Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2021 - Appendix Cedar River TranscriptThis transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 1 of 18 Appendix A August 10, 2021 Hearing Transcript Cedar River Apartments -- LUA19-000161, ECF, SSDP, SA-M, SA-H Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available at the City’s hearing examiner website should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Mr. Olbrechts: ... let's get started. It is August 10, 2021. I'm Mr. Olbrechts [inaudible 00:00:12] hearing examiner for the City of Renton. Today we have a application for site plan review, hearing examiner site plan review and shoreline substantial developmental permit for a mix used development at 1915 Maple Valley Highway. This is file number PR19-000306. The hearing format for today will be we'll start off with a presentation from staff. Who's doing this one today? Clark Close: [crosstalk 00:00:38] that'll be Clark Close today. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. All right, great. Well, then Mr. Close will give us an overview of the project, and once he's done we'll then move on to the applicants. They don't have to say anything if they don't want to, but they certainly have that opportunity. Then we'll move onto public comments. Mrs. Cisneros do we have any members of the public participating today? Jenny Cisneros: Not that I know of, but if they would like to they can definitely, at the time of the participation hearing. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Jenny Cisneros: [crosstalk 00:01:10] that, yes. Mr. Olbrechts: Mrs. Cisneros I see you have some technical information on the screen. You want to go over that real quick? This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 2 of 18 Jenny Cisneros: Yes, on entering the hearing if you'd like to please right click on the blue square with the three dots to change your name. If you are from the public please write that in there. Or if you're from the application side, go ahead and write that in. Then, there's also the participation, the hearing, which is the raise your right hand, or raise your hand on the participant screen when roll call is prompted. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, great. Thank you. All right, so by state law I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's admitted into the record during the hearing. That way everyone who's participating knows exactly what information is being considered for the final decision. Ahead of the hearing I get a copy of the staff report, and I'm going to ... Actually, Mrs. Cisneros am I a co-host here or not? I was trying to share my screen. Oh, there I am. Okay I'm set. Nope, I can't share a screen yet. Can you make me share screen? Jenny Cisneros: Yes. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. Jenny Cisneros: Mr. Harrison, if you would like me also, I have the exhibits handy if you'd like me to put those on the screen. Mr. Olbrechts: Oh, I got it right now, right here. Well actually, Mrs. Cisneros, do you have the exhibits 1 through 39 listed out? On the staff report it's- Jenny Cisneros: I have all the exhibits. Mr. Olbrechts: Oh, okay yeah- Jenny Cisneros: [crosstalk 00:02:32]. Mr. Olbrechts: ... I'll stop share and I'll let you put that up then. Jenny Cisneros: Sure. Mr. Olbrechts: This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 3 of 18 Okay. As I was saying about yeah, state law I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's admitted into the record, and staff has giving me a staff report, which includes, looks like was it 59 exhibits? 55 exhibits, sorry. Mrs. Cisneros is scrolling down through, there's a lot of information there, a lot of traffic reports going back and forth, and arborist reports and shoreline analysis, just the whole gamut of information. This looks like to be a fairly complicated project. At this point I'm just going to ask if anyone needs to see any of those documents, or if anyone objects to their entry in the record, please at this point let us know by raising your virtual hand. That should be the button at the bottom of your screen. Or, un-muting yourself and saying, "I object." Do I have any objections to exhibits 1 through 55 getting into the record? Okay, hearing then there admitted then. Mr. Close, I take it you want to get the core maps admitted? Clark Close: I do, Mr. Examiner, yes. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. So I'll make exhibit 56 are the City of Renton core maps, which are available on the city's website. Oh, I see it. Actually, Mrs. Cisneros has them numbered already, so let's stick to that. Exhibit 56 would be the staff PowerPoint, which Mr. Clark will be presenting to us shortly. Exhibit 57 are those core maps that I was talking about that are available at that web link there, that officially zoning maps, aerial photographs that kind of thing. Then finally, Google Earth also aerial photographs of the project site. Any objections over exhibits 56 through 58? Okay, hearing none, those are admitted as well. Mr. Clark, let me swear you in at this point. Just raise your right hand. You swear, affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Clark Close: I do. Mr. Olbrechts: All right. Okay, go ahead. Clark Close: Okay, can everybody see my screen? Mr. Olbrechts: Yeah, just came up. Clark Close: All right, are you looking at the one that has just the slides on it? Or does it have the presenter view as well? Mr. Olbrechts: I guess I see you and the slides. Clark Close: This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 4 of 18 Okay. All right. There we go. All right, thank you Mr. Examiner. Clark Close, senior planner, City of Renton current planning division. Thanks for being here this afternoon. As you mentioned this is for Cedar River Apartments. This is the public hearing for Cedar River Apartments, LUA19-0001621. Thank you for putting exhibits 1 through 58 into the record. First slide here is just a quick overview of what's being proposed. So, SRM Development LLC is requesting master site plan review, hearing site plan review for phases one and two, a shoreline substantial development permit as well for the proposed mixed use development located near I405 on SR169. Clark Close: The proposal would include a three phased project with the first two phases being a two to five story building with 481 attached dwelling with approximately 4,852 square feet of retail in building B. The residential density of the proposal would result in approximately 39 dwellings per acre. A third phase would include 25,000 square foot office building at the corner of Cedar River Park Drive and Maple Valley Highway. The completed project would include an estimated ... Oh, we've got a couple of folks wanting to enter in as well Jenny. So if those pop up could you please admit them? Jenny Cisneros: Yes, of course. Clark Close: Thank you. All right. So, the applicant's proposing 761 vehicle parking spaces, 56 of those would be surface parking, and the remainder would be provided in structural parking within the residential building and/or below the office building. The applicant is proposing some shoreline restoration, which we'll get into, which includes the restoration of, or retention rather of approximately 34 trees, construction of a pedestrian trail near Cedar River within the boundaries of the subject property. The applicant is requesting to fill some fill activities in the 100 year flood plain along the Cedar River that would be mitigated with onsite compensatory flood storage. Clark Close: That was just a quick overview, and now we're going to jump into a little bit more detail on the following slides. This is a 12.5 acre parcel. It's located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway. The comprehensive plan designation in zoning is commercial office and residential, or COR, and the site falls within the urban design district C. Of the two aerial maps, join the parcels and their locations within the city, so south of Lake Washington, as I mentioned, near I405 and the Maple Valley Highway on ramp. Clark Close: The site was a former Stoneway sand and gravel site. The site's currently vacant. It borders a couple of streets, which I've shown in the Google maps there. Some of the notable sites surrounding the subject property we've got the Renton Community Center, Henry Moses Aquatic Center and Cedar River Park to the north. There's a Cedar Place office building to the east. You have Cedar River to the south, and then to the west you've got Renton Community Center, Cedar River Park and the Carco Theater. The last image there is just Bing maps, it's just showing the parcel from above. Clark Close: This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 5 of 18 Being home to the former Stoneway sites, the site is currently a compacted gravel lot with very minimal vegetation. The majority of the site is relatively flat. It gradually slopes from the northeast to the south with an elevated change of approximately 20 feet across the site. The site is mapped with a number of critical areas including [inaudible 00:09:10] high intensity Cedar River reach sea designations, special flood hazard area, FEMA zone AE, severe channel migration zone as mapped by King County, flood way bullhead protection zone one, regulated slopes and high seismic hazards. Clark Close: The proposed multi-family building, which is builds A and B would include a two to five story buildings, and at approximately 67 feet in height from the highest point, meaning the top of the roof to the finished grade. Property's located within the airport influence area and the traffic pattern zone six for the Renton Municipal Airport. However, when you combine all the airport height restrictions it happens to be about five feet above what is allowed in the COR zone. The applicant is proposing a very unique building shape at over 1100 feet in length from end to end. Buildings A and buildings B, the units themselves would wrap around construction parking areas and then you would have wings that flare out from those structured parking areas to allow for modulation, some courtyards. The courtyards would be south facing, oriented towards the Cedar River. The structured parking enclosures would aid in minimizing the project's aesthetics by screening it from the public view. Clark Close: In between the hidden parking structures the applicant is proposing a building step down used to designate to the main entrance to the residential buildings, which will include a leasing office and some common indoor areas for tenants. The building also contains a distinct base with glazing storefront windows, clear entries, awnings, roof overhangs, those such as broken shared roof, siding materials, more formed exposed concrete, vinyl windows, balconies, two railings, some color transitions, as I mentioned earlier, some courtyards. The combination of modulation windows, covered decks, on the fifth floor some awnings, material color contrasts would aid in reducing the bulk of the structures and add some visual interest to the project. Clark Close: The applicant is proposing, as I mentioned, to fill portions of the subject's property flood plain to accommodate the location of the proposed buildings and infrastructure. The applicant has submitted a conditional letter of map revision based on the fill form, and that's included in exhibit 26 that if approved by the Federal Regency Management Agency result in the building's exclusion from the flood hazard areas as indicated in the firm map. The compensatory flood storage plan proposes to add approximately 883 cubic yards of fill to be placed within the existing flood plain and excavate approximately 1,374 cubic yards to provide that compensatory flood storage. Clark Close: They're also proposing to lower the bulk head on the riverside wall, which would provide approximately 2,126 cubic yards of flood storage along with some restoration planting, which we'll jump into on the next slide. Is expected to restore flood plains [inaudible 00:12:39] and improve habitat. As a condition of the project, or at the conclusion of the project the applicant is expected to a net increase approximately 2,616 cubic yards of flood storage. Currently, nearly all the subject property site consists of primarily of impervious surface due to the site's former concrete [inaudible 00:13:07]. There are 53 remaining trees on site, of which that is proposing to retain 34 trees along the shoreline. This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 6 of 18 Clark Close: The detailed shoreline planting plan is proposed within 100 foot vegetation, conservation buffer. Then, landward of the 100 foot vegetation conservation buffer the applicant is proposing a landscape planting plan with a variety of trees including 188 new deciduous trees, or 137 evergreen trees, shrubs and ground cover along the property's parameter, parking lot, planter strips and exterior amenity areas. There are two proposed primary points of access. You got one full one from Cedar River Park Drive, and a second limited access right in right out from the driveway off of SR169. Maple Valley Highway is owned and maintained by Washington State department of transportation. It is classified as principle arterial by the city. Clark Close: Cedar River Park Drive is the typical City of Renton street and is classified as a commercial access street. A third access would be a fire lane access, is proposed to go around the residential buildings, or west of building A and south of buildings A and B. It would also connect to SR169. Updated traffic impact analysis was completed in July 2020 by William Pop Associates following an independent transportation analysis by Transpo Group and comments from Watch Dog as part of the project overview, rather is part of the project review. Additional work was completed by the Transpo Group for review of the project transportation related impacts, resulting in the Cedar River Apartments independent transportation and mitigation analysis dated May 7, 2021. Clark Close: Key findings from that independent analysis indicate that six study intersections would operate at a level of service D or better during the AM and PM hours with the exception of the intersection of Bronson Way North and Houser Way North, which would operate at a level of service F, with or without the project. In addition, the North 3rd Street, Sunset Boulevard North intersection will drop from a level of service D to a level of service E with the addition of the project related traffic in the peak hours. As a result of the anticipated level of service changes, we need to address potential queuing issues at the intersection of Cedar River Park Drive and Maple Valley Highway. As part of the environmental CEPA review there were three transportation mitigation measures included, and those are included in recommended conditions. Clark Close: I'll just go though those real quick here. The first one is to reconfigure the northbound Cedar River Drive to provide dual left turn lanes with a shared right turn lane, or curb lane. To support the new channelization the applicant would be required to install signal detections, signal head modifications and overhead signage on the east side [inaudible 00:16:27] at the intersection of Cedar River Park Drive and Maple Valley Highway. The applicant would submit plans to construct these outside improvements with civil construction permitted. That would be reviewed by the development engineering and transportation staff prior to permit issuance. Clark Close: The second transportation, a condition or mitigation there was that the applicant would fully fund and install an configuration of adaptive traffic control system, or ATCS, split cycle offset optimization technique, also known as SCOOT, along intersections impacted by the proposal including North 3rd Street, Monterey Drive Northeast, and those identified in the Cedar River Apartments independent transportation and mitigation analysis, which is exhibit 34. That was prepared by the Transpo Group This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 7 of 18 dated May 27, 2021. Insulation, configuration and operation of the SCOOT system would be completed prior to a temporary certificate of occupancy for the first building. Clark Close: The third transportation mitigation measure identified that the applicant would identify and propose potential traffic calming measures to be located within the Cedar River parking lot to discourage tenants from essentially cutting through Cedar River Park. Those traffic calming measures would be installed prior to TCO of the first building. The proposal has passed the city's traffic concurrency test, per RNC4-6- 070D, which is exhibit 36 and is based on a test of city wide transportation plan. Consideration of growth levels, including level of service test and the transportation plan, cited specific improvements, and future payment of transportation impact fees due to the increase in traffic related impacts created by the development. Clark Close: So moving on here, as mentioned. The proposed project would be constructed over three phases. The sight line [inaudible 00:18:40] includes internal street with a cul-de-sac in the center. As you can see there in the site plan. The internal street runs east, west between the future medical office building and the apartment buildings. This site design allows for safe transitions and linkages between the uses of the budding public streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Site plan includes a mix of active and passive open spaces, including pedestrian trails, walkways, boardwalks, multi-purpose sports courts and courtyards. Once constructed, mixed used buildings would provide use to Cedar River. Clark Close: Surface parking, structured parking and below grade parking would also reduce off-site parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. During the environment review the city act as the lead agency. Environmental review committee issues a determination of non-significance mitigated for the Cedar River Apartments on June 17 this year. A 14 day public comment period commenced on June 17 and ended on July 1, 2021. No appeals. Both the threshold determination had been filed as of date. Staff did receive public comment emails along the way. For example, Nicole Robinson with 1B rather, that's included in exhibit 47 to address public comments. The staff report, which is the hearing examiner's staff report and the CEPA environmental staff report addressed a majority of those concerns, and those concerns identified were the [inaudible 00:20:32] protection zone, shoreline regulations, flood zones, refuse and recycling collection, traffic impacts and tree retention. Clark Close: At the conclusion rather, there were eight mitigation measures related to geo technical work and compliance with WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, archeology survey, road work, signal work and traffic calling. Staff concurs with these mitigation measure and as I mentioned included them as recommended condition number one. Some of the integral project features include shoreline restoration and public access in the form of walking trails and [inaudible 00:21:22] platform. Restoration of shoreline area to create habitat where, as I mentioned, not a lot currently exists. Clark Close: Buildings A and B would be constructed with high quality materials and contain modulation and articulation features that are proportionate with scale in relationship to the pedestrians on the street. Buildings A and B would provide architectural front facing features along Cedar River facade, which This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 8 of 18 would avoid turning its back to the river. The site plan provides compatible transition to future phase three. Portions of the site provided that the applicant complies with current code and conditions of approval, which will have given to here in a minute, and pedestrian vehicle conflicts are minimized with site-to-site circulation and limited curb cuts. Clark Close: If all recommended conditions of approval are complied with the proposal would be consistent with comprehensive plan, the zoning development standards, the design district standards and guidelines, and the master plan and site plan review. If all conditions of approval are complied with and proposal they would comply with critical areas, shoreline master program, the visibility and impact of public services. So, staff is recommending approval of Cedar River Apartments master site plan. Application, as depicted in the Cedar River Apartments site plan, which is exhibit three, subject to 25 conditions of approval. I do want to get into one of those conditions if you'll allow it. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Clark Close: Condition number 22 states that the applicant shall demonstrate ADA requirements for the proposed six foot stair and walkway with [inaudible 00:23:27] shoreline variants application for the expanded with above four feet. RMC allows a few different trail widths within the shoreline depending on which section you're referencing. Under general standards RMC4-3-090D3B8 view obstructions and visual quality stairs and walkways within the shoreline buffers are limited to four feet and can be increased to six feet in width, where ADA requirements apply under RMC4-3-090D7810 you've got shoreline books standards under the table, know it's 10. This allows a pathways up to six feet wide within the high intensity Cedar River shoreline. Clark Close: The applicant originally proposed a six foot wide pathway and stairs within the shoreline as a part of the comprehensive shoreline improvement plan. The shoreline restoration efforts are anticipated to increase the overall ecological functions and values of the shoreline. The activity would not result in a [inaudible 00:24:33] of ecological functions of our trail, in bicycle master plan under 2020 parks and recreation and natural areas plan includes pathways along the Cedar River with public access. From a practical standpoint staff is proposing to remove this recommended condition and allow the applicant to move forward with the six foot wide pathway that promotes two foot wide, or two way foot traffic on a six foot wide trail. The wider trail should result in fewer folks stepping off the path, which would result in a greater degree of protection of the vegetation proposed along the trail, and thereby should increase the ecological functions of values within the shoreline. With that, I am happy to answer any questions. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. So well on the last condition, you're proposing to strike a condition? Was that 22 you said? Clark Close: 22, yup. This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 9 of 18 Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. All right, got that. Yeah, just some quick ones. I'm still wading through all those traffic reports, but I was curious for the intersections where the LOS will be below D after this project is completed, are all the mitigation measures proposed for traffic impacts going to, basically eliminate any intersection delay caused by the project for those intersections? Do you know off the top of your head? Clark Close: That is a good question. I noticed Matt jumped back on here. Matt was the original project manager for this and he'll have a better understanding of whether or not the impacts increase the level of service, or if they're just there to improve traffic circulation. So, I'll turn it over to Matt for a second. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Let me swear you in Mr. Herrera. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Matt Herrera: I do. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, go ahead. Matt Herrera: Thank you Mr. Examiner. Matt Herrera, current planning manager. As Clark had mentioned I worked on this project for the first two years, and then handed off to Clark for the end here. But in our exhaustive, I would say traffic analysis, I should say it started with an applicant sponsored traffic impact analysis and then went to an independent review of that traffic analysis. Then, finally earlier this year the city contracted with a third party Transpo Group to do their own independent transportation analysis. The adaptive control mitigation measure that is part of the CEPA document here, we did not have, I guess the most sophisticated model to run to see if that actual adaptive control system would improve the grading level of the intersections. But the analysis did find that it would approve, I believe the overall system. But as far as the grading per intersection, that type of analysis after project was not provided with the SCOOT system. It was a overall corridor and a system planning exercise. With the, I guess limited modeling that we did with that, that is the conclusion. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Thanks Mr. Herrera. Let's see. Then another couple quick questions resulting from the public comment letter that staff received, there was a concern about the capacity to provide water for development projects. Mr. Close, are you aware of any capacity concerns for the city's water system at this point? Clark Close: I am not, but I will ask Mr. Sippo join us and let us apprise us that information. Mr. Olbrechts: This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 10 of 18 Okay. Mr. Sippo, do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Michael Sippo: I do. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. All right, go ahead. Michael Sippo: Yes. As part of the development engineering review on the land use application Public Works was informed and brought in on the process, and no comments were received from our water department that there would be any capacity issues, or constraints with public water. Mr. Olbrechts: Oh, okay. I mean, are you knowledgeable in general about whether there are any longterm capacity concerns for the utility at all? I mean, are we at anywhere close to that being an issue at this point? Michael Sippo: No. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Michael Sippo: I have not heard of any longterm issues. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, great. Thank you Mr. Sippo. Then, finally Mr. Close there was a concern over the aquifer and I guess that landscaping chemicals, that kind of stuff. Do the city's aquifer protection regulations address post construction activities of that nature? Clark Close: They would. So the city has very strict aquifer protections, code requirements in place, which would mitigate for any impacts that they would have upon [inaudible 00:29:51] zone one. Mr. Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Is zone one a particularly sensitive zone in terms of- Clark Close: Yeah. It has a greater degree of sensitivity than zone two. Mr. Olbrechts: Oh, okay. All right, good to know. Thank you. This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 11 of 18 Clark Close: You're welcome. Mr. Olbrechts: All right, let's move on to applicants. Applicants, do you want to say anything at this point? This is your turn. Andy Loof: Yeah, hello, this is Andy Loof with SRM Development. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, Mr. Loof let me swear you in there. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Andy Loof: Yes. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, and you're choosing to participate just by phone today, is that correct? Andy Loof: Yes. Well I can see you on the screen- Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Andy Loof: ... but I'm on audio on my telephone. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, sounds good. All right, how do you spell your last name, sir, for the record? Andy Loof: L-O-O-F. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, great. Alrighty then, go ahead. Andy Loof: Thank you. First of all I just want to thank, I'm glad Matt Herrera was on the call today because we've been working with Matt for several years here, and I just want to compliment Matt and now Clark on the work they've done on our behalf, and on the behalf of the City of Renton. It's a large complex project and I think that the staff has represented the city's interest, and ours, while working to solutions This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 12 of 18 through the development process. So appreciate that very much. I think what I just want to say is, we think the project will be a significant benefit to the city on multiple fronts. Andy Loof: This complex will transform the site of what was the long time Stoneway sand and gravel plant along the Cedar River. I think we're providing a great set back from the river, 100 set back from the river, restoring the adjacent shoreline buffers, adding the trails as Clark indicated in his presentation. We're providing the traffic mitigation measures in three elements with the Cedar Park parking lot improvements. Also, with the additional left hand turn lane on Cedar Park Drive, and with the SCOOT system that Clark had mentioned. The other point that we want to bring up is that this is going to bring a good amount of workforce, housing in the City of Renton and to the East side, and a high quality project. Andy Loof: Just real quickly we're real proud of this design. As Matt indicated it's a wrap project, which is relatively innovative. Not done a lot, because it takes a pretty good size decent property in order to do it, but it's where the parking garage, as Clark has indicated, is wrapped by residential units, thereby hiding the parking garage from view, which will really shows nice elevations, both on the river side and on the Maple Valley Highway side. So, we're generally in agreement with the city's staff report, and we're looking forward to moving forward with the rest of our development permits. I think that's it from the SRM side. I'm not sure if any other of our development team would want to comment. But thank you very much. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, thank you Mr. Loof. All right, does anyone else from the development team, the applicant want to say anything at this point? Ray Liaw: Yes, I'll jump in. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Ray Liaw: [inaudible 00:33:37]. Mr. Olbrechts: All right, let me swear you in there. Do you swear, affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Ray Liaw: I do. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Who are you and how do you spell your last name for the record? This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 13 of 18 Ray Liaw: Absolutely, my name is Ray Liaw and I am legal council for the applicant- Mr. Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Ray Liaw: ... SRM [crosstalk 00:33:56]. Thank you. Just to echo Andy's comments, we appreciate the staff's time on this project. It's been a long haul and we're very excited to be here. We do have one concern though with one of the conditions, specifically condition 1D that we wanted to raise before you this, are in the morning or afternoon? Morning I guess still here. [inaudible 00:34:21] condition 1D really has to do with compliance with the WRIA 8 salmon conservation plan. We have some concerns with respects to the level of specificity that has been put to this condition. Let me address that here. Ray Liaw: At the [inaudible 00:34:38] I just want to know this was a bit of a surprise condition for us [inaudible 00:34:43] review. In our many earlier discussions with staff and meetings we believed that our storm water, which is really what this condition is addressed at, was meeting the technical requirements of the 2017 Renton Stormwater Manual. In particular, this project is exempt from certain requirements such as flow control and providing quantitative analysis in certain areas based on location around Cedar River and nearby connection to Washington. The condition that 1D sets forth though has to do with including qualitative and quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance with this WRIA 8 salmon conservation plan. Ray Liaw: We do acknowledge that in the manual special requirement number one does cross reference salmon conservation plans is effectively a part of the manual that need to be complied with. We think this is a little unusual, but document to cross reference, the reasons I'll explain here going forward. But we're not necessarily challenging that per se. But we are requesting some clarification. At the outside end, WRIA 8 salmon conservation plan is primarily a policy document that addresses the entirety of the WRIA 8 region, which goes well beyond the Cedar River along which we're situated with this project. Ray Liaw: In contrast, special requirement number one of Renton's Surface Water Drainage Manual states that if a project is in an area that is addressed within a standing conservation plan, then the project shall comply with the specific drainage requirements for that area. We think at a minimum the condition here should be clarified that the analysis that we're to address on our technical information report should only be for those applicable portions of the WRIA 8 plan, not for the entirety of the plan, which addresses other regional water systems that go beyond the Cedar River itself. Ray Liaw: The second concern we have is with the condition that we provide a quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance with the WRIA 8 plan. In referencing back to special [inaudible 00:37:02] number one of the Renton's Surface Water Drainage Manual, it does specify that we need to comply with drainage requirements specified in this conservation plan. But in our review of that plan, we don't see a site This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 14 of 18 specific drainage requirement. This appears to be largely a policy document with a list of comprehensive actions for the Cedar Rive, which is referenced in the staff report, but does comprehend listed actions again are really policy driven and talk about long range planning efforts that jurisdictions should be complying with. Ray Liaw: As a second [inaudible 00:37:41] project we have some concerns about what we're supposed to be doing to demonstrate quantitatively how we're in compliance with a document that doesn't set quantitative standards either at a policy, or at a project specific level. We're willing to take qualitative analysis of our project in specific of the Storm Water design in reference to these actions and objectives that are described in the Cedar River. But we would ask that the condition that we provide a quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance be struck because there aren't any quantitative standards by which we can [crosstalk 00:38:18] how we would demonstrate compliance for this plan. The other requested change would just [inaudible 00:38:24] to the reference that we would only use to demonstrate compliance with those applicable [inaudible 00:38:28] of the plan specific to the Cedar River. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. I'll let, oh sorry. Sorry about that. I'll let staff respond to that when we get back to staff rebuttal, and then we'll talk about how to work out some revisions to that condition if necessary. All right, thanks for your testimony Mrs. Liaw. Let's move on then to public comments at this point. I think we're done with the development team, correct? All right, let's see, does anyone from the public want to say anything at this point? If you do, the easiest way to draw our attention is to raise your virtual hand. Just click that hand button at the bottom of your screen. I'm not seeing any. Or, unmute yourself and say, "I'd like to participate." Mrs. Cisneros, you want to maybe flash your email address and phone number in case anyone wants to say something at this point? I should ask Mrs. Cisneros, do you see any members of the public? I'm assuming there are since we had a couple people join. Jenny Cisneros: There may be three members of the public, plus two phone numbers and Melanie. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. So there you have it. If you're having trouble getting our attention to say something at this point, just go ahead and phone Mrs. Cisneros at 971-217-9357, or send her an email at JSCisneros@retinwa.gov. Then, Mrs. Cisneros will let me know and we'll figure out how to get you involved there. Anyway, not seeing anyone there yet, so let's move onto staff rebuttal. Mr. Close, what about the applicant's concerns over condition 1D? Clark Close: Yeah, thank you Mr. Examiner. Condition 1D stems from one of the environmental committees super mitigation measures. So it comes from an original staff report, which is exhibit one. However, that stems also from the advisory notes, which are exhibit 39. We've got Michael Sippo, city civil engineer that originally made those comments, so I will turn it over to him to further clarify the city's position on meeting those CEPA mitigation measure. Mr. Olbrechts: This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 15 of 18 Okay. Mr. Sippo? Michael Sippo: Thank you Clark and Mr. Examiner. Yeah, there were two questions that were brought up. The first one had to do with the applicable area about the WRIA 8. Yes, to concur with the applicant's response, it would be limited to those areas immediately adjacent and down the stream of the project. Not for the entire resource inventory area. The second question had to do with the analysis and specifically the quantitative analysis portion. The technical information report, the preliminary technical information report did go on to address portions of the salmon conservation which would, as adopted by the 2017 Renton Water Surface Design manual do include calculations that have to deal with flow control, water velocities leaving the site, timidity. A lot of those are quantifiable calculations that are provided. What we're looking for is in conjunction with what is required in the calculations for the project is that the engineer and project biologist provide any sort of recommendations, mitigations, or confirmations that the storm water leaving the site does not harm the salmon habitat. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Well yeah, I guess I have a little concern because yeah, I didn't realize looking at 1D these are CEPA mitigation measures. Of course, CEPA hasn't been appealed, so we're not in a position to modify it, except through an addendum, which, and you can only do an addendum of course if it doesn't materially change the conditions of approval. I mean, I'm wondering maybe could the applicant and staff work out an addendum that clarifies what staff wanted there. It sounds like it's just an issue of not disagreeing with what's being required, but disagreeing with the understanding of what that language means. Is that something maybe we could have the applicant and staff work out in the next day or two, and then submit that to me for approval| then I can add the addendum as a requirement for compliance. Mrs. Liaw, would that work for you? Ray Liaw: That would work for us, yeah. This was something that came up a little later in the game, and we'd be pleased to work with staff on getting some [inaudible 00:43:19]. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Mr. Sippo is that something you'd be willing to do? Michael Sippo: Certainly. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, so how about, how much time do the parties need? Maybe just a couple days until end of work on Thursday? I don't want to delay this project more than necessary that you two try to work out a language for a CEPA addendum and then send that to me and I can make that part of the project requirements. Will that work? Ray Liaw: That works for us. This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 16 of 18 Mr. Olbrechts: Then Mr. Sippo is that all right? Michael Sippo: Yes, it is. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Yeah, so let's set a deadline for Thursday, 5:00PM then. Just email me an agreed upon addendum language. If you can't agree, then just go ahead and write something up as to what you're not agreeing on and what you'd like to see in there. Then I'll put something together for the final decision. Mr. Sippo, you're okay doing this through the CEPA addendum process? Because again this is already part of an NDNS and we really can't change it, or modify it except through a procedure like that. Would that work for the city? Michael Sippo: I'll defer to Matt Herrera for that question. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay, Mr. Herrera, would that work? Matt Herrera: Yes, it would potentially work. I would say that our CEPA addendums are handled by our environmental review committee. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Matt Herrera: So, that would need to be taken to the environmental review committee. Is there a possibility of adding an, I guess an addendum, or an extra condition that's associated with the CEPA mitigation measure? If it's just about hashing out clarifications on what that review needs to look like, I'm wondering if there's a potential, I guess faster solution than having to go back to the [inaudible 00:45:01] committee- Mr. Olbrechts: Oh, I see. Matt Herrera: ... an applicant paying a fee. Mr. Olbrechts: Yeah. Matt Herrera: This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 17 of 18 It would leave the record- Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Matt Herrera: ... open for quite some time. Mr. Olbrechts: Yeah, it's a bit involved. Well, how about I just let you applicant and staff work out how you want to present that revision. If you come up with a simpler solution that'll probably be fine. Would that work? Just let me know how you want to do it and then by Thursday if you can. If we need additional time to go through the process of modification we can set that up. Matt Herrera: Yeah, if we could potentially come up with an agreement and principle I think that's a good solution. Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Yeah. Then, of course if you need additional time just let me know and we'll extend that out. Is there any members of the public out there, anyone out there who objects to me leaving the record open for a couple days to discuss a clarification of 1D and a potential process for that? Does anyone have any objection, or anyone want to be apprise of how that's handled as it goes through? Just raise your virtual hand if you do. I didn't see anyone who wants to be included in that particular loop, so that's good. That makes it easier. Okay, so applicants, you get final comments. Any final comments you want to make before we wrap it up for today? Ray Liaw: Andy, do you have anything you want to say? Andy Loof: No, nothing from me. Thanks very much- Mr. Olbrechts: Okay. Andy Loof: ... for your time. Mr. Olbrechts: All right. So we'll leave the record open until this Thursday. I guess that would be the 12th of August at 5:00PM for applicant and staff to work out some clarifications to condition 1D, and also the processes as to how to put those clarifications into effect. That'll just be emailed to myself. If any members of the public out there, if you want to see that go ahead and email Mrs. Cisneros and she'll put you in the loop as well. I think beyond that, unless there are any other concerns, I think we're done for this afternoon. This transcript was exported on Aug 15, 2021 - view latest version here. Cedar River Apartments Page 18 of 18 All right, seeing none. Thanks for your participation and I'll be looking forward to that additional information. Once that comes in on Thursday I'll have 10 business days, that's two weeks to issue the final decision. Thanks again, and we're adjourned for this afternoon. Speaker 1: Recording stopped. Mr. Olbrechts: There we go.