE 1-CRO SIT ;4V o _ '- z,h, SE F--TyA .. r�x .. .._. r� I 45 Y - The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied,as to accuracy, completeness,timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general,special,indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 3 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 2. SITE MAP ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 4 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton I - W � q � n x., s Z s u R 2 n 4j J z � W � 12o CIOz W W G ' Xf 1 - GRAPHIC SCALE / 0 .40 80 120 DRAFTED BY. SJS/bAS DESIGNED BY: 1 INCH=80 FT. PROJECT ENGINEER: MAJ I DATE: 0219.2014 PROJECT NO.: 13117 EMAP13117.dwg 2/20/2014 8:00:05 AM PST DRAWING ©2014, D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. SHEET- FIGURE 3. KING COUNTY IMAP TOPOGRAPHY � � r 5 1 �-y - i � � �.--`•YDS .. - '1 5l '-�� t._. �44 s w _f .,fes 5�1Ir���r - 3' S 141 t.. 4 J f :y I! 1 _ �• vN — _,-mss '-�� �,� �,,.- � x �•-- t }tom �- - ; � � -- 1i r rt < - ., a Legend Highlighted Feature Highways � Lakes and Large Rivers �I County Boundary Streets ,,;` Streams X mountain Peaks ►{ hTr Contours 15ft dark) tAti;9DEt 1 Lorcet Parcels ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 5 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW • Adopted Basin Plans: Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan was adopted in July 1998. • Floodplain/Floodway (FEMA) Map: No floodplains exist on site, See Figure 9. • Other Offsite Analysis Reports: None available at this time. • Sensitive Areas Folio Maps: See Figures 4-8 for documentation of the distance downstream from the proposed project to the nearest critical areas. Included, are sections of the King County Sensitive Areas Folio which indicate the following: • Figure 4 Streams and 100-Year Floodplains and Floodway: There is a Class 1 and Class 3 Stream within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. A 100-year floodplain is within one mile of the Site. • Figure 5 Wetlands: There are no mapped Wetlands within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. • Figure 6 Erosion Hazard: There are mapped Erosion Hazard Areas within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. • Figure 7 Landslide Hazard: There are mapped Landslide Hazard Areas within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. • Figure 8 Seismic Hazard: There are mapped Seismic Hazard Areas within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. • DNRP Drainage Complaints and Studies: As shown in Figure 10, there are drainage complaints within 1 mile of the Site along the downstream path. • Road Drainage Problems: None noted. • USDA King County Soils Survey: See Figure 11. • Wetlands Inventory: The wetland inventory revealed no additional wetlands within the downstream path. • Migrating River Studies: None are applicable to the site. • Washington State Department of Ecology's latest published Clean Water Act Section 303d list of polluted waters: None listed along the downstream path. • King County Designated Water Quality Problems: None at this time. • Adopted Stormwater Compliance Plans: City of Renton Storm Water Management Plan; King County 2013 Stormwater Management Plan • Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports: Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report(April 1993) ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 6 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 4. STREAMS AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAY G SEzP„�_ trSTi+ST' q� K Site W WIT a x - Ya ?��?s. krarry� rc r sr arra_ J e. [ 4 Renton :l 3 r ' .r sem__—• _ .:.. ARE 3J!^ Lergend Highlighted feature AO Strearn t Courtty Boundary ♦yam I 04/ X Mountain Peaks , cu”2A._y Highways cs ;a 5tree �w{ c�a fiag�eray u�cf�€riQe Ctrs -1: Lakes and Large Rivers Local .•.,;k• Stroarns Parcels Floodway Ej 113:gYear Floodplain Shaded Relief ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 7 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 5. KING COUNTY IMAP WETLANDS W. z r z e a! i _ n. A - Cyt M1 ` 4 >ir ' 2... Legend Highlighted Feature Arfurils j Co mty Boundary i X Mountain Peaks Parcels Highways I—j takes and Large Rivers Streets s.,''' Streams N3girrray E3 SAO Wetiand {cont} ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 8 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 6. KING COUNTY IMAP EROSION HAZARD AREAS J4f�?L w .......... 3 .sa,>zaaa !H zy d ._ -� ,mac•, seara.r. 1t g u14:�T At y t I• , •' t mL-- Legend .•Yru,.+Letgend Highlighted Feature Axicriats ri County Boundary Lata X Mountain Peaks Parcels Highways i—! Lakes and large Rivers Streets ;L' Streams Highway SAO Erosion (cont) ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 9 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 7. KING COUNTY IMAP LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS SE t:wm;kC .. ........._._ - .47i5T St-THm�4 PL r ss tui'.r-as.. SE 9T4 T PL SE 1*1 d tamFL ; :/ /; / moi;'-- i:K. / \ ,. Z �2• SC fvm,3T.. F /// // f/�/ •X • / . :."� � � sE<arec,Fr ` \ ��p�"-•rte ,i / i; ,///'�-/,/ . �, / /�;� � � y s�Van.sr • � � J4;ti' +././,f-/j:' /j/%,ffi- ,``?`Yy ,�/ fes...,r .Ccr:..r Riv- t 011 7--f y. 1 % ✓. r, !:/ /l/. / �'y ,C,;'. .9E 5rpu RLN JDyJ,rhN Highlighted Feature AAarods Legend �1 Cbtudy Boundary i x Mountain Peaks Parcels f0ghWays Lakes and Large Rivers streets �,asf'` Streams tdiphwaY SAO Landslide f ontj ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 10 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 8. KING COUNTY IMAP SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS SC : 11Tn+x .. 4�t ct 1?Trix a'Ir"IK ' ` 11 M AK - I J� is serislcx X ;d Y — _ 3'. .�xid?aifET;rsT_.. I, i I�P4 PL 52 so unf.ST -29 S7 \\\ \�2 it RNc ♦ . \•,\ \ \ \ ,, w \ \NX \ \'1``\\\ IMEN \ \\ W X, a. tit Highlighted Feature � ;,i., eged SII County Boundary Laaad x Mountain Peaks Parcels Highways ❑ Lakes and Large Rivers Streets Streaans flieh+ SAO Selamic {cant) ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 11 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 9. FEMA - FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SE%De 11 R'S w SE lair; , FL=CE a' R 2 = O 142N0 STREET •::=="ice SE?d'i$T' epUZ'" c PLACE SOUTHEAST 1wi:D 5TiEE'I' r g 'so 4 �a z 23 s�ti rN�ws; u�r slTl�.> NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH AND RANGE 3 EAST. Fs,ZONE AE ��:,,_ IIJ LEGEND 5PEC1AL FLOOD HAZ4RD AREAS 1NUNDATEL) L4, 91'100-YEAR F1000 20NEA u:.;am•:L:.<I�i•,au:xn:ka,vm[rarE. ZONE AE Odsr rkn:d,,k•anli:.ns rit,--i—I. ZONE AH (%-1&1,&, in ­11,— ZONE AO 44;',d;XT;!he:✓!a.i n,a°wu,:n .h:,a SI::•. 9:.(:r.¢ r depdn ZONE A99 + k•p:n.•,vd !xnn A!n-,«ar'i,­d h hau•01+0,+c:k^Iermm,tl. ZONE V Gr,,..!al O:w::l w*1; .r<w to hamn! (u <IXnV:;w.rice d,.J rk.,a4,un dau•rmw::•cl. ZONE VE i xdai 0•.d am w:6xin Auo-tl ru .n�finrv;hay !Xwxl r'v-,nir:,u, dol«m+rcd. FEOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD ARF.�S ZONE% .�w,:i 4(R:-.n.r f+,d:xea>•:i luJ�,�c.v 'knwi xi4r, .,.rn:ee Jrxh> nt ati J,nn 1 sgvwrr rn4.•: and .ve n r prc,W:teJ by Ie+wes(,m 10-eaar ro 1. DOTHER AREAS ZONE X flrnn cb!ermintd:n by w.nkk.SntyY(`,lt ik-iplaln. ZONE O Ana , uhkh il,-I h-­h un+emniin vl ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 12 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 10. - KING COUNTY IMAP DRAINAGE COMPLAINTS _., . .... r. moar. 14, x z r u d � o ? tj ... 5F* 74 ST' ST 4-6 4T C�y t •yr _ Lnd 19 9�rtct �C PArca tip, t_I County ldur Bary /Lrty s X Mouir#aire FsaM Histtways Ps rKs is l liwt rptxated Area U f.akas and La a Rlvora Streetsf j' Streams Orafn-aip Cvmpial:nis ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 13 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton FIGURE 11. USDA KING COUNTY SOILS SURVEY MAP Sail ap—<irQ County Nea.Washinom 69 h S N :M Gi R N V� 41 4r Ww M 5F�'-3:U ''G6A7G $0437. .J+ifMIC +tu z # r ,i_La7crpr.€,befin axzi^a:rvt�t u 2D 40 ©g -3410 .3iD P#aQ p, 1:Vkb Hankr Cvrir3 milder a.t4YM—s d3e11✓:LF Lxe IM 4'x+1 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 14 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton AgC—Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting • Elevation:50 to 800 feet • Mean annual precipitation:25 to 60 inches • Mean annual air temperature:.48 to 52 degrees F • Frost-free period: 180 to 220 days Map Unit Composition Alderwood and similar soils:95 percent • Minor components:5 percent Description of Alderwood Setting • Landform: Moraines,till plains • Parent material: Basal till with some volcanic ash • Properties and qualities • Slope:6 to 15 percent • Depth to restrictive feature:24 to 40 inches to dense material • Drainage class: Moderately well drained • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) • Depth to water table:About 18 to 37 inches • Frequency of flooding: None • Frequency of ponding: None • Available water capacity:Very low(about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups • Land capability(nonirrigated):4s Typical profile • 0 to 12 inches: Gravelly sandy loam • 12 to 27 inches:Very gravelly sandy loam • 27 to 60 inches:Very gravelly sandy loam Minor Components Norma • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions Bellingham • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions Seattle • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions Tukwila • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions Shalcar • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 15 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY AREA In evaluating the upstream area, we reviewed King County iMAP aerial topography and imagery and conducted field reconnaissance and have concluded that upstream tributary area for the Site is negligible. The areas north and east of the Site produce southwesterly flowing runoff that may enter the Site. This runoff flows over densely vegetated areas and is considered negligible. GENERAL ONSITE AND OFFSITE DRAINAGE DESCRIPTION The 8.81 acre parcel is encompassed within one Threshold Discharge Area (TDA) with two natural discharge areas (NDA 1, NDA 2). Runoff is conveyed as sheet flow southwest across the property through dense vegetation and pasture and is directed towards the southwest corner of the. Site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the.Site on the east side of 156th Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west as pipe flow at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. Runoff continues west across 154th Place SE and outlets to Stewart Creek, a Class 3 stream. This creek outlets to the Cedar River which eventually outlets to Lake Washington approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the Site. The Site's second natural discharge point (NDP) is approximately 237' east of NDP 1. Runoff exits the Site as sheet flow and converges with NDA 1 at Point B. Runoff from the developed Site will be collected and conveyed by a typical catch basin/ pipe network to a detention pond in the southwest corner of the Site. The pond will discharge to the conveyance system in 156th Avenue SE. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 16 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION -- The downstream analysis is further illustrated and detailed in the Downstream Map and Downstream Table located in Appendix A. The downstream area is located within the Cedar River basin; more specifically the Lower Cedar River sub basin. The downstream area was evaluated by reviewing available resources, and by conducting a field reconnaissance on January 16, 2014 under overcast/foggy conditions. Located within the TDA are two Natural Discharge Areas (NDA), NDA 1 and NDA 2. NDA 1 exits the Site approximately 230' east of the southwestern property corner. Runoff continues as sheet flow for approximately 230' over native vegetation and pasture until it enters a 12-inch concrete pipe inlet where it continues as pipe flow into a catch basin in 156th Avenue SE. NDA 2 exits the Site approximately 150' west of the southeastern property corner. Runoff sheet flows west along the southern property line over native vegetation and pasture and converges with NDA 1 at the 12-inch concrete pipe at the southwest corner of the Site. Downstream Path NDA 1 Point "Al" is the natural discharge point of NDA 1. Runoff is conveyed west across the southern property line as sheet flow and directed towards a concrete pipe inlet at the southwest corner of the Site (±0). From Point "Al" to Point "131", runoff heads west as sheet flow to a 12-inch diameter concrete pipe (±0'-223'). Point "B1", concrete pipe inlet at the southwest corner of the Site (±223'). From Point "131" to Point "C1", runoff heads west as concentrated flow to a 12-inch diameter concrete pipe (±223'-230'). Point "C1", runoff enters a Type 1 catch basin located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE (±230'). From Point "Cl" to Point "D1", runoff heads south as pipe flow via an 18-inch diameter plastic pipe. Trickle flow observed (±230'-475'). Point "D1", runoff enters a Type 1 catch basin on the east side of 156th Avenue SE (±475'). From Point "D1" to Point "E1", runoff heads west as pipe flow via an 18-inch plastic pipe. Trickle flow was observed (±475'-507'). Point "E1", runoff enters a Type 1 catch basin located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE (±507'). From Point "E1" to Point "71", runoff heads south as pipe flow via an 18-inch diameter plastic pipe. Trickle flow was observed (±507'-691'). ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 17 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton Point "F1", runoff enters a Type 1 catch basin located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE (±691'). Runoff continues south as pipe flow via an 18-inch diameter plastic pipe for approximately 192' where it enters either a buried catch basin or tees into another drainage pipe heading west at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. Field investigation found no catch basin at this intersection, but according to City of Renton's GIS maps, stormwater runoff is directed west at this intersection. Runoff proceeds west as pipe flow for approximately 665' where it reaches the east side of 154th Place SE. It continues as pipe flow for approximately 55' across 154th Place SE. Then it heads southwest as pipe flow for approximately 157' where it outlets to Stewart Creek. Runoff continues approximately 2,470' south down this stream until it outlets to Cedar River, which eventually outlets to Lake Washington approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the Site. Downstream Path NDA 2 Point "A2", is the natural discharge point of NDA 2 (±0'). From Point "A2" to Point "131", runoff heads west as sheet flow and converges with NDA 1 at Point "B1" (±0'-471'). ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 18 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS A review of the King County Water and Land Resources Division — Drainage Services Section Documented Drainage Complaints within one mile of the downstream flow paths revealed six complaints within the last ten years. Drainage investigation reports attached in Appendix B (see table on page 20). Project runoff from the TDA will be collected and released per the Manual's requirements to accommodate Level 2, Conservation Flow Control and Basic Water Quality requirements. During construction, standard sediment and erosion control methods will be utilized. This will include the use of a stabilized construction entrance, perimeter silt fencing, and other necessary measures to minimize soil erosion during construction. The project should not create any problems as specified in Section 1.2.2.1 of the Manual and therefore is not required to provide Drainage Problem Impact Mitigation subject to the requirements of Section 1.2.2.2. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 19 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton Complaint Parcel Summary Recurring Type Required number Mitigation 2006-0069 2323059123 Ditch design No 1 None, property flaw causes is on opposite water to flow side of river upstream and back up, flooding pasture and - outbuildings 2008-0507 2323059123 Fallen tree 2' No N/A None, property down of is on opposite Madsen creek side of river bypass drainage culverts catching and stopping debris. Will dam up and cause more flooding 2008-0700 2323059123 Over topping of Not since 1 None, property bypass channel 12/2006 is on opposite and flooding analysis side of river onto property 2009-0071 2323059205 Flooding due to No 1 None an improperly installed culvert. 2009-0653 2323059133 Old water tank No N/A None in river emitting some fumes that is killing the vegetation above 2011-1008 - 232305HYDR Illegal dumping No N/A None of two television sets at SE Jones Rd and 254th PI ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 20 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton APPENDIX A. OFFSITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE & DOWNSTREAM MAP ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 21 Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge City of Renton O c aEi Q U N rn \ w � O N Z CL N rz a i. C O v LU LU > > CO ` O Z OO Y w> > m m O O o `° 3 m m O O U fa f9 3: 3: w LL Q Q N O Z a O O U) LL LL U _U N o 'o Z Z E2 m ami F ca ai E m O C N C o m > o p p p p p p O p U C N ° `o N o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 >1 `o Ye w w c) w w w2 v 0 a a a a a a a a .8 m u`, v w v U w v w U v °- a . �o -S zP zp: zp zp: zp zp zp Z — Np � 0 Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz oz C a C z Q z Q z Q z Q z Q z Q z Q z Q mo Ln O U C C C O N C L o Q c - � W W pW W w W pW W .Q c > > > > > > > > XO a v m Q W > W `- N o ` E W w w W W W W w W w W W W W W W CL C tCZ Un Z Un Z Un Z Un z Un Z Un Z Un Z Un a) N 'a O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O m U O 'a ai Z O Z O Z O z 0 z 0 Z O Z O z 0 m Q cu a E N ~ Q N a� o 0 U U L N N � L O CO Q W I.L W _Z w O Un u 'E +I N H �+I Q Q -0 � � 0 r co 0 Z ~ M o � z 0 c � U i -� O m �+ vE ~ C � j W Z m c $ w OW W w Q C c F=- Q ¢ w w U U n O O > O O C� Z Z F W U F cn a c U g -j IL w o F- a) N � c O tr > O O Z = Z F- U E tm Q C vo, w d o - O - =O Zcc •m0 c I W CY Q rn w CL N a Z m o ca N ❑ c � 5L p c v o 'O L b 3 E F C.4 > Q- N ° a� z w w wa w o� a — �, w a z z a a = w a in ° i5 a m C C ai v w } Z m m N .m C N a o 0 I=- � � W W O = W O = W O N (a LL LL LL LL U p a 6 Un z = F- o Un Q Q Un UD hi c UV W U p U W N VZ N oa° U) p m ca mo. E _ _ _ _ � E m iv o w >, aoi Q Q m m U U p Un to p W U LL O ¢ uJ W m U) W U) F- w U U OLij Z m z W p (� W = Z H p z O a O m a Q 0 a a W ¢ O ¢ m U a m LLJ L H U wz >- 3 W0 W W LL U) Z p = H LL O O O 5 O W j CN o c CL 0 p p p CU Q Q Q a a a W U W U W U O Z O Z O Z Z ¢ z ¢ Z ¢ W w w w W W W W W W z fn z fn Z fn Z O Z O Z O °) m m a E ro N I� ¢ 10 O ( Q U C N (D U C tm W U mN W Z U) a W J W J 0 C 0 a ¢ z M Z_ � U E co Q z m O. � m H U o �p . m pO v 0 N N N W O� z Ico z a LLI LL U = U O CO LL w LL w O c ani N p o cc Z CL N n a C: o .E O a E N_ L o N C v N L Z N .� Y F � s (tf co Q N 0 ( 3 N O _o -0 Nj N O VJ O n j N C O N D-_ E o orn c a U O U C O a oy o Q Q °? o �>1 o N a a O ` m c n `> W U WIL U d C ca r- z p z � U L A O z Q z Q � m o C a 7' U fA O O U C N C Y... O CO 6 W w > W N o W W W w a_ r z U) z Cl) CO N a0 0 co N U O a N z 0 z 0 rn L f0 c N a) N o N C) U = N `m "N'- L O I� Z (D cu C C 11 N O C E 1 Q o LL r to E N CU C- Z O o U (6 H N N Q N r N > ;mcm U¢ Z c $ W W O W 2 Q C c N ¢ H mmn O o m jU O m 3 >, O Q ;6 w U U W U c m U .0 N •c WO j CD Z U Q ca e _n U) CL > wow zw C � N o W O f- z ON f° a� Q Q rn b a z O U o c Q �C E2 aaai z Q c a a z vU L > > 30 C- N v y m z W N J d = w to C a as U � J G C C N '0 m W � z N (p C N •OQ N N F' O W U p` CL N U w Z 2 W 4 E c m 0 W d O c� a A. c >_ in C) 3r. amain c6 00 o a_ m .Q _ E E N m >, (D Q Q m U FIGURE 13. DOWNSTREAM MAP ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 25 Level One Downstream Analysis 156'"Avenue Assemblage Preliminary Plat City of Renton W ' 2 I 2 rc " W m n CO N N W 4. 00 to Q W Q N 2 � a Lo i I I I I i I I t ---- - ------ -- I' uj SE 142ND STREET Q j 41W-4 p co J m zw to / O21 I ' Z 'v sem, H1 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 100 200 300 DRAh7ED Br. CEN DESIGNED Bri CEN 1 INCH =200 FT. PRa.ECT ENGINEER: MAr DATE: 0220.2014 PROXCT Na: 13117 Base\3DSMAP13117.dwg 2/20/2014 7156,40 AM PST DRAWNG '©2014, D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. SHEET.• APPENDIX B. DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORTS ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 26 Level One Downstream Analysis 156'Avenue Assemblage Preliminary Plat City of Renton U1 S-E PC Site 10 P W '. 131.. C2yt?-,,_ CEarrrST: 5[I lagLk ST y SE 14-vo `t SE 2009-0653 2009-0071 � '_ Sg F a r 200..6.-0069 , 2008-0507 4! Y 11-100,8 2008-0700., I, 7 7 ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Page 27 Level One Downstream Analysis 156th Avenue Assemblage Preliminary Plat City of Renton King County FILE NO.: 2011-1008 Department of Natural Resources ADDRESS-SE Jones Roadand 254"' Place, Renton, 98058 and Parks Jennifer Vanderhoof NAME: _ Water and Land Resources Division PHONE: 206.263.6533 DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT DATE OF INVESTIGATION: 11-10-2011 FIELD INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATED BY:Virgil Pacampara I went to the site on 11/10/2011 at 1:00 PM and investigated an illegal dumping.The complaint was about dumping of two large television sets at the end of the roadway, right in front of a road block sign that says"No Dumping". I saw the two television sets at the edge of a turn-around area/culdesac of 149th Ave. SE. I spoke to Mr. Billy Emerson,the property owner of house#1506 149th Ave. SE. about the alleged illegal dumping. He told me that the dumping appeared to have happened during late night, and noticed it the following day.That he installed the"No Dumping Sign"to eliminate the illegal dumping on the site, but it appears that people still dumped stuff on the site. It appeared that the spot of the dumping is located within the road right of way of King County. I gave him our business card to call us incase it happens again. He gave his and his wife's phone numbers (his 206.661.3432; Patti-360-990-6617)for the records. I went to the other site as indicated on the complaint reports/e-mail.The second site is the location of a regional facility(DR0535).The site is along the paved walking trail that is parallel and north side of 1-169 (between 149th Ave. SE and 150th Lane SE.). I did not see any illegal dumping on the site particularly along the north end of cross culvert(concrete box culvert)and on the swale. I spoke to Sandra of KC Roads emergency number(206.296.8100)on afternoon of 11/18/2011, and reported the result of the investigation. Sandra told me that the KC-Roads will take care of the complaints and will remove the televisions on the site. This is the first site Va where the two television was allegedly dumped ' illegally along the road ' right of way.A"No ' 4 Dumping"sign was N Y installed by Mr. Emerson to eliminate NTS y `a; p ; i illegal dumping it still fi re-occuring. 5 This is the second site. CC did not see any illegal dumping on the site.The site is a regional facility. Pb S PAL [ » King County FILE NO.: 2009.-0071 ........ .....__........._ ... ... ...... Department of Natural Resources .10046 St Ave. Sw ADDRESS:........................................................................ ..21 and Parks NAME: Stuart Soules .._...__._ ......................... .............. .......... ...- Water and Land Resources Division PHONE: 206.624.0740 k9 DATE OF INVESTIGATION: 1/21/2009 DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT INVESTIGATED BY: Ted Chrisite FIELD INVESTIGATION y I arrived at the site of 15013 SE Jones Road 7:30 am to investigate a flooding cow� aint reported by Mr.Stuart Soules of the same address.I spoke with him via telephone.He stated that his property was high enough to on[ flood th�drivewa but his neighbor's yard 15005 was flooded up to floor level on the house.He stated that he and his neighbor share a culvert which does not allow or down slope drainage as it was installed in a reverse manner with —flow The going up slope.He request my speaking with the occupant of 15059 SE Jones Rd.as he said she knew the history of the immediate area going back 50 years.I subsequently met with the occupant of this address,who identified herself as Liu Swenson.Ms.Swenson reitterated the statement of Mr. Soules,stating, when the new Elliot Bridge and Stewart Creek work was done,the constructors failed to put the levee back that the Army Corps had put in years ago along the north shore of the river.During this most recent storm event the river had rose up and flowed around a cotton tree(as identified) around her house and neighboring properties. Ms.Swenson stated that she is awaiting a FEMA buy out for her property and that neighboring properties have been bought and demolished.She stated that she is waiting for a better offer. According to NAP records the area is in a Flood Way.The most recent flooding events indicated the water running consistent with this Flood Way indication of IMAP. This information is in this file. Z 15005 Cn z \_ Shared Culvert / Ph to 4 CEDAR; LU ° RIVER 15059 ,ir r�h o 7� Photo Photo 1Photo 5� u 14 ulve Cottonwood +SStewart Creek (stated) former ACE Dyke Tree ,L` .t— {` Photo 2 Elliot Bridge" hotoa 154th Place SE Photo 3 KING COUNTY WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DraSION DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT INVESTIGATION REQUEST Po6>+iM TANK IN RIVER RECEIVED BY: wkp Date: 07/14/09 OK'd by: File Na 2009-0653 si Re NAME: BILLIE EMERSON PHONE: 206.661.3432 Other: Address: 15016 149 AVE SE City RENTON State — Zip 98058 ooat�onof:...rob I . If.d�ffrent:=::-;;__::_::.............:.:::....:.:.:.•:.::.::..:...:. _:.::.:._. ..__.._.........._.................................._._........ Access Permission Granted ❑ Call First (Would Like To Be Called and/or Present) ❑ REMARKS: TANK IN RIVER IS EMMITTING SOME SORT OF FUMES AND IS KILLING VEGETATION ABOVE. TANK APPEARS TO BE SOME SORT OF OLD WATER TANK. Plat name: Lot No: Block No: Other agencies involved: No field investigation required ❑ ;.:.:::......_._:...z...:._._ . ..........< :::-;: - -= = - :..... :.. ._.. .........__........._.._......_.....................B;Y,COMPLAIN.T:-sRRO:G =$T F. •:w= _;> RAM.. _A..F:.. _.,_._...._:,:.....,_......._.,.._..�..:.:.. Y4 NW S 23 T 23 R 5 . Parcel# 2323059133 Kroll: 816W TBros: 656,14 MD 1 2 3 Basin . LCR Council Dist 9 Charge#: 5- -Z.2 1"'_:= ==-`_= ig == _"_ . _ - -__= _ z _ Citizen notified on: ....._..........._...._...._:::::::- ❑ phone ❑ letter ❑ in person ❑ email OR: No further action Turned to: on by recommended because: ❑ Lead agency has been notified: ❑ Problem has been corrected. ❑ No problem has been Prior investigation identified. - addresses problem. SEE FILE# ❑ Private problem - NDAP will not consider because: ❑ Water originates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. E] Location is outside WLRD Service Area. ❑ Other(Specify): .;DATE;C°LQ:S_ED : ABY:is 4d §'S{{"���i��•:+.1��•':� -' ..Y�• .r' +r, sat,;;,.. V e4. h`'�::.=�^i' _ '`�" • mai-.Tr'i...'., _ r' tt �� .�, v';L'•.•`''�',„ ''��•StiYr_�.%-S' "'L' "iFl�.f.• Lim: _ `J,'�'i.t� f.'.�,'.<^5:1g:!ati�.4*Sx.t•a _ ' t-Ss "rn` � •�'•t•'', '�..�t Ca'u_ ..�.. ;ry.- .:..•�7�,;,�.g;L �tY.'•L: �h r+:S:�5L5 b9; J1'YY OO _ ]�� 't':; 3w ,;.1•' - ::IL• :1>X.: � •J :'`v;.;- v�n•::r V . 11 ;.a A rFi''��,. .. ,.Z. ,�d ��..AA � � ,�. :'.aRr�� 4`i �:[•!a��-:� :`.'>'d,;' ••`N •.�. OIN 4. 17' `o 40 Z:-,1Au :' �vr`.Yy;'.r ;y��-.i: ,t: c'�n""(3,i�•,''SS - t 'i'r._ .• �..:.:.:�` 4'na' 4y1m �.� a..yl:r 'W :1 i.--a-'J :,yn:-?L5L - ,y1' �J' :.4.• 0 d7 -. V,.a �'�:�':.. 2'� r x;'1 •'.S o.�- ''i`.. ,ahs:r„i.. l. .�i` {.ie a stet l:i _ F=N O to '.E•re. •.•�; L / _ i�. s- ,aql. .;.1' :a,;;?:Ta:� 2%:Auw O N Uj. p} ,_y •'tr'';?;, w f�; ;a,•- .°�i ;a.`,; •''�..�i.;.- ta:;.;r �.`• m�ayi ._.... r• :.,. " _ � .:0 - W e . m o KIS w� i;6CL ..-.::.�,.fi°:�,.:,'��' ':Q c•am.. cy;••r • ,.1lv• Kai., .�;y'-aWdr�:•:_'r __ ,.O O O . ,.^gyp-�" -,>:$„•,"':-. O 2 - t•y?;. .sy�I�lJ,`-1,4:`�,�:� f`' - - �.4 Q.'J^�'a' ..i�?i�1 :''•'�,5�',.:`.t�c�u .... V O.•C ;.4•} :,' 'ni,' ''r 'r?'" s '.a •;�.}rast5s-"'.i:,, .{: 7ty WO•a O._ _ �r:::dV3. T ::C:kj:T�""'::�:::Y L. •J�•ii.,,r r.� :ji. 'y� y �i.O:.�, •.�;;: ._. �li� - :r4<dM1"• ':.`�':' ;',�.:,p?.• ava: '.w4 r4W' ��*`�• (,;,,. r, ,5,{ f/�;... .•Fir: s":' ..w.t_r �a� _ `�__$._ .T:/� ''�1".: �'.T.SF~' 4� 'J •..,�i� .try ,,.Yi. 'ate':,5. m.� E 4t m• O— Aqc OE �,:. .: f.. �.TP-'t'� •J> .t...%i'' ._x.11 :b ;r(t,����: - eyr' � - .y". S• �s:::•.,.:,., ,..k v� a,�, y"'' p -d . �.," 's ��(:, ^��'.:w,:.:":,:. ,:'�:;:;•:;;, 5371. 7.�✓�N�. ti(,� ��ni� ?1. :�i4,'�c�• ..j•• I .�;«.,...;,. r _,s..,,:, )yy ��"�'4'`,2,:' b��. o c O .;��:�:. `•'•�"'.C:'t ��' •~•' i.4-e•. •.2 •S:•.r:. _ v'.h�� "r_,.,s' `I bY� N y.._x ��. a _ a. i�' •-7" �..r't - 'xl ".!:4bayY� ' 'r' m fG Q ,o .. ."Are.;�.' �'-,�.Jr+ i :•' ,� � 5 •'r ��sr,�:.; farms,, ��,r;;p;;r;.. '!�' �: :t � .�"�' ::,'••_ °-�v too �'o . , `�.r•Y.; ,.y lJ.v.•a::i:r.: �:+•.Cu�.`":.�',' - a4. y�0 :' U'- : - `'-• tFt7axt+.^ :aa': �'�+r�r'� .�� aiE i'- '."5 :r' `•�c:a... Y:�N: :: ,r. _ ::', .:I i t.... ,� a .. •„+i^ �.o+F;'-,_--::A �� '� � �4:`�.::_w•• vi�rQ: :.m... �•�.ti„ �� L.' � � .>•i%f�d d C C 'R ', J .t� :7' R€<3.�• I.' 7 'v" "'se.i` a7•s�«sr Cm... 3 �':''+i�i:t.tta_� -•'::, _ - fy... _ m-O O ^d. -.(. may ,ify , •yb,` - _ �..^{tee. JJ'•... ,C ..Ys ti,�y t, '� , _ •- �Y. �1^e. nvT ..Y:�i'' e.:G.ro.H C,r .<' '. •� �;�: .ter � .� -r, ":,: -R ,;+.•,;uTd:�Yi:.:''id' .5�:+•i,,�si<�y?,t s,Lr+�Y� i� a .y� p 4L5 F 4JR f` y_ y r . /t� <ra:• ^F- p- ..h• m m r _ y U ..t..r v r... .,v,. .x •- - d "27 'fiery ..;. :'•j'�• - n C G 41 .ti 7 _F (q `i - � C r {. �r.r c. Y y �4 Y�Y�,f,�• ,jt�r, �, ^�N'• C k �Q - C -$ o.$ 127.800 MAP 656 I_ � tmilet tin.=1900 ft � SEE � � MAI' v m NF. Ie o E 7th P1:9V IfA thtB2p Z ¢>2<'Zp NE 7th St- _ -o NE 71 t E th y N ? 6 NE E NE PI E _ > NE 6th 1 rew m 6 Uwt - z SEm w dt >� dry to L > ¢ P! E6" D P Z <c s 122nd w> SE 23rd o z?rf E Q> 6 ¢ NE z cSt n' > N E C! =o St> St ' vµe 1 W! F ¢ m T > A w N 6 St a:. 10 t W¢ S£i w z =T"pia ESih St«� 6 t_a' 4''E SNE c a' rS Y w o w G.g4 E 5th„C C t ?WC - Ct e E L :a w' r4s nds g C urc e� u S t th Pf G «m �` w ; N1 cZ x 9 z 1 Newport Ea o`zNE 4th Stlt St St eNE4 a2 Q �z c� zw C ., �z REft5t4m E NE�>dth aw �S St W 4tlia nton 1 Ferndale NE Te hnical - a E NE Glave E 3 1R t .r w 2 m` Ct E zDx N 7 .b 'a:- c..1E and Pf z S� rte' ;:. > 1 z NE2nd� o NEz2 :Sp „¢ E PI 2 d a 1 St737tt i Chelan Ct N > 1 1 Edmonds PI NE NEZndtSt: '> .t NEI Sty c4+ ¢ a d z¢. E_ ^ SE 132nd 5308. St":'o ... .• 1p St-==Ind r Pa @y'4 :N.• �_ G NE 1st.. �� �°_. > ,., .� NE-t d.-t'm »�'•,.:...a:' .t> `. v c S to <n: 1 Shelton Pl Iq E Pi> w. 2' o SNE MTOUV st t a SE 13 z >Y +( o� t c al•,.•. 2 Redmond 1st St 34 n S SE 1st �SE`^dD'' 'k`�ccy a• > `"` i ::. � y E E � St NE1 tSE'1$t:•:wQ�'.��Yl�j.a, .. z Hli.: a 135th Si 1 t `SE 135 r 509 Pl a r / 3rd R SN¢' 16 'VazhO^ >$ w E� tij5� lip. 3 c - 7 1 � .�. 3� 6+ °- N q• ..ytie;:s•„C:vt-:1-Ot;g;u n.pct c E S m�, Ct- 3 > Q} A- 36 p7 a 1s,4o g':INr�P6�tlI+Ab1j:;`+;L= ✓,s'��`e i;''t a. $ta� r u, 0 4 m J d t 1.. C.SE ' �St •-F w .-r'> �_.t:R"h9:;:Me'?u c i Harrington Av SE SE''A v d Ath \ \ 5 ;aY,` "SE� Ali Pl,;5 o .. P :;rs' c 138 4ro ' 'SE� mSES< tX Sth m 139t SE 140th h;Sti`L SE 139th S 13 :CEDAR: Y silt? tae 4 w 1A '� .6rz E140t 14 s F. 40th Pl^ `E 1 PI P a,- .,,.4, TlRF'!i V1z-PA `^ P•, - •.00D ,.y�°°SS� 142nd St _L L SE "'�E 1 TStP 5' 3. �v -Sl 14A Si ' 142 :.�,.',P.A'RK' 7 tee• o SF Q v E 143rd Fw Q a y g” PI ±nom a SE 169 :x' g a ,r v w S t S1 6c 1 pvta° Pc t<a' •-' - '`j`p '�',u:: ^ �.^'J!46 "`t,{r. u, _ c t 9pthM1"' 1l'�EIA(...12N :� Q .+6 mer S 2 o •? Q_1.':CO:.$E?'.ifi• v.,... p', m ?v F'' H 3 'F• J`4 •y `',�'.1 'ii�"6"� .i"+�'i �''n;' �S(5 7or1 . '21peri So S `t0' \ P t'a I ;. '`Wt•?„1ti:::�.:ii'k:,','`r: =. t S F Avv ^ 3 . -540th WY SE rY- .7% ZNK P r S 22 Stc S 4 0 7 Sty." a 23 169 p \ . 4 c 19th Ct ♦ r'S.`;:' �gh�v s!p/SE o- m t ¢ FS STPFCfik""" SE SE f 1 w y�P75$yt�f (} �5 a a 75)yj 10th Ct; ! " PI"" `^ 156th ♦� 'a F 9` :, u+ ti SE .� I Pi'r�!=j o �� c $ SE S a SENA 58m tS�SQ\m SES "Q `So. Sit v15711t� f~ Yt 160St th SE 1 �BpoTs 1h St '^ 13200 SE o SE 'both T 1st StCAS ¢ 'r Lt1 159th P J SE 159th pf P i N PARK; 0 '161st S d Zt� 601fi Pi ,oma 739 u > i61•":_•:;: SE �6 SE 161 SE167 140t > $ 63rd 63rd St '^ N yJr 4 Aha 4p'•C c N a < ± PfH SSth 16 th St St Q �°SF t 5 airn io t $ nvo ? JF 163 T SE 165th St a W `m $ ` 1 5SE` Gtr dt Na ^'.Bt' ria �"v_�r-.c� a .a m _ �j 7 I'SL SE lindbetgh HS w ��gq vii��.''�_-"a'! _' w.n •r - $ SE 66th il-s.3Ni 4 S P a' N P '✓ ;E.PARTE, sF ti3`1006g a,, G'` `:' �:.:.ate.'==,'.�-" ,�• !6'•i 4 v a 1 SE.+.t1 7 5th PI '168th St76th PI 69 26 rwOO� - - _ A SE 170 S >O vt _- iu •y'•5;3;`e;5..W;a'+ ;,i'-` w.'' ,,,t 7i`y :a�..^Q GO f 71)th S[ ! et .ri'...�&�x g' "x f" £. 5� 1 Oih 5 � cc, •- c � p SE 771 h � .,' �`� v' ,�'-:,.>;>•:� r- c� CLl) t 71st ! N u SE "�pi4R1'tVf7it 172 r�•t,C� � a..,, r�` o°,. Q t Hn S SE1 rd> `-�- -5 m P "+� q h St ' Y �`� :sw jh2;l.�1��• a..•.`1 }%.•�+`, `r. > t o a e m 50 S CMREi iC "' •%wy S Z ¢ v,r<' SE t7 ffi PI bio r - } S .•,�^` 5th :.a:'s`SNoi -g m PARK:ANp': OV •> t t E TRAIL°:,; SN ST a p! w . z._,; . � �ti � 75th in � ... - ' E X15 � i,'>; h 1 143rd SEi > 72t00d n �5.,,._ $5 o v v h 'll�� 5�1-� t o 750th C� E c P A Z R �:ec. sw5 =`s Ix 1 SE t si Ln c 33''f2K�A[1D TRAiLE'1 th'Sk'`a.'.' 6tf m� , (SE airxood BI 176 t`: si,_� 2 11 sE av ;...'..sE 177t}� t-�5 ,� 34 Q SE� i r 15 SEE`_/ _ MAP4. _..• ._. ti 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 January 13, 2009 TO: File FROM:Keith Dougherty RE: 2008-0700 Brent Cawley BACKGROUND: FACILITY: DR0535—Madsen Creek Overflow Channel The facility is located in Renton north of SE Renton Maple Valley Road between 149th Ave SE and 154th Place SE. There was no letter of formal acceptance of the facility, but it appears it was required from a lawsuit judgment in 1974. The facility file states that Brent Cawley would like a hydraulic evaluation performed to determine if realigning the outlet culverts to be almost parallel to the flow of the Cedar River would increase the capacity of the bypass channel and prevent it from overtopping on to his property. His property is located just east of the overflow channel along the Cedar River(parcel 2323059123) Mr. Cawley has complained of trouble in the past with the facility. He stated that during the big storm of 2006,he had a significant amount of water flowing through his yard towards the Elliot Bridge Levy. He had also stated that he had dropped a leaf at the end of the pipes that convey water from the overflow channel to the Cedar River. According the Mr. Cawley,the leaf flowed backwards up the pipe rather than downstream in the river. He also dropped a leaf at the inlet of the pipe and said it did not move. Mr. Cawley has some engineering background and suggested to Rick Lowthian that the behavior of the leaf may possibly be due to a Venturi effect created by the river and the angle of the pipes inletting to the Cedar River. He would like an analysis done to determine if changing the angle of the pipes outlet to the river would reduce the head within the channel. His belief is that there is a drop in pressure at the outlet of the pipes and that because of this drop, water is being pushed up the pipe, or it is not allowing water to flow freely out of the pipes into the Cedar River. He thinks that changing the direction of the pipes (angling them more downstream,parallel to the river versus nearly perpendicular)may allow the water to flow freely from the pipes to the river and may even provide a suction action that would draw water out of the pipes. He believes the change would increase the capacity of the overflow channel and potentially prevent water from overflowing on to his property from the overflow channel. INVESTIGATION: 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 Initially I was asked to review the Venturi effect to determine how it applies to the overflow channel entering the Cedar River. The Venturi effect is used to determine.the change in pressure as an incompressible liquid flows through a constriction (usually in a pipe). Most often the Venturi effect appears to be applied to pressurized pipes with bend angles constricting the flow within system. The similarity could be made to the inlet pipes of the overflow channel acting as a constriction to the flow of the Cedar River. While the pipes of the inlet channel may act as a constriction to the flow of the river, it would seem reasonable that the effects of the pipes would be minor considering the size of the river versus the size of the pipes and how far the pipes extend into the river. Currently, I do not have access to any models to simulate the Venturi effect. As such,my investigation utilizes the stormwater models and information available to me. A quick document search on the properties near the channel showed no easements or tracts that define the drainage channel. It was observed on the Quarter Section map however that nearly the entire channel lies within the 100-yr flood plain. Mr. Cawley's property is also within the Cedar River flood-way. The areas adjacent to the Cedar River at this location are protected from flooding by the Elliot Bridge Levy. Investigation of the DR facility file found that this channel has a lengthy past. It was originally constructed in the mid seventies as a result of a lawsuit in 1974 regarding increased runoff from the Fairfield development. At that time it appears that easements were obtained from at least 2 property owners by King County to maintain the channel. There have been several complaints/lawsuits following the original ruling as it appears this channel has had many instances of flooding. More issues arose when WSDOT widened highway 169. At that time,they replaced the three 36-inch culverts across Hwy 169 with a single 8-foot by 6-foot box culvert. Based on simple calculations, it would appear that the box culvert has more capacity than the three 36-inch pipes. The additional capacity would indicate the potential for increased flows to a channel that already has a history of problems. I did not find any documents of a redesign of the channel at the time of the culvert replacement. Brian Sleight and I visited the site on December 5, 2008. Mr. Cawley met us at on site and showed us the pipes of concern. He stated that he had seen the pipes running within 6-inches of full. He also explained that during the large 2006 storm that a significant amount of water was running through his yard. He stated that King County maintenance/roads came out and added some fill to the berm on the east side of the. channel to reduce some of the water flowing through his property. He also believes that the west side of the channel is higher than the east side and would like them to be equal 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 (if not higher on the east side to prevent flows onto his property). Brian Sleight and I surveyed numerous points on the site. For more information about the survey,please sed the attached exhibit and summary table. © The analysis of the data involves several tasks. The primary task is the hydraulic analysis 0 n the pipes and the different pipe discharge angles. Additional tasks include: • Determining if the east bank is lower than the west bank. © • Comparing the elevations of Mr. Cawley's property to the elevations of the channel and riverbank. ® • Determining the Cedar River influence versus the Madsen Creek influence on flooding conditions. The hydraulic analysis was performed using the King County Backwater Program (KCBW)which models storm flows through channels and pipes. Background data was taken from several sources including the Madsen Creek Flood Plain Study performed for the Renton Assembly of God development and the WSDOT expansion of Highway 169. Additional numbers had to be determined or assumed before the hydraulic modeling could be performed. These numbers included: the tailwater elevation(96.Oft) which was based on descriptions/observations made by Mr. Cawley. The slope of the channel (between 0.23-0.44%), the slope of the pipes (approximately 1.0%)based on survey data, the Cedar River flow volume (-4800cfs)from Cedar River report and velocity of the flows entering the pipes from upstream (7.89ft/sec)based on the cross-section if the channel, the flows into the channel from upstream(261cfs) from the Madsen Creek Flood Plain Study. Additionally, a range of flows was used to understand where flooding may occur at different levels. For the analysis, a range of 50-450cfs was used as a range of the channel running full with no tailwater elevation(-50cfs) and the two 6ft pipes flowing at near capacity(-450cfs). Lastly, several angles were used to simulate the changes in alignment as Mr. Cawley requested. Four bend angles of 0, 30, 60 and 90 degrees were compared to determine how a change in pipe alignment would affect the water level within the pipes/channel. Note also that all elevations are relative elevations from the survey data,not actual elevations based upon a NAVD datum. RESULTS' © The modeling of the conveyance in KCBW shows that there is not a significant change in water levels by changing the discharge angle of the pipes. Assuming a conservative scenario where 261cfs is coming into the two 6ft pipes,there would be approximately 130+cfs per pipe. The difference in elevation from 0 degrees to 90 degrees is only about 0.2ft(-2.5inches). A more severe case where all 261cfs was modeled flowing through a 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty - December 5, 2008 single 6ft pipe,shows a change in head of less than 0.69ft(-8inches). As mentioned before,the range of flows up to 450cfs was modeled which is much higher than expected. That data shows that a single 6ft pipe with 450cfs of flow would be in overflow conditions, but it would still only change the water level approximately 1.5ft. These results indicated that there would not be a significant gain to the water level if the pipes were realigned. © A comparison of the survey points from the west bank and east bank shows varying results. For roughly the southern 400ft of the channel,the west bank is lower than the east bank. For approximately the northern 400ft of the channel,the west bank is higher than the east bank. This is the area more closely located near the Cawley residence. Other than a low spot in the channel's bank near Mr. Cawley's driveway, both banks along the northern 400ft generally have less than 1-foot difference in elevation. © The elevations of the overflow channel's east bank and the elevation of points near the Cawley home, driveway and well-house then compared. The elevations of the east bank are generally higher than the elevations of the Cawley property indicating that water will flow towards their property if it overflows the east bank. The low point of the east bank (97.62ft) is lower than the house foundation(98.25ft) and the well house base (97.77ft) but it was higher than the driveway spot shot(97.54). The approximate low point on the Elliot Bridge Levy at Mr. Cawley's property was also found to be at 97.49ft. This is slightly lower(-1.5inches)than the low point along the east bank. Aside from comparing the low points of the east bank and the levy,the other elevation shots taken along the levy are generally lower than the elevations along the east bank of the channel. This would indicate that water is more likely to come from the levy overflowing before the east bank of the overflow channel. This is consistent with conversations with Mr. Cawley in January of 2009. I called Mr. Cawley on January 21,2009 to find out if he had any flooding issues due to the storms over the week of 1/5-1/9. Mr. Cawley indicated during the phone call that he had significant flooding(within 4-inches of this floor)but most of it was coming from the river's berm at the north side of his property, not the overflow channel. He also indicated that if there was water coming from the Fairmont development,that the channel would not have been able to handle the flows. However, other than the low spot elevation,the levy elevation is lower than and very near the elevation(within one inch)of the house foundation. It should also be noted that the elevation of the Cawley foundation is between 1-2ft above the tailwater of the river when it is running at the high levels reported by Mr. Cawley. OLastly a comparison was performed to determine the influence of the Madsen Creek overflow versus the Cedar River impact on the water level in the channel. Again, data for 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keen Dougherty December 5, 2008 the culverts as well as the channel were analyzed in the KCBW program. The low elevation taken at the bottom of the channel (while dry)was at 92.34ft. During the storms in January,Mr. Cawley indicated that water was overflowing from the Elliot Bridge Levy at the north of his property,which has a low elevation of 97.49ft. That means the tailwater elevation in the channel at that time would also be at least 97.49ft indicating that the river's influence on the water level may vary as much as 5.15ft or more. Using the 97.49ft as a tailwater elevation is a conservative scenario to model the channel/culverts to determine the influence of the 261cfs coming from the Madsen overflow. That modeling shows that the water level in the overflow channel would only rise to 98.33ft which is a difference of 0.84ft. The results indicate that the Cedar River's tailwater elevation has a more significant impact on the water level than the flow entering the overflow channel and the capacity of the channel or the culverts. DISCUSSION' Several factors were considered when analyzing the flooding issues at Mr. Cawley's property. The main task was to perform a hydraulic analysis to determine if changing the pipes angles inletting to the Cedar River would improve their performance and decrease flooding from the overflow channel onto Mr. Cawley's property. Other factors considered were the overflow channel's east and west bank elevations relative to each other,the elevation of Mr. Cawley's property relative to the channel and the river elevations, and the effect of the river versus the inflow to the channel on flooding conditions. The results of the hydraulic analysis on changing the pipe angles indicates that only a slight improvement(0.2ft or 2.5inches)may result by altering the pipe alignments as they inlet to the Cedar River. The elevations of the east and west banks vary based on location. Over the southern half of the channel,the west bank is lower than the east bank. But the northern portion of the channel, closer to Mr. Cawley's home and driveway, does show that the eastern bank is lower thank the western bank. At the low point in the east bank, it is almost 2ft lower than the west bank. The relative elevation of Mr. Cawley's property to the overflow channel and the Elliot Bridge Levy does indicate that his property will receive water that overflows either the east bank of the channel or the levy. The elevation of the Cedar River when it is running. at a high level indicates that flooding in the areas around the river would not be unusual during times of high flows in the river. Additionally,the Cawley property lies within the 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 100-yr flood plain and the Cedar River flood-way, which is an indication that-flooding during large storm events is not uncommon and may be an ongoing issue. Lastly, the impact of the Cedar River's water level seems to be a more significant influence on water overtopping the east bank of the channel rather than the upstream flows from the Madsen Creek overflow. That would lead to the conclusion that the flooding is less likely a capacity issue and more likely a result of a high tailwater condition from the river. In short, it appears that the issues are more likely related to the water level in the Cedar River and the elevations of the overflow channel and Elliot Bridge Levy and less dependant on the angle of the pipes inletting to the river. Reviewing the data shows that at an elevation of 98.5ft, flows that exceed the expected maximum 261cfs from the Madsen Creek overflow can be conveyed without flooding through the channel. The approximate amount of material needed to bring the low areas of the east bank up to 98.5ft is about 22 cubic-yards of fill. This would likely cost less than$1,000 based on the NDAP Construction spreadsheet. This would seem to be a more suitable and cost effective solution versus changing the pipe alignment and performing work along the Cedar River. RECOMMENDATION' I recommend raising the low areas along the overflow channel's east bank to the relative elevation of 98.5ft according to our survey data. This would be a more effective solution because the results show that flooding is more likely a result of the Cedar River water level and the elevations of the banks rather than an issue caused by the angle of the inlet pipes. It is also a more cost effective solution and could be implemented more quickly and with less impact to the Cedar River. 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 (HYDR) +� Approximate i location of the6ft - # diameter pipes 6 s .i .7 � ay; } i M1 DE x Box Culvert Inlet FRENCH'o' i from Madsen `15258♦ E 58)f Creek Overflow „. =L' r, 15267(9108} Y f Aerial view of the channel and Brent Cawley's property. The Cawley property is outlined above in red. The channel runs the full length from the highway to the Cedar River is outlined in blue. r � !UN_O COUNTY WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DIVISION DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT INVESTIGATION REQUEST °= iLEI FALLEN TREE ......:....... ... RECEIVED BY: wkpDate: 09/09/08 OK'd by: File No. 2008-0507 x _............_.. .....y.......:.i--_f:i::::::i — — — :::1:� R. :..__..._ _ _ ............._:. NAME: BRENT CAWLEY PHONE#: 425.761.4170 Other#: 425.965.5885 Address: 15247 150TH LANE SE City RENTON State Zip 98058 §. - oX-=:1 :: 1 ont. :......� :::: o .. ..d�... .. . l� � Access Permission Granted ❑ Call First (Would Like To Be Called and/or Present) ❑ REMARKS As of Sept 6th 2008 a freshly fallen tree has blocked the river just 2 feet down stream of the Madsen creek bypass drainage culverts. This end of the tree is already catching/stopping debris coming down the river, and will eventually dam up and cause further back up of the Madsen creek by-pass during the rainy season. The Madsen creek by-pass already does not have enough flow capacity to handle the volume of water required during the rainy season. The current inadequate design has already repeatedly flooded my property causing damage. Any further impedance will only increase flood damage on my property that runs adjacent to Madsen creek by-pass. Please have somebody remove the tree in question. Plat name: Lot No: Block No: Other agencies involved: ' No field investigation required ❑ ..._........:.._.,:_.:._:::::::::::,�:�::::::,:_........i_, �.,,._:,.,:::��'1`1�-7:33J�- I�T�•�....; .. .L�:TI�•=r: +�l�l�:�it'I;�`�.: .t-t`:::::::�:::�,:::•:_:::::.::—.:............................_.-_:::::::,._................ 1/4 NW S 23 T 23 R 5 Parcel# 2323059123 Kroll: 816W Th.Bros: 656J4 MD 1 2 3 : Basin LCR Council Dist 9 Charge#: .. ..-11 -'.: ��� ........_._._...... ...._. ....i'S...i..i.h.............. .__.i.................E..si ts•s ..............._.... ....._.......!.t..t:l,..;.;.._.........-........_...._ .-_2.-:--�,::::::-:�.i::__ _ —_ Citizen notified on ❑ phone ❑ letter ❑ in person ❑ email i:S_ EGg::gtis apxa:,::c:r=..,...__,.... >::::o:,r....__:a:•::a_...,. .... r:,:::::� ic::��:s:e&=,;::� OR: No further action Turned to; on by recommended because: ❑Lead agency has been notified: ❑Problem has been corrected. ❑No problem has been ❑Prior investigation identified. addresses problem: SEE Fit.E# ❑Private problem-NDAP will not consider because: ❑Water originates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. ❑Location is outside WLRD Service Area. ❑ Other(Specify): r KING COYJNTY V *-A' IER A. I,AND':RES(?l C) D! iSION DRAINAGE: INVESTIGATION:REQUEST jype T PROBLEM: ' ' RECENED BY: Received from: , n may) ye NAME: , - f- state Zip LOCATION OF PROBLEM,IF DIFFERENT` Access Permission Granted �. :. Call First (vVoiild L&6: 136V 2,11M. ..::.::..:.: Plat name: ' Lot Other agencies involved �F d at _ lar�1Y1CY.liQi ..,u vz+.,.r. L I/4 S T R .' Parcel No `� Kxoll Th Bios Nety: // t,� F RDP Basin Coiiiicil Dtsfnct _ Citi Charge Na RESPONSE: Citizen noti �'s`:: feed on '- ` . ' '` '`:`:`�;`:..by.. P . net::: letEer person rl y. . . . DTsPOSrrION: Turned to on:.::: '' �'' ` ' L:':'':. by OR I`�Io furfhei act�oxl#ecornrndetlbcaus Lead agency has been notified`.'... Problem has been corrected.: Na protil'm"*: be 'ias en rdent�fed P zor wvesttgat en ad€lressesp oblem: Private problem-NDAP will not consider: Water originates onsite and%off:on netghorin parcel DATE CLOSED: Z, i i icy : SECTION IV FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY (PART A) KCRTS was used to model the peak runoff from the Site. Per Table 3.2.2.b of the Manual the soil type is modeled as "Till' for the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam SCS classification as shown in Figure 4. Soils. The entire Site is modeled as "Forest." Results of the KCRTS analysis are included in this section. Area Breakdown Till Forest 390,841 s.f. 8.972 acres ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 13 . Technical Information Report City of Renton PRE-DEVELOPED HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING INPUT: 7 Land Mdse urr�n'a'ry Tl l Forest 04"acres Till Pasture 0;1]O acres `Till Crass 0.00 acres Outtwash,Forest ; : 0 DO.acres Outwash Pasture I] 01] acres Ouivaash Crass O.00- W tiand OOWetland 0.00 acres Impervious 0.00 acres Total $.9i acres Scale Factor 1.00 . Hourly': Reduced Time Series: predev > Compute Tilmc Series I i Modify Usef Input- 1 _ I File for computed Time Series [,TSF] PRE-DEVELOPED HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING OUTPUT: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.566 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.724 1 100.00 0.990 0.154 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.566 2 25.00 0.960 0.419 4 2/28/03 3:00 0. 435 3 10.00 0. 900 0.015 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.419 4 5. 00 0.800 0.249 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.366 5 3.00 0.667 0.435 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.249 6 2.00 0.500 0.366 5 11/24/06 4:00 0. 154 7 1.30 0.231 0.724 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.015 8 1. 10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0. 671 50.00 0.980 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 14 Technical Information Report City of Renton FIGURE 5 PREDEVELOPMENT AREA MAP .©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 15, Technical Information Report City of Renton co L', z s a � W o RES FORESTED o v i od 0 W 'o ' y y y ONSI TE AREA y y y y. y � . ' =MEN T) PERVIOUS (TILL FOREST)- 8.795 OREST)8.795 AC y y y y y y ' yyyyyyyyyyy �TAGEIMPROVEMENTS y y y y y y PERVIOUS BYPASS y yy (TILL FOREST) y y POE DCl/EL�OP Iq)l ' 0.050 AC 0.02 AC y y y y y y y y y y y y ' y y y y y y V y y y y y y O y y y y y y I y y y y y y UJ Q y y y y y y J O WQZ y y y y y y Q Q y y y y y y W O WZ y y y y y y \ IV y y y Y y y y Y CW W Iy y y y y y y y y y y y Iy y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y N ORTH IV y y y y y GRAPHIC SCALE y y 0 40 80 120 DRAFTED BY: CHH DESIGNED Sr KP 1 INCH =80 FT. PROJECT ENGINEER: MAJ DATE 0213.1 4 PROXCT NO.: 13117 ' "7oge_Bosins.dwg 2/13/2014 3:48:35 PM PST DRAWING: IGHT©2014, D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. SHEET.• DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY (PART B) DEVELOPED SITE AREA HYDROLOGY KCRTS was used to model the developed peak runoff from the Site. The soil types are unchanged from the pre-developed conditions. The portions of the Site within the proposed clearing limits tributary to the proposed detention vault were modeled as "Till Grass" and Impervious as appropriate. Results of the KCRTS analysis are included in this section. Area Breakdown Predeveloped Till Forest 390840.7 8.972. Developed ROW 79419 1.823 Imp 63825 1.465 Per 15130 0.347 bypass imp 464 0.011 Lots collected 271536 6.234' Imp 124000 2.847 Per 147536 3.387: !Tract A collected 32174 0.739 Imp 16087 0.369 Per 16087 0.369. Frontage 7712 0.177, Imp 4652 0.107; Per 2215 0.051 bypass imp 249 0.006, bypass per 596 0.014, ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 16 Technical Information Report City of Renton Developed Hourly Time Step Modeling Input: _ Lariat Use Summary a, i' Area . TiII Forest 0 OQ`acres -Till Pasture 0 Olt acres _- Tiil Grass >4.15` cres Outwash Forest 0 00,acres Outwash Pasture 0 OO acres �utwash grass 0 00 acres Wetland OIJ,acres ., Impervious.- 4 79,a,cres Tota l— 13 94 acres ,Sca"le Factor 1:00 Hourly ; Reduced,: Time Series:Irdin j} Compute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series[.TSF] DEVELOPED HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING OUTPUT: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdin.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 1.53 6 2/09/01 2:00 3.14 1 100.00 0.990 1.21 8 1/05/02 16:00 1.85 2 25.00 0.960 1.85 2 2/27/03 7:00 1.85 3 10.00 0.900 1.27 7 8/26/04 2:00 1. 62 4 5.00 0.800 1.54 5 10/28/04 16:00 1.54 5 3.00 0.667 1. 62 4 1/18/06 16:00 1.53 6 2.00 0.500 1.85 3 10/26/06 0:00 1.27 7 1.30 0.231 3. 14 1 1/09/08 6:00 1.21 8 1. 10 0.091 Computed Peaks 2.71 50.00 0.980 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat . Page 17 Technical Information Report City of Renton BYPASS HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING INPUT: LaFl,d Use SSurrimary o. Area Till Forest 0.00 acres Till Pasture ".. acres Or Till Crass 0,01 acres Outiwash Forest ,'0.00 acres 6utwash Pad#ure -:0 00 acres Outwash Grass 0 00'acres Wetland ; '0 OO acres Impervious 0 02.acres Total 0.03 acres 'Scale Fhctor; 1.00 Hour)yF>ieduced'' Time Series. bypass >> Compu#e Time Series I Modify User Input' Retneve runoff files and compute Time Sene's BYPASS HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING OUTPUT: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:bypass.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.005 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.011 1 100.00 0.990 0.004 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.006 2 25.00 0. 960 0.006 2 12/08/02 18:00 0.006 3 10.00 0.900 0.004 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.005 4 5.00 0.800 0.005 6 10/28/04 16:00 0.005 5 3.00 0.667 0.005 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.005 6 2.00 0.500 0.006 3 10/26/06 0:00 0.004 7 1.30 0.231 0.011 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.004 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.009 50.00 0.980 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 18 Technical Information Report City of Renton FIGURE 6 POST DEVELOPMENT AREA MAP .©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. . The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 19 Technical Information Report City of Renton Lu W 2 2 s � W � J y O N fA fq al � N N 2 � � W i ACRES IMPERVIOUS I =RV/OUS ACRES IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUS 3 30 'RES IMPERVIOUS W 7.37 ACRES PERVIOUS C4 ISS 0.02 ACRES IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUS W ct 20SLI k Q AREA TO POND i S PERVIOUS m Q (TILL GRASS) Q W p T 0 V 7 0 0 4.15 AC W OZ 'YPASS AREA , W PERVIOUS V Z (TILL GRASS) W W ti 0.01 AC Z I � I T NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 40 80 120 DRAFTED BY- QHH DESIGNED BN. nP 1 INCH = 80 FT. PROJECT ENGINEER: mA✓ DA7E 021.E 14 PROJECT NO.: 13117 �d_Conditions.dwg 2/13/2014 4:14:01 PM PST DRAWING ZIGHT©2014, D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. SHEET- PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PART C) The Project is required to adhere to Level 2 Flow Control criteria. The Level 2 performance criteria requires that the developed condition's durations must match the predeveloped durations ranging from 50% of the two-year peak flow up to the full 50- year peak flow and also match developed peak discharge rates to predeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2-year and 10-year return periods (KCSWDM, Sec. 1.2). The Basic Water Quality Treatment goal is to remove 80% of TSS for flows or volumes up to and including the WQ design flow or volume. Conveyance criteria for the Project require that all new pipes be designed to convey and contain (at minimum) the 25-year peak flow. The conveyance system design will be analyzed at time of final engineering. FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM (PART D) The Site will utilize a detention pond meeting the Level 2 Flow Control Criteria. The King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) software was used to size the detention facility. The detention pond design information is included in this section. FLOW CONTROL BMP SELECTION Subdivision projects are required to mitigate for impervious surface equal to a minimum of 10% of each lot area by use of Flow Control Best Management Practices (BMP's). The project must analyze the feasibility of infiltration and dispersion of roof runoff. The project may utilize splash blocks meeting the requirements for basic dispersion. The project may also utilize pervious pavement or other BMP's as found in Appendix C of the Manual. Evaluation and inclusion of a BMP will be accomplished at final engineering. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 20 Technical Information Report City of Renton FLOW CONTROL FACILITY DESIGN OUTPUT Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Pond Side Slope: 3.00 H:lV Pond Bottom Length: 152.32 ft Pond Bottom Width: 76.16 ft Pond Bottom Area: 11600. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FB: 22960. sq. ft 0.527 acres Effective Storage Depth: 6.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 371.00 ft Storage Volume: 96867. cu. ft 2.224 ac-ft Riser Head: 6.00 ft Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.50 0.149 2 4.10 2.65 0.262 6.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 371.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 11600. 0.02 371.02 232. 0.005 0.008 0.00 11627. 0.03 371.03 349. 0.008 0.011 0.00 11641. 0.05 371.05 582. 0.013 0.013 0.00 11669. 0.06 371.06 699. 0.016 0.015 0.00 11682. 0.08 371.08 932. 0.021 0.017 0.00 11710. 0.09 371.09 1050. 0.024 0.019 0.00 11724. 0.11 371.11 1284. 0.029 0.020 0.00 11751. 0.13 371.13 1520. 0.035 0.022 0.00 11779. 0.23 371.23 2704. 0.062 0.029 0.00 11917. 0.33 371.33 3903. 0.090 0.035 0.00 12056. 0.43 371.43 5116. 0.117 0.040 0.00 12196. 0.52 371.52 6219. 0.143 0.044 0.00 12323. 0.63 371.63 7583. 0.174 0.048 0.00 12478. 0.73 371.73 8838. 0.203 0.052 0.00 12620. 0.83 371.83 10107. 0.232 0.055 0.00 12763. 0.93 371.93 11390. 0.261 0.059 0.00 12906. 1.03 372.03 12688. 0.291 0.062 0.00 13050. 1.13 372.13 14001. 0.321 0.065 0.00 13195. 1.23 372.23 15327. 0.352 0.068 0.00 13341. 1.33 372.33 16669. 0.383 0.070 0.00 13487. 1.43 372.43 18025. 0.414 0.073 0.00 13634. 1.53 372.53 19395. 0.445 0.075 0.00 13782. 1.63 372.63 20781. 0.477 0.078 0.00 13930. 1.73 372.73 22182. 0.509 0.080 0.00 14079. 1.83 372.83 23597. 0.542 0.082 0.00 14229. 1.93 372.93 25027. 0.575 0.085 0.00 14380. 2.03 373.03 26473. 0.608 0.087 0.00 14531. 2.13 373.13 27934. 0.641 0.089 0.00 14683. 2.23 373.23 29410. 0.675 0.091 0.00 14836. 2.33 373.33 30901. 0.709 0.093 0.00 14989. 2.43 373.43 32408. 0.744 0.095 0.00 15144. ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 21 Technical Information Report City of Renton 2.52 373.52 33777. 0.775 0.097 0.00 15283. 2.62 373.62 35313. 0.811 0.099 0.00 15439. 2.72 373.72 36864. 0.846 0.101 0.00 15595. 2.82 373.82 38432. 0.882 0.103 0.00 15752. 2.92 373.92 40015. 0.919 0.104 0.00 15910. 3.02 374.02 41614. 0.955 0.106 0.00 16068. 3.12 374.12 43229. 0.992 0.108 0.00 16227. 3.22 374.22 44859. 1.030 0.110 0.00 16387. 3.32 374.32 46506. 1.068 0.111 0.00 16548. 3.42 374.42 48169. 1.106 0.113 0.00 16709. 3.52 374.52 49848. 1.144 0.115 0.00 16871. 3.62 374.62 51543. 1.183 0.116 0.00 17034. 3.72 374.72 53255. 1.223 0.118 0.00 17198. 3.82 374.82 54983. 1.262 0.119 0.00 17362. 3.92 374.92 56727. 1.302 0.121 0.00 17527. 4.02 375.02 58488. 1.343 0.122 0.00 17693. 4.10 375.10 59909. 1.375 0.124 0.00 17826. 4.13 375.13 60444. 1.388 0.126 0.00 17876. 4.16 375.16 60981. 1.400 0.131 0.00 17926. 4.18 375.18 61340. 1.408 0.141 0.00 17959. 4.21 375.21 61880. 1.421 0.154 0.00 18009. 4.24 375.24 62421. 1.433 0.169 0.00 18060. 4.27 375.27 62963. 1.445 0.188 0.00 18110. 4.29 375.29 63326. 1.454 0.210 0.00 18143. 4.32 375.32 63871. 1.466 0.216 0.00 18194. 4.35 375.35 64418. 1.479 0.222 0.00 18244. 4.45 375.45 66250. 1.521 0.241 0.00 18413. 4.55 375.55 68100. 1.563 0.258 0.00 18583. 4.65 375.65 69967. 1.606 0.273 0.00 18753. 4.75 375.75 71851. 1.649 0.286 0.00 18924. 4.85 375.85 73752. 1.693 0.299 0.00 19095. 4.95 375.95 75670. 1.737 0.311 0.00 19268. 5.05 376.05 77605. 1.782 0.323 0.00 19441. 5.15 376.15 79558. 1.826 0.334 0.00 19615. 5.25 376.25 81528. 1.872 0.344 0.00 19789. 5.35 376.35 83516. 1.917 0.354 0.00 19964. 5.45 376.45 85521. 1.963 0.364 0.00 20140. 5.55 376.55 87544. 2.010 0.373 0.00 20317. 5.65 376.65 89585. 2.057 0.382 0.00 20494. 5.75 376.75 91643. 2.104 0.391 0.00 20673. 5.85 376.85 93719. 2.151 0.399 0.00 20851. 5.95 376.95 95813. 2.200 0.408 0.00 21031. 6.00 377.00 96867. 2.224 0.412 0.00 21121. 6.10 377.10 98988. 2.272 0.882 0.00 21302. 6.20 377.20 101127. 2.322 1.730 0.00 21483. 6.30 377.30 103285. 2.371 2.840 0.00 21665. 6.40 377.40 105460. 2.421 4.140 0.00 21848. 6.50 377.50 107654. 2.471 5.620 0.00 22031. 6.60 377.60 109867. 2.522 7.050 0.00 22216. 6.70 377.70 112098. 2.573 7.580 0.00 22401. 6.80 377.80 114347. 2.625 8.080 0.00 22586. 6.90 377.90 116615. 2.677 8.550 0.00 22773. 7.00 378.00 118902. 2.730 9.000 0.00 22960. 7.10 378.10 121207. 2.783 9.420 0.00 23148. 7.20 378.20 123531. 2.836 9.820 0.00 23336. 7.30 378.30 125874. 2.890 10.210 0.00 23526. 7.40 378.40 128236. 2.944 10.580 0.00 23716. 7.50 378.50 130617. 2.999 10.940 0.00 23906. 7.60 378.60 133018. 3.054 11.290 0.00 24098. 7.70 378.70 135437. 3.109 11.630 0.00 24290. 7.80 378.80 137876. 3.16511.950 0.00 24483. 7.90 378.90 140333. 3.222 12.270 0.00 24676. 8.00 379.00 142811. 3.278 12.580 0.00 24871. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 22 Technical Information Report City of Renton Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 3.14 1.86 6.21 377.21 101372. 2.327 2 1.53 0.57 6.03 377.03 97593. 2.240 3 1.85 0.35 5.35 376.35 83464. 1.916 4 1.85 0.35 5.30 376.30 82547. 1.895 5 1.62 0.26 4.58 375.58 68641. 1.576 6 1.01 0.15 4.21 375.21 61829. 1.419 7 1.21 0.12 3.64 374.64 51903. 1.192 8 1.27 0.10 2.51 373.51 33552. 0.770 Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow Outflow Inflow Inflow Target Calc 1 1.86 0.01 ******** ******* 1.86 2 0.57 0.01 ******** 0.57 0.57 3 0.35 0.01 ******** ******* 0.36 4 0.35 0.01 ******** ******* 0.35 5 0.26 0.01 ******** ******* 0.26 6 0.15 0.00 ******** ******* 0.15 7 0.12 0.00 ******** ******* 0.12 8 0.10 0.00 ******** ******* 0.10 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:rdin.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 3.14 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 1.86 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 6.21 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 377.21 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 101372. Cu-Ft 2.327 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 1.86 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.573 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.86 6.21 1 100.00 0.990 0.116 7 1/07/02 4:00 0.573 6.03 2 25.00 0.960 0.354 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.354 5.35 3 10.00 0.900 0.097 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.349 5.30 4 5.00 0.800 0.153 6 1/08/05 3:00 0.262 4.58 5 3.00 0.667 0.262 5 1/19/06 1:00 0.153 4.21 6 2.00 0.500 0.349 4 11/24/06 9:00 0.116 3.64 7 1.30 0.231 1.86 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.097 2.50 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.43 6.16 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 23 Technical Information Report City of Renton 0.574 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.86 1 100.00 0.990 0.117 7 1/07/02 5:00 0.574 2 25.00 0.960 0.355 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.355 3 10.00 0.900 0.097 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.350 4 5.00 0.800 0.153 6 1/08/05 3:00 0.263 5 3.00 0.667 0.263 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.153 6 2.00 0.500 0.350 4 11/24/06 9:00 0.117 7 1.30 0.231 1.86 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.097 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.43 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.008 33068 53.927 53.927 46.073 0.461E+00 0.024 6522 10.636 64.563 35.437 0.354E+00 0.040 5683 9.268 73.831 26.169 0.262E+00 0.056 5192 8.467 82.298 17.702 0.177E+00 0.073 4403 7.180 89.478 10.522 0.105E+00 0.089 2526 4.119 93.598 6.402 0.640E-01 0.105 1875 3.058 96.655 3.345 0.334E-01 0.121 1405 2.291 98.947 1.053 0.105E-01 0.137 262 0.427 99.374 0.626 0.626E-02 0.153 38 0.062 99.436 0.564 0.564E-02 0.169 23 0.038 99.473 0.527 0.527E-02 0.185 17 0.028 99.501 0.499 0.499E-02 0.201 10 0.016 99.517 0.483 0.483E-02 0:218 29 0.047 99.565 0.435 0.435E-02 0.234 40 0.065 99.630 0.370 0.370E-02 0.250 37 0.060 99.690 0.310 0.310E-02 0.266 35 0.057 99.747 0.253 0.253E-02 0.282 25 0.041 99.788 0.212 0.212E-02 0.298 21 0.034 99.822 0.178 0.178E-02 0.314 17 0.028 99.850 0.150 0.150E-02 0.330 15 0.024 99.874 0.126 0.126E-02 0.346 23 0.038 99.912 0.088 0.881E-03 0.362 17 0.028 99.940 0.060 0.603E-03 0.379 8 0.013 99.953 0.047 0.473E-03 0.395 16 0.026 99.979 0.021 0.212E-03 0.411 8 0,013 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 0.427 2 0.003 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.443 0 0.000 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.459 1 0.002 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.475 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.491 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.507 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.523 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.540 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.556 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.572 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.008 33117 54.007 54.007 45:993 0.460E+00 0.024 6433 10.491 64.498 35.502 0.355E+00 0.040 5813 9.480 73.977 26.023 0.260E+00 0.057 5090 8.301 82.278 17.722 0.177E+00 0.073 4390 7.159 89.437 10.563 0.106E+00 0.089 2562 4.178 93.615 6.385 0.638E-01 0.105 1870 3.050 96.665 3.335 0.333E-01 0.121 1422 2.319 98.984 1.016 0.102E-01 0.137 240 0.391 99.375 0.625 0.625E-02 0.154 37 0.060 99.436 0.564 0.564E-02 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 24. Technical Information Report City of Renton 0.170 24 0.039 99.475 0.525 0.525E-02 0.186 16 0.026 99.501 0.499 0.499E-02 0.202 10 0.016 99.517 0.483 0.483E-02 0.218 30 0.049 99.566 0.434 0.434E-02 0.234 36 0.059 99.625 0.375 0.375E-02 0.250 39 0.064 99.689 0.311 0.311E-02 0.267 36 0.059 99.747 0.253 0.253E-02 0.283 24 0.039 99.786 0.214 0.214E-02 0.299 21 0.034 99.821 0.179 0.179E-02 0.315 18 0.02,9 99.850 0.150 0.150E-02 0.331 15 0.024 99.874 0.126 0.126E-02 0.347 22 0.036 99.910 0.090 0.897E-03 0.363 17 0.028 99.938 0.062 0.620E-03 0.380 9 0.015 99.953 0.047 0.473E-03 0.396 15 0.024 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 0.412 9 0.015 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 0.428 2 0.003 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.444 0 0.000 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.460 1 0.002 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.477 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.493 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.509 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.525 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.541 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.557 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.573 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: dsout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time----- ---------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base New %Change 0.124 I 0.95E-02 0.74E-02 -21.8 I 0.95E-02 0.124 0.122 -2.0 0.158 I 0.63E-02 0.55E-02 -11.9 I 0.63E-02 0.158 0.136 -14.1 0.192 I 0.49E-02 0.49E-02 -1.3 I 0.49E-02 0.192 0.188 -2.2 0.226 I 0.37E-02 0.40E-02 8.4 I 0.37E-02 0.226 0.234 3.6 0.260 I 0.28E-02 0.28E-02 -0.6 I 0.28E-02 0.260 0.260 -0.1 0.294 I 0.22E-02 0.18E-02 -16.9 I 0.22E-02 0.294 0.279 -5.1 0.328 I 0.15E-02 0.13E-02 -12.2 I 0.15E-02 0.328 0.318 -3.0 0.362 I 0.10E-02 0.62E-03 -38.7 I 0.10E-02 0.362 0.343 -5.3 0.396 I 0.62E-03 0.23E-03 -63.2 I 0.62E-03 0.396 0.364 -8.0 0.430 I 0.34E-03 0.49E-04 -85.7 I 0.34E-03 0.430 0.390 -9.4 0.464 I 0.21E-03 0.33E-04 -84.6 I 0.21E-03 0.464 0.398 -14.3 0.498 I 0.16E-03 0.33E-04 -80.0 I 0.16E-03 0.498 0.404 -18.8 0.532 I 0.98E-04 0.16E-04 -83.3 I 0.98E-04 0.532 0.411 -22.8 0.566 I 0.16E-04 0.16E-04 0.0 I 0.16E-04 0.566 0.574 1.5 Maximum positive excursion = 0.015 cfs ( 7.6%) occurring at 0.195 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.210 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.133 cfs (-24.3%) occurring at 0.547 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.414 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 25 Technical Information Report City of Renton PEAK PLOT Return Period 2 5 10 20 50 100 tOr o rdouLpks in Sea-Tac ♦ dsoutpks q PREDEV.pks • 10,- 0 � e R �� q 00 L q ♦ U D q • ♦ 00 tO r O 10-2- 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 cumulative Probability DURATION ANALYSIS n 0 rdout.dur o dsouLdur TARGEr.dur o m 0 `o ui 0 y^ R LL c d t0 U M Q 0 � N O 00 A„ O O O 0 10 s 10-4 t0 10 2 10 10° Probability Exceedence ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 26 Technical Information Report City of Renton WATER QUALITY TREATMENT SYSTEM (PART E) The Project is located in the Basic Water Quality Treatment area. The treatment goal is 80% removal of total suspend solids for a typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff. A combined detention/water quality pond will accommodate this requirement. Rainfall(R)of the mean annual storm 0.47.in. From KCSWDM Fig.6.4.1.A Area of impervious surface(Ai) 208,554`s.f. Area of till soil covered with till grass (Atg)= 180,968s.f. Area of till soil covered with till forest(Atf)= 0's.f. Area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest(Ao)= 0 s.f. Volume factor(f)= 3 N/A From KCSWDM Sec. 6.4.1.1 --__ . Calculations Units Notes Volume of runoff from mean annual storm (Vr)= 9123.507 c.f. =(O.9Ai+0.25Atg+0.10Atf+O.01Ao)*R/12 Minimum Wetpool volume required(Vb)= 27,371'c.f. =f*Vr The provided water quality volume is 35,071 c.f. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 27 Technical Information Report City of Renton FIGURE 7 DETENTION & WATER QUALITY FACILITY DETAILS This will be provided at time of final engineering. ©2014 D.R.STRONG.Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 28 Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION V CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Per C.R. #4 of the KCSWDM, the conveyance system must be analyzed and designed for existing tributary and developed onsite runoff from the proposed project. Pipe systems shall be designed to convey the 100-year design storm. The Rational Method will be used to calculate the Q-Ratio for each pipe node. Analysis will be performed at final engineering. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 29 Technical Information Report City of Renton BACKWATER ANALYSIS A backwater analysis will be provided at time of final engineering. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 30 Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION VI SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The following report and studies have been provided with this submittal. 1. Traffic Impact Analysis —TraffEx, Inc., December 27, 2013 2. Critical Areas Study— Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., February 3, 2014 3. Geotechnical Engineering Study— Earth Solutions NW LLC, February 5, 2014 4. Arborist Report— GreenForest, Inc., February 18, 2014 ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 31 Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION VII OTHER PERMITS, VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS Boundary Line Adjustment— City of Renton ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 32 Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION VIII ESC PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (PART A) The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Design meets the nine minimum requirements: 1. Clearing Limits — Areas to remain undisturbed shall be delineated with a high- visibility plastic fence prior to any Site clearing or grading. 2. Cover Measures — Disturbed Site areas shall be covered with mulch and seeded, as appropriate, for temporary or permanent measures. 3. Perimeter protection — Perimeter protection shall consist of a silt fence down slope of any disturbed areas or stockpiles. 4. Traffic Area Stabilization — A stabilized construction entrance will be located at the point of ingress/egress. 5. Sediment Retention — Surface water collected from disturbed areas of the Site shall be routed through a sediment vault or sediment traps prior to release from the Site. The sediment vault or traps will be installed prior to grading of any contributing area. 6. Surface Water Control —Interceptor berms or swales shall be installed to control and intercept all surface water from disturbed areas. Surface water controls shall be installed concurrently with and/or immediately following rough grading. 7. Dewatering Control —Will be provided as needed. 8. Dust Control — Dust control shall be provided by spraying exposed soils with water until wet. This is required when exposed soils are dry to the point that wind transport is possible which would impact roadways, drainage ways, surface waters, or neighboring residences. 9. Flow Control — Runoff collected in the sediment vault will discharge to the permanent detention pond outfall system. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat . Page 33 Technical Information Report City of Renton SWPPS PLAN DESIGN (PART B) Construction activities that could contribute pollutants to surface and storm water include the following, with applicable BMP's listed for each item: 1. Storage and use of chemicals: Utilize source control, and soil erosion and sedimentation control practices, such as using only recommended amounts of chemical materials applied in the proper manner; neutralizing concrete wash water, and disposing of excess concrete material only in areas prepared for concrete placement, or return to batch plant; disposing of wash-up waters from water-based paints in sanitary sewer; disposing of wastes from oil-based paints, solvents, thinners, and mineral spirits only through a licensed waste management firm, or treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility. 2. Material delivery and storage: Locate temporary storage areas away from vehicular traffic, near the construction entrance, and away from storm drains. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) should be supplied for all materials stored, and chemicals kept in their original labeled containers. Maintenance, fueling, and repair of heavy equipment and vehicles shall be conducted using spill prevention and control measures. Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any spill incident. Provide cover, containment, and protection from vandalism for all chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials. 3. Building demolition: Protect stormwater drainage system from sediment-laden runoff and loose particles. To the extent possible, use dikes, berms, or other methods to protect overland discharge paths from runoff. Street gutter, sidewalks, driveways, and other paved surfaces in the immediate area of demolition must be swept daily to collect and properly dispose of loose debris and garbage. Spray the minimum amount of water to help control windblown fine particles such as concrete, dust, and paint chips. Avoid excessive spraying so that runoff from the Site does not occur, yet dust control is achieved. Oils must never be used for dust control. 4. Sawcutting: Slurry and cuttings shall be vacuumed during the activity to prevent migration offsite and must not remain on permanent concrete or asphalt paving overnight. Collected slurry and cuttings shall be disposed of in a manner that does not violate ground water or surface water quality standards. The complete CSWPPP will be submitted at the time of final engineering. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 34 Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION IX BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 1. Bond Quantity Worksheet—will be submitted at final engineering 2. The Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet is included in this section 3. Declaration of Covenant—will be provided prior to final engineering approval. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 35 Technical Information Report City of Renton STORMWATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET Development_ The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Date February 13, 2014 Location 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton, Washington ENGINEER DEVELOPER Name Maher A. Joudi, P.E. Name Firm D. R. STRONG Consulting Firm PNW Holdings LLC Engineers, Inc. Address 620 7 Avenue Address 9675 SE 36 th Street, #105 Kirkland, WA 98033 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone 425) 827-3063 Phone (206) 588-1147 Developed Site: 6.981 acres Number of lots 31 Number of detention facilities on Site: Number of infiltration facilities on Site: vaults vaults 1 pond vaults tanks tanks Flow control provided in regional facility (give location) No flow control required Exemption number Downstream Drainage Basins Immediate Major Basin Basin Lower Cedar River Cedar River Number & type of water quality facilities on Site: biofiltration Swale (regular/wet/ or continuous inflow?) sand filter (basic or large?) sand filter, linear (basic or large?) CONTECH Stormfilter combined detention/WQ vault sand filter vault (basic or large?) X combined detention/wetpond stormwater wetland compost filter wetvault (basic or large?) filter strip Wetvault flow dispersion pre-settling pond farm management plan flow-splitter catchbasin landscape management plan oil/water separator (baffle or coalescing plate?) ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 36 Technical Information Report City of Renton catch basin inserts: Manufacturer pre-settling structure: Manufacturer DESIGN INFORMATION INDIVIDUAL BASIN Water Quality design flow Water Quality treated volume Drainage basin(s) Onsite area (includes frontage) 8.942 Offsite area Type of Storage Facility Pond Live Storage Volume (required) 96,867 Predev Runoff Rate 2-year 0.249 10-year 0.435 100-year 0.724 Developed Runoff Rate 2-year 0.153 (includes bypass) 10- ear 0.354 100-year 1.860 Type of Restrictor Frop-Tee Size of orifice/restriction No. 1 1.50 No. 2 2.65 ©2014 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 37 Technical Information Report City of Renton SECTION X OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Excerpts from the 2009 KCSWDM will be provided at final engineering. ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 38 Technical Information Report City of Renton UJOD'bUOJISJ p'MMM ZOVL'Z96'008 :31 EZVZ"LZ8'SZ17 :XJ E90E'LZ8'SZt, :Ud E06L-EE086 VAA 'puellJ!>I LOL aI!nS DD21d qt-8E 3N t,090 • 0 a PROJECT HAVE THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX $ n. a '`. a3��� � � � ���i l� 1 i .�p s� � '+S R ' by1q��i •q�.�, � ���B �:, �- R - 1 •� ' I Y� I I i i�Y L� - � 1�o €wt I ! $ g gV i Q dol I s r ol lb d 9� �rA C!y. ..y �y� '� '�. la � � n ' I 11 � � ii�•.. i � m �?y qy'�'�'I,�f ' •�� x O i €� i I Irv,' � x ;Ip 1 ;� - A � _ i17• ��I�. I g Ta I l 1 - "m I�xa 1 �' I :R a ='�L I _ I .'I. I I __.I � I. - L 7I 'a• I 7 I:' -I s R�rrJ Y i i a6j 411 -t rri 74, rn _ a 8F p y .3Y lr A:� On - 7Gl f �, i �`a to !, �_�-` _.^x_ '3"1 �_ '"�- _'7..�.J• Sx.-Y^L I-- C I C 4 Lx I 1 \ YJ L y L r a rn O NUN j i a Az axxa R r --1 zi it, I � PROJECT—E THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX It Ica Ica,/S6`—T—r aT SI •� rtr �\ v �S �'"'�p/' i I II a a I a i I '— —� I � I I. �, i o I y ys 20m z !" ._yN i i.• to i ,a� n. '1 $j Y anF 9r a C t• a :i i 7a. I Lo zm y� - I l a I I Elv , I Itt yy1 I "� I o� "t"I ....2,r,,• o 'y_ � �.. - __ 9 _i- _I � I I: I_ t I__ _J I .n I� �I �• I JI�.',N��/i��bI �t --iiy- I L I ,.� , / ♦ J� I @@@ "i----- z-" Arit i l 119rM - II itil \A -31t, - �'a �•� _ I ------ G F t5 s ,�t7 y - �70 rn \3 I mxss'r sr srN� •/`4 �/' - L.�"-�, //--��� u" EqN A �� _._.— If R_R RR�RR RRRRRR_0.RRRy i`I , 1 1l HIM s 'C9 $_ba Io k i;i I4 R 'oR 3�qa 1 �' i ii Ali m 14, � I; � 3INN X11g 1=g .g;g Ag _ yBgRRS 'Sb. 'C3d 1, a 41 rn z 8 n T1 3 3 R .3 m F F a ;00 Av v N t s 3 Y 7 r14 Pi 777 C 555 s o ;gam iDr w Iq z 1> g@`Iaih , @CIll 5' 'r M Yx 11 I C Wo wa z 0 y € e � PRA � o ¢' d _ � 6a F zr a w �,�# - � - I � � amYR5€ a d $ a m g z= $ "� & a Z `$sa ^ "�s � x m ' _ h f Gel r� ip w e7 5 00 LLJ LLJnn W� °e8 "k tlk I 86 I ; npI Igg ynOt F ,'�rv��,�(F`^ p-•F ___. @S p°� ��¢� h� �= PP p :eQ,(� P _ M1 "^., I�,�P$'�/P1h R`4{�3'CII,�.lw �:•�art�^ /� q�"qP "y 3 @ C E E N� �ofr -.�`->•p'/per � `�^ (����7}J.�{ ��^�/hy e>� "J�µw� hh hh�fu R'�' YR v / � q:J yk ¢ l _. Pl•tea}} R A h^ _ $ l))T,���( { Pat i7;R {}� 1iFt0 �� n sk YW pp e�� ��rh }P� _ "� e'•ry/`�'"� /T'i OLjj P qqu� }wp.l P�p a /� yon• /I' 8 w Co �V �Fxx ?j`P4�'.'FSP f`-^•YL�RIII - �y..r}iT�', �/ -I ;•' - / ov - k h " "Fryer /@f(CI A 1 PA`p `' g I of Pv 0.5 _ � i ,a' I .�• ;/� _ \s 1,�k' � �`=y" �f 'y�� �� PR ', If •�k h'p yAy �I `P .$ X11 �h �•,, Ctc'r��k8�1$e^baa �' %� s � u \ :–D XXXX—XXX 3DON 3181218 1H 3Ad1ON3 3H1 3—L 3—,J avrxx>r w�ur,ac-+eWVNa•.w\c4,v,�,4',Mr'wriuu I d Z a a z p w z � �nS ee F �•^i � @� Q � � e e C_ oad ^ M U a a 31 RM 11 ppetl CC RZ M �Y EC k'�i � w c� w I ILLJ z �w WQ Z� _ _M• - r _ � �� r $ S rr �0 ` k r : L -- F �— -fA Ir a � XXXX—XXX 39411 310WO lb 3Ab19N3 3H.L . 3YlIN 1]3NlId uJ wiasa rwAN`nueua+elrl+N�Nt1�rN4'u+laan.�u HIM IN e • o om o�m 000u sus°°� o ooe �o. nmo zz LKaw int'7 7 7-- LLJ LAC) for Ot r 7.7 G^' Sri 1 iQ` H ant, 717 01 Ravin 6- Eg xxxx-xxx 30018 310188 IV 3AVION3 :3H1 Fez 012z , z Z ce :SLJ Z Lij 00 LIZ jJ 4 1 1 -7 "'7 'LLJ f U Loai zi J X, V tJ` Q __3 �?A­ IP 7Z7— ........=�­=�---­--_�__7_-- ............ 7 T z xxxx—xxx 30018 TIGINg IV 3AVION3 3HI LU Lu co Li < IU 10 W w 0 -— •---•----— -------------- 001 z C3 Sj 3 V �`�' t�.- 1'I Ili.. _ I I —�i �' r, n I --- I I -- d� r— / / If in uj Lij /yam C i44 itis j .a Ili 4 K Pj 77 IFO xxxx—xxx MON TIONG IV 3AVION3 3H-L dry fOQ Q ! e Z Z C3 I Q maw 21m}��y22� 0: z w is a r cv w i l j 00 s I + .ito ----- a d� I �n leeI � � k , w ` U` + I i N \S z g a � a a � XXXX—XXX 30011 310218 1V 3AV10N3 3H1 3—113fOtld - - mti¢+ri rmrA¢•�ti��v�rv�+Nr1+M+rwl,k�s�liVm'lraru B a - g r W � z 0 O0 J3W 33s bare! WS 3ANVMVM eS.e - --- - ----j r ry E I � U Li I w oo rt / -- JZ z t - w -- --- ------------- ! a� V/ I WS� ct Mull P, N� -- ------ .L.-_ - Po'Lu It Tff IN i /1901 9 � y i 4 i -�-- --- - �i ° 6 s a � XXXX-XXX 3JON MONO 1V 3AVION3 3H1 3—1 3N _ mruav-rsyY/4�:ruenc�Nw�+-+q�luml�kmlrawnu 8 S � o AIR, a LLJ LL 1 I � z LL t* _ ... rwaa w It 00 s y Y �� I o m I I i =etpa� i f r to - - --- -- try i I .waw � i 1� ---- - ----- --- ..._. - --- ~W g -- - oV U I I � I pp--------- _. _.. ......--__ -..----' ___ -- ._.._-.-.... 1 i a Q --- j- --- --- tL O i I to 3N toil ws 3wvltuvm $ B a � XXXX—XXX 30018 310189 1V 3AV1ON3 3H1 3MM 1]3fptld mrrtma raVrtn ti.•<u�b•IN+a�w�a1N•,•1•\nwlaa.uu A - A - A A y A I� �.•~ ,��,=.�'�"��� "?a..� 07 Wim. M.. `�i"z- `� ti �' a^ ��" y§t Cam �E�. �'f 4� � �'� F'-a:r�a►rte' 5Ir® d n•' r'�' Qib�' j�x� � ��� ���� I�•-�---- �*�"1� ��i`- �v III` �� EM �',� �I ' _3��5• p5 11 iL1 ' I 1 a'o:°°a �97E®' tl��®c5°®® ®® e, s •�iS�o'� � -o, svo ®'�,-`� i � ' II► Xod'r��I�1�:U��l��a����T�►�II6A�� / ' __ Vim► S111 I3 Ili ��► s1 � �� Cr.• �u.r. i�W"•-i���`iTTete. �� �p � ca • � OMAN O � tl _ a '���, —'��� � _c,••, 11111��� � r/,al I' MIR 1'•► I''� �� � �I �Mi i �,•II `��1 NIS', o, •• �,� Pd is• .► a 6 6ph9a6� d�.iF 1.►1. .S n��_ .► ./�\l /�o�a�e40 �� 000 /�,�:��•-1 p°.��1jB��S0�A0��,� 11,1,x,1 tJ ,�j.►'^V���v � �. -------�� �����������p���'�°P� a. �► �®:moi ��► ,� �ii� ,,� miry NVIJ IdVD�,JNVI I A �%U MIA W WI)M IkU A- SNOISiA38 )11 '99NIJ10H MNJ-11,---------- ---------------- rllkl\l 2W I MIA alf-'m nuf � IIT Ro cr ---------- LLJ i L! LU ----------- L1.1 --7------------ - ------- - - ------------- _ � �� � III ------------ ----------- Q.) Cl -------------- ------- ED b b b-5Z6a adrnpx�gv"' V NVId aGVDUVI 1 `•- o 42 1 sNoisuaa )TJS�NIQ ION MNd LL N � gFFg FFF� FFFFgFF�gFF LYE T,2 T2-12qR Y -T T 79i CC k INk � lilt . E Nil S NJ oi �J� l �Jill d�[ip 3 (� Iljj� ------------ N �tZi I I �� .� I � � � \ � ��X I ✓ 1 i I L'� V J.'� 1 I W��•• I I 11\N / I � 1 "V N i � c -p -- // "yam Q.Q�,: -_ � '✓;.I` I �. :\ �.\�� \�. i\� �( ---I _, / - -----------7• NV1d AcW_') QJ VV I y�:At�'�Whl � � Qid��,���i �-�� �� a �nNI AHI LLI -_ y N o .. C) 01 - s_ LLJ zz t r � iP SL tE it! � o 21Z 1:1 sL � -----F------�--, -- i i 1 t• ti t !� I y I 4 oi m! i w i i ro i I I j I I i rr I I-'I LwY1,�� 3 I g t � ZQ z o Q OF,`B O ma 99 N ,i i Q�j i aaS Z 6,1.E LYl -, was in i_L_! L LJJH as�r wror Op s w W "T11 a Mn vCrs h L oeg �LLJqT- I Fil mosr M 0 �O air 6 a� yR 3 V U � ��- 3S 31rid IVL9l F LL 1 `J Y h a�r xrwr ° � 0 � � M lv a a � XXXX—XXX 30011 3lOIN8 iV 3AVlON3 3H1 3YIrN 1]3roMd - - - u.rsma riWya✓na�ea-+nNaM+wN[u�uhMuna aweu ab° , i -- THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE _. XXX—XXXX AD I v n u ml k aN �o ° a ° I ° v I — ol- x o I ° i I C _ i " i " o I� v , w ° u IN W I a w r Z ° I -. I cc♦6� -- __-.— Vyo 5 (n mar 5 � m o I zs � ss c asz k tq b I z a U y s _ Z °6 HOJELi ME THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX y� m N i t ri g b, J o � m y A w QI R w ✓J o x t rytaarr-- �' u ° n I _ I v r a All "� c �L a ' �ZIDS m A w _ E 0 : a J a T HOW w J J h Jw h I r l o i I rn ° m ti Q A 2 N n l a to Z A A A 'v lb Hb D �� Y AM1d} o m 'T1 A m v z o .I a i t 3 i _ z b s' a � 0 om� m Woo ,� - ,°o 3t m.' ? - n sp off � Rio No � 1 140, Mgt oil ^ ° NAVE THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX–XXXX a m � g — '8M \ Vl- TMI �o d. z T ✓��� _ - �i N r I oryA ry III, — I— l o� i g �z� il�llj ✓ ill,�ll�l li � I:. ,i jj y ji o r � �.� L.I. I lil:j l l!( fi -1 j r l c I li o li; m -f9 r 1141' , u ti f ,e""-i I _ -. III li W li � - I� I'`�Ililll, till Ili % I 1,�. VA I I I I ,I f 4z Yom' I II ti. I �., m ; w Y r e Y r 0 - 0 a� x )II , i I m 2 zw Ate- ?l z oz� a _ - o IN Uz m n o a Z m rr-reoJ'T rv1- THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX =pool TI, } E as � ^ 8 � "� �2 IN 4^..m 1 14 t � rr fi I W a 1 A d c J Z A o^h m �v� �W la� �u I c i o �m T Qn m O m d �'1 Y n a m� M ° , mo o mqo momm° x a m N m �Z NP � A n O m➢ a ��m m Z➢ O yA-1 <[D ro D r -{m n7 m z<o n Z z � z 2 ,yo m THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX sN N F AVE SE 0 w h m 4� s gm � i m I a °v o Eti ti a O ^� E J _II I b - 1 k r � I � 4- I m Fl x I I ' I so I o I Z ��a �s II Ali y r < WO � ohm 6Z}> LP U p"'j.,'NAME THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX-XXXX Com �S u � = J iX. 11 _ / � 1 g" x a pd -�T I�I� L ' tn . I ~I II� asbli N IY,, Ii '�� W ii -hll Il�li I I � 11 miH� nUI i (F: fi S cb Col `y Cn /C11 IE _ :{ zu c V�➢ m Z ro amz Ie�. r -i z-117 z T � D fl-I — - ----- -- - _� F—J-,l 1A.1E THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX XXXX n N r m _ 1 6TH AVE 3E - �z" /jI. I `,n w _ Ll ^' a _ I I I J VIE r I -_ 7T mZ s -r. �J/ k II — 1 I dill i� _ � b 2 oa In ` A co to i iJ O G O fll = m o P,.../L -ME THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX XXXX �o �> F i b o �2 o rrl o m 00 w a m #r_ m x 0 z sass of i 7? r £L W1.J2 ru a o O � o S m o-o� o� nDy �v� pro o-+m o fr a Z m a, m PROJECT NAME THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX gM rttl- x �f w c c� � r i �2 n b Cp 2 2 n u _ r cr a.nw �1 m I A6- Plz 0 m 0 0 n o6op � ea to n e i D � l ve r""b m fti.l 0 39ae� All o m i 0 A v m o-o z rnisr 5 z n D D ° crane, WATCHLINE STA. 19+60, SEE SHEET C70 yro oDm O 'U � n � m �o D FFOJF.C NAME THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX-XXXX ld�r-,-,4 "4 MATCHLINE STA. 19+60, SEE SHEET C9 e { ar vi TSTA-1- leaa n2.-w ,oaoc / / 0 — o a aTA Lr - v / �z mm : e p� �co - �Z _... _.. A9 oo � aicz b S ne n �Z �Z M 0 0 o m. v oI Id N _ ri mn - �a�oe -o vz ti 4jr A o ass's erc s,.bzs,. >s N z zy s sa.a�� =des a r +7 � saox � o 0 o a it LK 9 w- m o Y a aL, - �156THAVE9 - _. —1 ti Ag I i II II �i - i _I I` r m CJr I V l i K n - I aW I t y, p ..,, as emaap o mm o I J , w sa (2 i'2EE HEiGhf N. l < n 0 5�, A r ' m F z _ a 0 z REVISIONS �Y �/ �- `I pNW NOLbiNGS, UGC ar -lI THE FVCL -A X I s Jl _ MP5C V �� yo al d f ,amal ph.�, 1<°9 b 99 u� � � I. I3 � r.,, ,,,.,jd �v,�a le!andz,ape can ^ ' � � �✓ �— . T J < a i I - o ° o 501w S�CTION _'� I� � I � ���I I I I �-iA MH N0�11 S�C1 ION I I n I� I C1 I I TTI li IL Q 'S ° II I c a i � m z fi n o I� I I t - Q i L� i o i - A _ m _ - - ..— � b �� RE�isioN pNw HOW N65, UIC - \ \ C �A DESCR PIIO 1 N� I�JC `I \/ �� 13FIb�G - � o� 156=T1,A VE St, r , I I I - r � ,3 0 N !� r 7 a� CD xZ /\ 0 i hNW NOGINGS MA1CNI INS 5�� 5N��15 -� and l 5 r io NO onr[ oescaiano e lob architect,,,„. _ P d h� 9� - o 2b 9530 - LAI�II��C�r �� � :r a r✓ ,,,�e�i�n�uve Y I n /f-° / -- „ 9 U � n I, -"r c r — , A. 0 \� a m _ L5 t N - N,m J SL "0 n O" O 0 C' as 1 m r g, ITT o 0 o F m iF 11 —f+ V N�gy < r y f --- C `- REV SC�QNS o — J AY°VAp��YpVFlPIFY' n RP N ar moo n� r r� r /' a le l35ni :98072 o i C I� FIV�.I AVI at VMP�.f f �UF F;VA�L�Y landsc�ear h ect ��, ��C LAP P5 AFF5 PI,AN o'n � x vurle d�oe.can _ _ I I CJ I w - - Q C�OCCOOOOO ccO J )(;CSC oS --- -- I — I z C1 c� / R � S I Z ( c, R \� N Fl C) - T \P nJ z n N O � x m s { v R EVc ironaNN S � I Y PNW V t�Y®VA � VA� Y VU ei, MV r \ er land e� o J �I�r FLAN ®r�kl rr F�or,� 4vh: 2 Fir j' m - -ANV J'/V I� �a, a< PkgIFCT NAME THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX—XXXX b 152ND AVENUE -- 1541 AVENUE SE b G m A day i 156tH-AVENUE SE <� ,— --4 ri 157N 11A� I" I Iti a `.. it b� , i ��� l (� •!�tJ� n . {.,. 162N0 AVENUE SE \ I \ r � { x r a F j —I _L J AVE UE SE oo m m z Or< ism z oz o � Y�A 0 D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE XXX-XXXX BR�mT \o\ p 156TH AVE SE s^_ TU s Q o� P - o n p o 1 �,. � " _ --4 cn �I r'� v i 166THI� WVE SE Qn dA �1 L t b O V d n t t S- N t _ a m m o N E DZp o mq� n� m Oho tires O m z ` � n v