HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Letter Outlot 2 - Lot 2 Enclosures, Part 21
McKee, Lisa D.
From:Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent:Friday, April 21, 2023 4:20 PM
To:Calvert, Maren L.; Jonathan Chavez; Vanessa Dolbee; Jill Ding; Matthew Herrera; Nathan
Janders
Cc:Dan Zoldak; Katzaroff, Kenneth; Lejuwaan, Randal J.
Subject:RE: The Home Depot - Deferral Decisions Outlots 1 and 2 [IWOV-PDX.FID4777904]
Hello Maren,
The Assignment of Funds and associated Agreement to Construct Improvements are not subject to appeals per City
Code. Please use the standard form language.
If you appeal the deferral decision prior to 5pm today and the deferral decision happens to be modified by the hearing
examiner, the City will work with Home Depot to be ensure compliance with that decision.
BRIANNE BANNWARTH, P.E., LEED AP | Development Engineering Director
City of Renton | CED | Development Engineering Division
1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057
Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections
(425) 430‐7299 | bbannwarth@rentonwa.gov
From: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 2:06 PM
To: Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>; Jonathan Chavez <JChavez@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; Nathan
Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Dan Zoldak <DZoldak@larsandersen.com>; Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Lejuwaan, Randal J.
<Randal.Lejuwaan@troutman.com>
Subject: RE: The Home Depot ‐ Deferral Decisions Outlots 1 and 2 [IWOV‐PDX.FID4777904]
Brianne,
Are these acceptable?
Maren Calvert
Shareholder
Pronouns: she, her, hers
(360) 597-0804
mcalvert@schwabe.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 35 of 48
2
From: Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 11:47 AM
To: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>; Jonathan Chavez <JChavez@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; Nathan
Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Dan Zoldak <DZoldak@larsandersen.com>; Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Lejuwaan, Randal J.
<Randal.Lejuwaan@troutman.com>
Subject: RE: The Home Depot ‐ Deferral Decisions Outlots 1 and 2 [IWOV‐PDX.FID4777904]
If needed, we are happy to help with the drop down. Just send everything else completed, we will adjust the drop down
and send back to you for signature.
BRIANNE BANNWARTH, P.E., LEED AP | Development Engineering Director
City of Renton | CED | Development Engineering Division
1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057
Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections
(425) 430‐7299 | bbannwarth@rentonwa.gov
From: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 11:38 AM
To: Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>; Jonathan Chavez <JChavez@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; Nathan
Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Dan Zoldak <DZoldak@larsandersen.com>; Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Lejuwaan, Randal J.
<Randal.Lejuwaan@troutman.com>
Subject: RE: The Home Depot ‐ Deferral Decisions Outlots 1 and 2 [IWOV‐PDX.FID4777904]
Brianne,
Thank you. We could not make the drop down menu function, so did not see any other option than the one we
chose. We will try again to make the form operate correctly.
Maren
Maren Calvert
Shareholder
Pronouns: she, her, hers
(360) 597‐0804
mcalvert@schwabe.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 36 of 48
3
From: Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 11:35 AM
To: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>; Jonathan Chavez <JChavez@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; Nathan
Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Dan Zoldak <DZoldak@larsandersen.com>; Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Lejuwaan, Randal J.
<Randal.Lejuwaan@troutman.com>
Subject: RE: The Home Depot ‐ Deferral Decisions Outlots 1 and 2 [IWOV‐PDX.FID4777904]
Hello Maren,
The attached forms meet the City’s requirements with one revision. In lieu of creating your own language under “The
Conditions of Obligation”, use the standard form language, select the “Agreement to Construct Improvements” under
#1’s drop down menu, complete the Agreement to Construct Improvements, and submit this form concurrently with the
Assignment of funds. The Agreement defines that the applicant agrees to complete items required as part of the
Deferral Permit. The deferral permit descriptions can be viewed online (DEF23001823 and DEF23001824) which is
consistent with the Decision letters you received.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Take Care,
BRIANNE BANNWARTH, P.E., LEED AP | Development Engineering Director
City of Renton | CED | Development Engineering Division
1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057
Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections
(425) 430‐7299 | bbannwarth@rentonwa.gov
From: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 8:11 PM
To: Jonathan Chavez <JChavez@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding
<JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; Nathan Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov>;
Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Dan Zoldak <DZoldak@larsandersen.com>; Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Lejuwaan, Randal J.
<Randal.Lejuwaan@troutman.com>
Subject: The Home Depot ‐ Deferral Decisions Outlots 1 and 2 [IWOV‐PDX.FID4777904]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 37 of 48
4
Ms. Bannwarth,
As you may know, The Home Depot is setting up escrow accounts at First American Title Insurance Company for the
deferral of public improvements related to Outlots 1 and 2. I’ve attached the forms for the assignment the City
requested. If the City does not have any objections to form, we will get them signed.
Thank you,
Maren Calvert
Shareholder
Pronouns: she, her, hers
(360) 597‐0804
mcalvert@schwabe.com
__________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of
the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
__________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of
the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
__________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney
work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or
distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 38 of 48
TALBOT
RD
SS.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 39 of 48
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 40 of 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan and Street Modification Recon - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Home Depot
Hearing examiner site plan and street
modification.
PR22-000065
DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION
SUMMARY
The City has filed an August 12, 2022 Request for Reconsideration on the above-captioned application
on three issues. Issues No. 1-3 as identified in the reconsideration request are granted. The Applicant
also submitted an informal request for reconsideration on August 15, 2022. The Applicant’s
reconsideration request is granted in substance as well. The revisions to the August 9, 2022 Final
Decision are identified in the final “Decision” section of this Decision Upon Reconsideration.
The most significant legal error in the Final Decision was the erroneous premise that the parking
modification could not be addressed in the Final Decision because it had not been advertised in the
Notice of Application as a consolidated administrative permit application. The Final Decision had
modified Condition No. 8 by the addition of a reference to RMC 4-4-080F10c to enable staff to
approve the modification in subsequent administrative review. Conclusion of Law No. 16 below now
recognizes that the RMC 4-4-080F10c parking modification requested by the Applicant did not
qualify as a separate permit application that has to be separately noticed, but rather was a part of site
plan review that is adequately advertised via notice of the site plan review.
The rest of the corrected errors were attributable at least in part due to some lack of clarity in the
positions advocated by the parties. Condition No. 25 was erroneously not revised as requested by staff
because that request was made in an updated staff report that wasn’t labelled or dated to reflect the
change from the originally distributed report. For future reference, to clarify staff report updates, the
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 41 of 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan and Street Modification Recon - 2
issuance date and version number of staff reports should be clearly identified on the face of the reports
so that it is clear what version of the report is entered into the record. Revisions to the impact fee
portions of the Final Decision had to be made due to errors in the City’s concurrency memo.
Revisions to staff recommended conditions No. 14 and 15 were made as part of reconsideration
because the Applicant did not contest those conditions prior to the close of the hearing, but rather
limited its argument to staff recommended condition No. 13.
Evidence Relied Upon
The administrative record developed for the August 9, 2022 Final Decision of the above-captioned is
adopted by reference for purposes of this reconsideration request. Using the numbering of the August
9, 2022 Final Decision, the following exhibits were also admitted into the record:
Exhibit 30: August 12, 2022 City Request for Reconsideration (via 8/15/22 email)
Exhibit 31: August 15, 2022 Email from Applicant stating acceptance of corrected
impact fee in Exhibit 30.
As part of its reconsideration request, staff submitted a corrected concurrency memo to replace Exhibit
13. Since the record is closed the memo was not admitted. However, in Ex. 31 the Applicant
acknowledged that “[w]e have accepted the imposition of the traffic impact fee.” This statement is
construed as supporting staff’s assertion that the staff report and Ex. 13 concurrency memo
erroneously identified that no impact fee was required for the project.
Findings of Fact
6. The Findings of Fact of the August 9, 2022 decision are adopted by reference to the extent
consistent with this Decision Upon Reconsideration decision. The numbering of these Findings of Fact
is a continuation of the numbering of findings in the August 9, 2022 decision.
7. A final hearing examiner decision for the above-captioned permit applications was issued on
August 9, 2022.
8. The Findings of Fact of August 9, 2022 Final Decision are adopted by reference to the extent
consistent with this Decision Upon Reconsideration.
9. The City submitted a Request for Reconsideration dated August 12, 2022 and distributed to the
parties and examiner on August 15, 2022. The request addressed three issues:
Issue No. 1: Revision of Condition No. 25. Condition No. 25 requires 4.5 foot
weather protection along Grady Way. In a revised staff report emailed to the
Examiner on July 19, 2022, staff and applicant agreed to 3’11” weather protection
to avoid sprinkler requirements. Revised Condition No. 25 itself did not reference
any specific weather protection width, reserving that issue for subsequent staff
review.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 42 of 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan and Street Modification Recon - 3
The Final Decision did not include the agreed upon revised Condition No. 25.
The staff report submitted July 19, 2022 was in fact revised to reflect the agreed
upon revision to Condition No. 25. Unfortunately, staff do not date their staff
reports so it was unclear during the hearing that staff had prepared a revised staff
report that was intended for submission into the record. For this reason, the Final
Decision erroneously failed to consider revised condition No. 25.
Issue No. 2: Deletion of Condition No. 8. Condition No. 8 as recommended in
the staff report identified that the Applicant would have to revise its parking plan
to meet a code required 342 parking spaces for the project unless a modification
pursuant to RMC 4-4-080K was approved. The Applicant proposed 281 parking
spaces. At hearing, staff testified that the Applicant had presented a parking
analysis, Ex. 28, that justified a reduction in parking as authorized by RMC 4-4-
080F10c. Staff further testified that as a result of the parking study, they were
supportive of the Applicant’s 281 parking spaces because the parking study met
the criteria for modification under RMC 4-4-080F10c.
The Final Decision modified Condition No. 8 to provide that the required 374
parking stalls could be reduced by approval of a modification under RMC 4-4-
080K or RMC 4-4-080F10c. Condition No. 8 as recommended by staff in the
staff report did not include the option of reducing parking via RMC 4-4-080F10c.
The Final Decision itself did not approve the reduction, because the RMC 4-4-
080F10c modification was not advertised as one of the permits under review in
the notice of application. Condition No. 8 as recommended by staff was simply
revised in the Final Decision to leave that modification decision to staff at the
administrative level.
Issue No. 3: Revision of impact fee. Finding of Fact 4F of the Final Decision
identified that no impact fees were required of the project. This finding was
based upon the City’s concurrency memo, Exhibit 13, which stated no impact fees
were due. City staff identified in their reconsideration request that the
concurrency memo was in error and that the $995,547.35 fee identified in Exhibit
23 was correct. During reconsideration review, the Applicant expressly waived
objection by email to the correction.
10. In its Exhibit 31 email, the Applicant requested revision to Conditions 13 and 14 of the
Final Decision, which comprise recommended conditions 14 and 15 of the staff report.
The Exhibit 31 email, sent on August 15, 2022, is construed as a timely request for
reconsideration for the August 9, 2022 Final Decision, which was mailed out on August
10, 2022. Condition 13 of the Final Decision requires that the wetlands, streams and
associated buffer areas be placed within a Native Growth Protection Easement.
Condition 15 requires the proposed shed display to be located outside of the 100 foot
buffer and 115-foot stream buffer. During the hearing, the Applicant successfully argued
that the stream and wetland buffers should be reduced by the impervious parking and
access road areas that encroach into the buffers. However, via a letter presented by the
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 43 of 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan and Street Modification Recon - 4
Applicant’s legal counsel, Exhibit 29, the Applicant limited its buffer argument to not
adopting staff recommended Condition No. 13 and didn’t contest Final Decision
conditions 13 and 14.
Conclusions of Law
13. The Conclusions of Law of the August 9, 2022 Final Decision are adopted by reference
to the extent consistent with this Decision Upon Reconsideration. The numbering of
these conclusions of law follows that of the August 9, 2022 Final decision.
14. Authority. RMC 4-8-100I authorizes the hearing examiner to consider and rule upon
timely requests for reconsideration.
15. Issue No. 1 Reconsideration Request Granted. The Final Decision erroneously failed to
include a revised agreed upon staff recommended condition of approval for Condition
No. 25. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 9, the Final Decision failed to consider an
agreed upon revision to Condition No. 25. Condition No. 25 as originally proposed
required weather protection at least 4.5 feet wide. Staff and Applicant agreed to 3’11”
weather protection to avoid sprinkler requirements. RMC 4-3-100A2 provides that
revisions to design standards such as the weather protection standard can be waived if the
alternative prescriptive standard meets the applicable guidelines and intent. Staff’s
recommendation for reduction of the weather protection to 3’11” is construed as a
determination by the Community and Economic Development Administrator that the
alternative width meets the guidelines and intent of the weather protection standard set by
RMC 4-3-100E. Given the minor nature of the reduction and staff’s recommendation, it
is concluded that the 3’11” width meets applicable design guidelines and intent as
required by RMC 4-3-100A2. The request for reduction in width is granted and
Condition No. 25 will be revised as requested by staff.
16. Issue No. 2 Reconsideration Request Granted. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 9,
Condition No. 8 had not been revised as requested by staff during the hearing because the
application had not been advertised as including a parking modification request. Instead,
Condition No. 8 was revised to expressly provide that staff could still make a decision
administratively on the parking request. However, upon reconsideration it is concluded
that public notice of a consolidation parking modification under RMC 4-4-080F10c is not
required. Unlike other modification requests governed by RMC 4-9-250, modification
requests under RMC 4-4-080F10c are not separate permit requests but rather are a part of
the review criteria for site plan review. As a part1 of the already advertised site plan
1 RMC 4-4-080F10c provides that the Community and Economic Development Administrator makes the decision on
RMC 4-4-080F10c modification requests. However, site plan review is elevated from staff review to hearing
examiner review under limited express conditions as outlined in RMC 4-9-200D2. The conditions that trigger
examiner review under RMC 4-9-200D2 are construed as also triggering examiner decision making authority over
modification requests made under the site plan criteria as well. This interpretation helps avoid circumstances where
staff level decisions are made that may result in inconsistencies or incompa tibilities with subsequent, unanticipated
design changes resulting from examiner level site plan review.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 44 of 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan and Street Modification Recon - 5
review process, separate public notice is not required and approval of the site plan can
encompass approval of the modification request.
17. Issue No. 3 Reconsideration Request Granted. As outlined in Finding Fact No. 9, the
Applicant has waived objection to staff’s determination that the concurrency memo was
incorrect in identifying no traffic impact fees are due for the project. Finding of Fact
No.4F of the Final Decision will be revised accordingly.
18. Applicant’s Reconsideration Request Granted in Part. Applicant’s request for
reconsideration of Final Decision Conditions 13 and 14 is granted in part. Final Decision
Condition No. 14, which requires relocation of the shed display, is inconsistent with
Finding No. 5A2 of the Final Decision that determines that the wetland buffer doesn’t
extend to the impervious surface encroachments of the project site. Final Decision No.
13, which requires that the wetland, stream and associated buffers be placed into a native
growth protection easement, is consistent with the Finding No. 5A2 so long as it is
understood that the buffers of the stream and wetlands stops at the impervious surfaces of
the project site.
DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION
The City’s request for reconsideration is granted in toto. The August 9, 2022 Final
Decision is inapplicable to the extent inconsistent with this Decision Upon Reconsideration,
including the following:
1. Condition No. 25 of the Final Decision is replaced with the following:
The applicant shall demonstrate that the weather protection proposed comprise
seventy-five percent (75%) of the façade facing S Grady Way. A revised site plan
demonstrating compliance with this requirement shall be submitted to the Current
Planning Project Manager at the time of Building Permit review for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
2. Condition No. 8 of the Final Decision is deleted.
3. The second paragraph of Finding of Fact No. 4F of the Final Decision shall be revised
as follows:
After preparation of a traffic study and concurrency review, the Applicant and City
staff have agreed to $995,547.35 in traffic impact fees. The fees were the result of an
independent fee calculation as authorized by RMC 4-1-190H2 and documented in
Exhibit 23. This finding is revised as a result of a staff request for reconsideration.
The original finding identified that no impact fees were due, based upon the City’s
May 16, 2022 concurrency memo, Exhibit 13. The Applicant prepared a traffic
study, Ex. 11, that determined that the proposal would generate a net of an additional
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 45 of 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan and Street Modification Recon - 6
43 AM peak hour trips and a reduction of 42 PM peak hour trips. The City’s
concurrency review determined that since there are no new net trips generated by the
proposal, the project meets the City’s concurrency standards and no transportation or
impact fees are required unless imposed through SEPA review. The SEPA review
did not impose any off-site traffic mitigation or impose any fees. SEPA mitigation
was limited to requiring frontage improvements along Grady Way.
4. Condition No. 14 of the Final Decision is deleted.
5. Condition No. 13 of the Final Decision is revised as follows:
All onsite wetlands, streams, and associated buffer areas shall be placed within a
Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The buffers of the streams and wetland
shall be understood to end at the impervious surfaces of the project site as outlined in
Finding of Fact No. 5A2 of the Final Decision. The NGPE shall be recorded prior to
the issuance of a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed
building.
6. Finding of Fact No. 5A4 is revised as follows:
4. Wetlands. A Wetland and Stream Delineation Report, prepared by The
Watershed Company, dated January 3, 2022 (Exhibit 6) was submitted with the land
use application materials. The report identified one depressional wetland (Wetland A)
on the southern portion of the project site. The report classified Wetland A as a
Category III wetland with a habitat score five (5) points, requiring a standard buffer
of 100 feet in accordance with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050G.2. No site
improvements are proposed that would impact Wetland A or its associated 100-foot
buffer area, however the applicant is proposing to utilize existing surface parking
spaces within the 100-foot wetland buffer area for designated “Shed Display”. The
proposal to display sheds within the 100-foot wetland buffer would not be a permitted
use as there appear to be alternative locations on the project site that could
accommodate the shed display that are outside of the buffer. A condition of approval
requires that the shed display be relocated outside of the required 100-foot wetland
buffer and the 115-foot stream buffer. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A2, the
wetland buffer stops at the impervious surfaces of the project site.
DATED this 1st day of September, 2022.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 46 of 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan and Street Modification Recon - 7
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the consolidated application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day
appeal period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation.
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 47 of 48
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Home Depot
Project Number:
LUA21-000452, SA-H, MOD, ECF
Date of Hearing
July 5, 2022
Staff Contact
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Dan Zoldak
Lars Andersen & Associates
4694 W Jacquelyn Ave,
Fresno, CA 93722
Project Location
901 S Grady Way, Renton,
WA 98057
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision and Reconsideration:
Exhibits 1-15: As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report
Exhibits 16-23: As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 24: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 25: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Exhibit 26: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/
Exhibit 27: Home Depot Parking Exhibit
Exhibit 28: Home Depot Parking Analysis Memorandum (dated July 14, 2022)
Exhibit 29: Home Depot Letter to Hearing Examiner (dated July 26, 2022)
Exhibit 30: August 12, 2002 City Request for Reconsideration (via 8/15/22 email)
Exhibit 31: August 15, 2022 Email from Applicant stating acceptance of corrected impact fee in Exhibit
30
Appeal Enclosures - Pg 48 of 48