Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Misc - 4 of 4
. Den\s Law City of _ _:M:.ayor _____ ...... ,.... r ·. /~, r r·r-( y 'r l . ,-_._. ..._, _ . ~-~ ...1..2. . June 9, 2014 City Clerk ~ Bonniel Walton .. NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY: . R?ger A. Paulsen . RE: Envlrn,:irnental ReviewOeterrniriation; Enclave atBridai Ridge;.LUAl4c00D241, ECF, PP ,. . -, To Parties of Record: •· Pursuant to Title IV, Chapt~r 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances; written appeal of the Environmen_tal Review Committee's Deterrnination as referenced has been filed with the City Clerk. . ·. . . . . . . . NOTICE IS HERtBY GIVEN that the \\ritten app~al and other pertinent documentsV:,ill be reviewed byth~ Hea,ring Examine~ ir, a he~ring scheduled for 8:00 a.m:; Tuesday, June 24, . · 2014. The hearing w1U take place in the 7 Floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall. The · address .is 1055 S. Grady Way, RE'nton, WA 98057. · . . .. Enclosed is copy of the a 0 ppeal filing. Also enclosed is i:opy pf Renron Municipal code section 4-8.-110,E. regarding appeals of Environmeritat Review· decisions or .recommendations .. For ~dditiona(informatioqcir assistance; please feel free to contact ine ;it4_25 430-6502 .. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton . City Clerk Endosurt,s (2) cc: . . · AppHcant Justin Lagers . Owners Sally Lou Nipert and G, ~ichard. Ouimet Parties of Rec6r<f ·. He:aring Exanlin.er ·JeilnJfer HEnriing, Planning Director,· Gf~gg ZfmmenTlari, Pw_.Ad~il'listfato1· rn55 South Gr~dy\Vay. Rento~,Wa;hington 98~57 • (425) 430-6510/Fa; (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov0000()1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY ROGER A. PAULSEN AND JASON M. 9 PAULSEN, POA FOR JUDITH PAULSEN, IO l I 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, V, CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation, and PNW HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Respondents. CASE NO. 14-2-31273-3 KNT STlPULA TION AND ORDER DISMISSING RESPONDENTS OUIMET AND NIPERT AND WAIVING INITIAL HEARING PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70C.080(5) 16 STIPULATION 17 The parties to the above-captioned litigation hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 18 l. All claims against the landowners G. Richard Ouimet and Sally Lou Nipert 19 named as respondents in this action shall he dismissed without pr~judicc 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, LLC (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 36.70C.080(5). 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER-I I Van Ness Feldman, .. 719 Second A..,enue Sune 1150 Seat\l&. WA 90104 {206) 623-9372 000002 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.! IO(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. I l 0(2), the record may IO be shortened to avoid reproduction of portions of the record that are duplicative or not 11 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 cenified record on the date the certified record is filed with the Court. Each palty 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 incun-ed 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. I 10(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 36.70C.l 10(2), Petitioners 24 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER -2 I Van Ness Feldman .. , 719 Secc-nd Aven1Je Sv11e 1150 Seatlle. WA 98104 (206) 62'3·93'1'2 ' 000003 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 filed with the Court. Each respondent shall pay the court 5 reporting firm that prcpan:s the transcript directly for the amount billed for the rnp) of the 6 transcript for each respondent. 7 8. The Court should enter an Order reflecting the terms of this Stipulation, as set R forth below. 9 STIPULATED AND AGREED TO this~ day of December, 2014. 10 l I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 STlPULA TION AND ORDER • 3 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP By: Br nt Car n. WSBA #16240 H. Ray Liaw; WSBA 1140725 Attorneys for PNW Holdings. Respondent CITY OF RENTON, CITY ATfORNEY By: By: By: . ' (X r -.( r)\C\. '-\ .~a·L "--; C'--,,11,1.~:r:·1L 'v Larry W en, WSBA #5853 Garmon Newsom II, WSBA #31~ 18 Attorneys for City of Renton, Respondent G. Richard Ouimet, Respondent «£Q& & ]1 'Cm~ Sally Loid.pe.Responit I Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avettue Suit" 11 ~O Saalllw 'JVA iO j v .. (206) S2l-V372 000004 2 3 4 5 6 . t.i. V ( 1r1tt, \ By:\ tvl l(J (l "-J (lLli l\fv •{JlYiJ ') Roger A. Paulsen, Petitioner . . ' ( . i-H V l •/Ylc!. I \ By: C. l V ( , · 1 1. Cl l , \ · n 11. 1 Vi,, , cJ( ;. ; , 1 Jason M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M. Paulsen, Petitioner 7 ORDER 8 This matter came before the Com1 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 uf 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. l I 0(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. 70C. l l 0(2), the City may sh011en 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 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenu«t 5v1te 11 ~O Sei;altle. WA 9S104 (206) B23·9l72 000005 5. The City shall provide Petitioners and PNW Holdings with a copy of the 2 cc11ificd record on the date the cenificd record is filed with the Court. Em:h 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 Supe1ior Court, subject to potential future reimbursement 6 by the other parties pursuant to RCW 36.70C. I 10(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 IO 36.70C. l l 0(4), Petitioners shall prepare at its expense and submit to the Court no later 11 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 36.70C.l 10{2), Petitioners 13 may shorten the transcript to avoid transc1ibing 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 on 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 21 22 23 24 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER -5 I Van Ness Feldman,,. 719 Second Aver+ue Suite 1150 Sea111e. WA 9810<1 (206) 623-9372 000006 2 Presented by: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 VANNESS'F~Lz~ LLP By:\1.. v r \..Cll ~. Brent Carson, WSBA # 16HO H. Rav Liaw, WSBA 1140725 Atmmeys for PNW Holdings LLC Approved for Entry; Notice of Presentation Waived: CITY OF RENTON, CITY ATI'ORNEY By: By: By: By: r:Jg;·V-LJ,:VY\ll .. L .. ~ (..l LU ~'d'v ,'lj< Warren, WSBA #5853 Garmon Newsom II, WS8A #31418 Attorneys for City of Renton, Respondent .d ~odH;,,_.zl G. Richar<lOuimet,Respondent v Ji. !'\All, \ Ci: v':!J~( r l ?:fl ii t/1,, R ger A. Paulsen, Petitioner ' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 By: , ' .. ,,i'Y\lLU (,\...Vj \'lb./ 1 /'r 1, h L'~ ') J ·on M. Paulsen, POA for Judith M. ~sen, Petitinner STIPULA TJON AND ORDER • 6 I Van Ness Feldman . 1 HI Secor1d Avenue Su11e 115,0 Sntlle, WA U104 (2()61 623·'9311 000007 June 5, 2014 City of Renton Attn: Hearing Examiner 1055 South. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CiTf OF RENTON JUN O 5 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.1 lO(E), please accept this letter as a fonnal Request for Appeal of the Environmental (SEP A) Threshold Detennination 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 fonnat 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 4.8.11 O(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 5"' Place/ 156<h AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Appeal and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To 1 000008 allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of tbe project's impacts as is required under SEPA, has tbe potential to adversely impact botb my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to tbe value of my property at tbe time of future re-sale. For tbese and otber reasons, I believe I have tbe 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 tbe transportation impacts of tbe proposed project, and to tbe public comment notice process associated with tbe original SEPA Threshold Determination. Point of Appeal #1. Transportation The proposed access to tbe Enclave at Bridle Ridge project site is via a new looped internal public street witb two access points off of 156'" Avenue SE, just nortb of tbe 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"') tbe applicant commissioned an additional Traffic Study on April zzn", and submitted an Addendum (Attachment D) to tbe original Traffic Impact Analysis. Tbe Addendum, dated April 29, 2014, concluded tbat tbe two proposed site access streets will operate at an acceptable level of service (C) for future conditions. Subsequent to tbe April 22"d Traffic Study and tbe April 29'' Addendum, tbe City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156'" Ave SE and 142"' Place intersection. Reference the May 5'" letter from Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22'' letter from Mr. C.E. Vincent, CED Administrator (Attachment F). On May 19", 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 exi1ting Level of Service (LOS) designation of Fat the 156~ Ave. SE / SE 142"' PL [Sic: intersection} and the proposal to add additional tnps to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for pqying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156'' Ave. SE / SE 14Z'd PL intersection. The ERC Meeting Summary (attachment G) includes on page 2, tbe 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 tbat the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern, including the intersection at 156"' Ave. SE / SE S'" Pl., and the intersection of 154'h Ave. SE/ SE 142"" PL.. The City was aware of tbe 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 -l'vlitigated on May 19tb. It is very likely, based upon the longer queue times associated with a signalized intersection, that tbe level of service associated with ingress and egress at the two new access streets, as well as at adjacent 2 000009 existing streets such as SE S"' Place, will actually prove worse than has been modeled to-date for an rm-signalized intersection. While the Level of Service of the 156"' Ave. SE / SE 142"• 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. 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 22"•. 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 SEP A 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 SEP A 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 5"' Place. • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEP A review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application 3 000010 and SEP A 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. 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 000011 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT A 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 #LUAl4-000241, 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 Im pacts 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 AM. 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 tum 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 l 42"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 I 56'h even more difficult. I 000012 EXHIBIT A The addition o:f 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 adeguate 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 l 56th/ l 42"a intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand tum (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 l 56th/ 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 1561h/ l 42"d intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City ofRenton'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. lfthe 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 I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 000013 EXHIBITA 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 241h 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 detennination 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 infonnation 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 000014 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000015 April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT B 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 Detennination 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 ofRenton'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. W'hile 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. Standitig 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"' A VE 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 000016 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration 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 Detennination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (fIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Detennination 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 rcope ofthi.r anaiyri.r i.r based upon the preliminary plat rite plan and the City oJRenton 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 dearly 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. lillQ P.M. Peak Hour con<litions, 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 honr) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 000017 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did llQ\ 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 ImpactAna/ysis (Exhibit 10) afro includes a Level qf Service (LOS) review qfthe srnrounding intersections in the immediate viciniry ... " This report goes on to conclude that: " ... the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level ef Service (LOS) with the exception efthe southbound approach to the 156'1' 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"' / 142.,,; 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"' 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'h at SE S"' 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 Tbreshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156"', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may " ... impose left turn restrictions at that intersection." (See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"' / 142"' intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will 3 000018 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156"'/ SE 5"' PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156"' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156"', the ERC's Tiueshold 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 1bis 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 oflots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: "It is not anticipated that the proposed pr'!lect significantly adversely impact (sic) the City of&nton's street system subject to the pqyment 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 156"' / 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"') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 000019 Tbis e-rru.il 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 tbe 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 Steve Lee Tuesday, April 15, 201~ 11:14 AM CrtyClert Records Jan Dlian; Jill Oing; Neil R. Watts: Jennifer T. Henning: Rohini Nair RE: New Public Records Request-PRR-14-085 (Paulsen} TranspoConcPolicyl40415.pdf See anached files that are related documentation on the City pr~;i,onwrrency, standard, and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. I believe this Is tile information Mr. Paulsen is seekl~g·. The information, as extracted from the approved C"ity Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Sectfon 4-6.(170 notes that trarupOrtation concurreCKy can be a combination of rrnprovements or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after bui[ding is.suanc.e~ 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. OurTransportation Division is the technlcal revlew iuthottty and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if anyl (ord. S67S, 12·3·2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided same dlrection as to an inftiaJ response with the statemen~ "'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 I to provide more traffic capacav could attract som~ traffic now using 156'th SE to access ~metery Road."' Thanks. -Steve Lee, PE, MS, c,sct City of Renton Dev. Engineering Mar,ager 425.430.7299 sree@rentonwa.gov Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial corrunent letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public corrunent on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEP A) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, wbo is not able to provide written corrunent 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 000020 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 SEP A determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the Ciry 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 SEP A comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Ren ton'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 000021 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -SEP A Detennination 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 000022 --- EXHIBIT C -------~- xxx-xxxx ' I • L I ~! ,, ~ I ' I ' • • . . 3 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 rci!lfEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone; 425.522.4118 Fax; 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 000024 TraF/jggr April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361" 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: NORTHWEST TRAFFIC E"XPERT!i1 11410 NE 124th St. #590 Kirkland. WA 98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 FaK: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analysis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5th Pl/1561h Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"d Pl. SE/SE 1561h 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 Pl/156th Ave SE and 142nd Pl. SE/SE 1561h 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 000025 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Trafffg;s queues were observed to back up from the 142°d Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECT/ON 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5m Pl/ 1561h Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access/ NA WB (C 16.4) 156th Ave. SE. NA South Site Access / NA 156th Ave. SE. NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142 00 Pl/ Overall (F 53. 7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) 1561h Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 51• Pl./1561h Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142nd/1561 • 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 Page2 000026 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Trafftl!%! PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/156 1h Ave SE and 142"d Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix . . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142"d Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection to SE 5t11 Pl. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th Pl. 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 SE 5th Pl/ WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) 1561h Ave SE North Site Access/ NA NA WB (C 15.2) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access I NA 156th Ave. SE. NA WB (B 13.3) SE 142no Pl/ Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) 1561h Ave SE (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page3 000027 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraHg'Jy FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 1561h Ave. SE/SE 142"d 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/1561h Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page4 000028 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traff~ 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 larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000029 EXHIBIT E J . PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Issue: MEMO RAN o·u M May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d .Place at 155th Avenue Southeast 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 inte.rsection of Southeast 142nd Place a.nd 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Maaual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location· meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location afso 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 4(-1 through 4('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 1561h Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection iii question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h :\division .s \tra nspor .tat\oper.atio Von \tom \tom 9645a. doc 000030 / 1- EXHIBIT F Denis Law r City of ----~M:ay:o:, ___ ................... i -. r : 2-t.-r r.·r t-r·1 May 22, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE s'h Place Renton, WA 98059 ~ ..._,.I:;,,-4 ~t ,-# v.;~~ Community & Economic Development Department C.E.'Chip"Vincent,Administrator RE; Endave at Bridle Ridge Preiiminary Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration, the City conducteq an independent study of the 155th Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection. The study concluded that the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the . developer to. pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding . becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, P"roject Manager, at (425) 430-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, ,. · .. / Cz..V,~.--~ C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City derk Justin Lagers, Applicant .. Sally Lou Niper, ow.ner G. Richard Ouimet, Owner Parties of Record Renton Crty Hall • 1055 South GradyWa'/ • Renton;washin9ton 98057 • re.ntonwa.gOV 000031 EXHIBIT G De~~~;,"w it-[) .. Cityo~f ·.·.· .······ ....•. · ... __ ::......___. ....... ~:'. !/~15JtkNJi! . Community&EconomicDevelop.,.;entDepartme~t · · · . C.E "Chip"Vincent,Administrator May 19, 2014 .· . . Roger Paulse~. · 6617 SES[h Pface · Renton, WA 98059 . .. -.. '.. . :· . . _:: · .. -. -. : .. · . . _· ... ·_ ·.·: - . RESPONSE To REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION · subject; E~clave at Bridle Ridge _PreHminaryPlat / LUAl'l-000241, PP, ECF . . Dear Mr. Paulsen: · . . The Environmental Review Committee {ERC) held a meeting.on May 19; 2014 to consider ·. · your Req~estfor Reconsideration, submitted Aprif 16, 2014., Please finil attached to this letter a copy of the dt:cision of your Request for Reconsideration signed. by the members· of the ERC in~luding one new 5EPA mitigation ~e.isure. · · · · ffvou have ariy questions, please contact the pr6ject manager'; Jill Ding; at {425)430-65')8. or via email at jding@rentonwa.gov. . . . . . . . . Sincer,ely, . . . ~·· ·. --1)4en.P1t11mQ/11~ .·· . . Gregg Zimmerman · • En.itironmental Review C6mmittee, Cha'ir AttaChments · cc: BQl'lnie Walton;_ City Cleric · juitin lagers/ Applicant . · Sally Lou Ni pert / Owner . G. RIC:hard Oulr:net / Own·er · Par:tifs of.Reco.rd · . Renton Oty Hall • 1055-South i;radyWay • llenton,Washington 98057 .rentonwa.1;1ov· .·.000032 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: FROM: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) 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). '"· :cc= s· ' · · -•.• l'he DNS>-M was publish~d orfAptil-'4,'-2014 With an appeal pel'Kld that ended on A'jrril'l~:-·-,.c.:,,· · ·" 1 ,. 2014. A request for reconsideration oftlie SEPA: determination was received'oh-A:prif 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 byTraffEx{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 1S6th 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 revjewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h:\cedlplamringlcurrent plamJiog'{>rojects\14-000241.ji!l\erc reconsideration reco=endalion lllOIIlo.dotdocx 000033 Environmental Review Co. tee Page 2 of4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142°d Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal 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 Fat the 1561h 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 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 156th . '"·"'""'?"'"Alfen"uJ·sr/sE I42~"'str~e{i~t~r~ection;_it did"ntfi~Hucfe a'lo$ ani~~?f&rth~·"'"'' ' "· "" • .,oc·•• is 5th Avenue SE1sf5th Pia·~~ i~t~i=-secti~n:· . . .. c. • • . ' • - 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 res.ult in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156"' Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. According to the addendum the LOS for the 1S6th 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 resuit in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156"' 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:\ccd'j,lanninglcum:nt planning\projects\14-00024 Ljill\erc m:onsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx 000034 ! I I I Environmental Review C...L . ..illlittee Page3 of 4 May 19, 2014 1_55th Avenue SE/SE s'" Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice· is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the .. "·•. :•,~;i~1ng DSN°-M"wit~·on'e'n~~ initigatioil mea~uifaifollows: .·. ...c,~c~c ·, ··-'. -: ' -. . ' -·~. . ' ... . . ~ 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 Fat the 156'h 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 sign a I to be insta lied at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,43S (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips= 0.00687 x $500,000 ~ $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 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\p !anning\curren t p lanning\praj ectsl 14-000241.j illlerc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx •'· .... -. 000035 Environmental Review Co .tee Page4 of4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department signatures: s,l,zq/Jt 6-L1/1tr ry --+"-.,,_-it--~--~-I I Date 5 . Date erv1ces Date ' C.E. "Chip"'vincent, Administrator . Department of Community& Economic Development .... .,,,.;~--. • -·"":"·~-: ·.,...·_ :: :...: 7 ; 7' Date h:\ced\planning\current plaaning\projects\14-000241 jill\erc =onsideranon recoromendatlon memo.dotdocx 000036 EXHIBIT H ----------r~~f. -, <" --------~'\?_..•;; '1 ·~ ·r· 1·; r··u· -~ i r·~-\ ~ . r (',-.I • ' ' . . I ·: .:__ ',. ·~' _;;;. .. :._ ·.;_: l. """\ ' '.: ;:_ :_ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M} A Master Application has been fifed and accepted with the Department of Community & Ec:onomic Development {CSP) -Plannfng-Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Apptovals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 lAND USE NUMBER: d.JA14.000241, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJl:CT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdi'lision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre} zoning designation. The p,oposaJ would rESult In the cro:!ation of 31 lots" ind 2 tracts {Tract'.i A and 8) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,0SO square feet to 121566 square feet. Access to the new lats would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment {LUAl4-000250) Is proposed between tall. 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 th@ project site. PROJECT LOCATION, 14038 156111 Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE, MmGATED (ONS-M}: A$ the Lead Asenc:y, the City of Renton has determined thcit significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS·M process to give notice that a DNS· M is likely to be Issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS·M are Integrated Into a single comment perlod. There will be no CQmment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significanc,e.. Mitigated (ONS.M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS~M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE! NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 27, 2014 March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justrn Lagers/ PNW Holdings, LLC/ 967S SE 3611, Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 / EML: Justln@amerlcanclassichomes.com Perm)ts/Revlew Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies; locatlon where apptication may l:le reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental {SEPA) Revfew, Preliminary Plat Revfew Construction, Building, Fire Dratnage Report, Geotechnla:/ ~eport, Traffic Studv Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Roor Renton dty Hall, 10S5 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 980S7 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 1C5S South Grady Way. lf 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-Pfanning Olvision, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 980S7. Name/FIie No.: The Enclave a:t Bridle fUdge/LUA14-000l41, ECF, PP NAME,--------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: ________________ City/State/Zip: __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: -------------- 000037 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Envtn:mmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Oevelcipment Re,uladons Used for Project Mftiptfon: Proposed Mitigation Measures: £1 ; . . ; N The subject site Is de~nated Residentt.iJ Low Density (COMP-RLO) on the City of Rentrm Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the. City's Zoning Map •. Environmental {SEPA) Ch'ec:kflst The pr'oject will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance. RMC 4-2-110 Reskfentfal Development and other applicable cedes and regulation.s as appropriate. The followlng Mitigation Measures wm likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Miti&atiOn Measures adQress project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Ptojed CtJnstructlon shall be required ta comply with the submitted geotechnlcal report. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above applfcation must be submitted in writing to JIii Ding, Senf or Planner. CED-Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,. WA 98057, b"r' s:oo PM on March 24, 2014. Thls matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a pubfh: hearing on Aprll 22, 2014~ at 10:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are Interested tn attending the hearing, please contac:t the Planning Division to ensure thit the hearing has not been rescheduled at. (425} 430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Jndkated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present vaur commenb: on the proposal before the He.iring Examiner~ If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, plea~e contact the project mana~er. Anyone who submits written comments will automatkal1y become a party of record and wlll be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Emf: jding@rentonwa.gov Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: {425) 430-6598; If you woufd like to be miid'e a party of' record to rtteive further information on this proposed project, compCete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 980S7. Name/Ale No.: The Endave at BricHI! Ridge/LUA14.QOQ241, ECF, PP NAME:------------------------------- MAILING ADDREli5: _______________ City/5tate/Zlp: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.:------------- 000038 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 Detenminations: 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. TI me 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 000039 6/6/2014 and to the officer from whom the appeal is taken not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing. 9. Format of the Appeal Hearing: The appeal hearing will be of an informal nature, but organized so that testimony and other evidence can be presented efficiently. An appeal hearing shall include at least the following: a. An introductory outline of the procedure by the Hearing Examiner. b. Presentation by the appellant, including any witnesses. c. Cross-examination, if any, of appellant and appellant's witnesses. d. Presentation by City staff, summarizing the staff analysis and including any witnesses for the City. e. Cross-examination, if any, of City staff and staff's witnesses. 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. i. Rebuttal testimony and closing by applicant, if different from appellant. j. Rebuttal testimony and closing by appellant. 10. Prehearing Conference: The Hearing Examiner may schedule and hold a prehearing conference when it appears that the orderly and efficient conduct of the hearing will be served, or that settlement of the appeal through such a conference is likely. A prehearing conference may, among other things, consider: a. Simplification of the issues. b. The existence of undisputed facts to which the parties are willing to stipulate. c. The identification of witnesses and documentary or other evidence to be presented at hearing. d. Any reasonable needs any party may have for discovering the details of the case the other party intends to present. e. The imposition of reasonable time limits. Based upon the discussions and agreements at such a conference, the Hearing Examiner may enter a prehearing order, which shall govern subsequent proceedings. If the case is settled at such a conference, the Hearing Examiner shall enter an order reciting the terms of the settlement and dismissing the appeal. 11. Content of the Record: The record of an appeal hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner shall include at least the following: a. The notice of appeal and any amendments. b. The staff analysis responding to the appeal and all accompanying documents, including the papers that comprise the record of the decision subject to appeal. c. Additional documentary or physical evidence received and considered, including all exhibits filed. d. The Hearing Examiner's decision. e. Electronic recordings of the proceedings and/or an accurate written transcription thereof. 12. Hearing Examiner Decision: a. Substantial Weight: The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. b. Hearing Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Hearing Examiner may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: i. 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 000040 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 000041 June 5, 2014 City of Renton Attn: Hearing Examiner 1055 South. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON JUN O 5 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.llO(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.11 O(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(£)(2) with the understanding that if the Reconsideration Request is not granted, this appeal will be processed, and my appeal payment check cashed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be a series of missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Appeal. Standi!!g As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a previous Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this project (Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5"' Place/ 156"' A VE 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 000042 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 Ap,peal 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 Thteshold 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 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"') the applicant commissioned an additional Traffic Study on April zz•d, and submitted an Addendum (Attachment DJ 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 zz•d Traffic Study and the April 29'h Addendum, the City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156"' Ave SE and 142nd Place intersection. Reference the May 5"' letter from Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22"d letter from Mr. CE. 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 Fat the 156'' Ave. SE / SE 14Z'd PL [Sic: intersection] and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for pqying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156'' Ave. SE / SE 14Z'd 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 156"' Ave. SE/ SES"' Pl., and. the intersection of 154"' Ave. SE / SE 142"a 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 000043 existing streets such as SE S'h Place, will actually prove worse than has been modeled to-date for an un-signalized intersection. While the Level of Service of the 156"' Ave. SE/ SE 142"d Pl. intersection may end up "improved" as a result of the new signal, the record lacks any: data or analy:sis 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 (SEP A) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22"a, 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 S"' Place. • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application 3 000044 and SEP A conunent 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. 6617 SE S'h Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -R. Paulsen Conunent Letter Exhibit B -Request for Reconsideration (April 16"') Exhibit C -Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D -Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E -Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F -C.E. Vincent Letter Exhibit G -ERC Meeting Summary Exhibit H -Notice of Application and Proposed Mitigation .... 4 000045 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT A 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 th is 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 l 56thnorth 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 l 56'h even more difficult. I 000046 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 I 56th 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. I 7. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156th/ 142 00 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 l 56 1h/ 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 I 56'h; 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 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 I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 000047 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 241h 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 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 000048 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@.cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000049 April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT B 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. l 10(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/ or applicant --all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. 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 S"' Place/ 156"' A VE 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 000050 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). Tbe 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 «pon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guideline, for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development''. By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 000051 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did .!!Q.t 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 Seroice (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 S eroice (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156'' Avenue SE/ SE 147'' Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156" / 142"" Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156"' Ave SE/ 142"" intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment infonning 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 Gust 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17"'), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156"' at SE 5"' Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we fiod 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 t,,rn restrictions at that intersection." (See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"' / 142"" intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy'' will 3 000052 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156"'/ SE 5"' PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156"' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156'', 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 !!!i!!. identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: "It is not anticipated that the proposedprqject signijicant/y adversely impact (sic) the City of&nton's street system subject to the PtfYment of code required impact fies 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 156'h/ 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 "cumntly assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) ... ''. This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15"') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 000053 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated "~th 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 Fnm1; Sent: To: Cc: Subjed: Attaclunents: S-1.ff Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:14 AM CityClert Rec0<ds Jan Illian; Jill Ding; Neil R. Wans: Jennifer T. Henning; Rohini Nair RE: New Publk Records Request-PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) TranspoConcPolicyl40415.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City proa,s. forcorn:urrency, standard, and process relating lo Refiton Code Section 4-6-070. I believe this Is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeki~g. The-information. as extracted from the-approved Crty C.Omprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrerJcy can be-a combination of Improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit Issuant!", or within a reasonable amount of rime after building issuance, per 4-6-070 A.I, or a financial commitment ls placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improverrn,nts throtJ!lhout the Oty. Our Transportation Division i, the technical review ;iuthorlty and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord. S67S, 12·3·2012). The Tra,nsportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, ''Within the City of Renton, the steep IOP<>Sraphy 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 I to provide more traffic capacity could anract some traff,c now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road.• Thanks. -Steve lee, PE, MS, CESCl Cit,, of Renton Dev. Fngioeeriog Manager 425.430.7299 sleg@rentpnwa.gov Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice mth 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 engaggnent 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 zzn'. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 000054 until April 22"d, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application ... ") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"', and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5"' Place and 156'h Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156"' • 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 SES"' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 000055 Llst of Exhibits: Exhibit A -SEP A 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 000056 -·-----~. --------· ·---·------- EXHIBIT C ·-------.. --- ,~ I -=II! -JI ~1 ' - - ' ' EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by C!ii!fEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 000058 TraF/jg;x April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36m St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: NaRrHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St.i #590 Kirkland. WA 9SD34 Phone; 425.522A118 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analxsis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 h Pl/1561h Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142°d Pl. SE/SE 1561h 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 Pl/1561h Ave SE and 142nd Pl. SE/SE 1561h 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 000059 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraHfl!J:r queues were observed to back up from the 142nd Pl. SE/SE 155th intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECT/ON 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5th Pl/ 1561h Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142"0 Pl/ Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) 1561h Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5th Pl./1561" Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142'"i1561h Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 000060 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traffll!Js PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/156 1h Ave SE and 142"d Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix . . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142"d Pl. SE/SE 155th intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th Pl. 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 SE 51 " Pl/ 1561h 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"0 Pl/ Overall (F 66.4) 156th Ave SE 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 Page3 000061 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH&ir[ 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 1561 h 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/1561h Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page4 000062 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traff@% 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@nw1raffex.com or larry@nw1raffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Traff Ex 000063 EXHIBIT E J PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Issue: M E M O R A N o· U IVI May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1S61h Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmall.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 af Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Contra/ 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 1561h 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 Ave.nue 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 n s por. tat\oper~tio \ron \tom \tom9645 a .doc 000064 / I May 22, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Community & Economic Development Department C.E.*Chip"Vincent,Administrator RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge PrE!hminary 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 156'" Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection. The study concluded thatthe 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has .added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156'" Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding . becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at {425) 430-6598 or via email at jding@rentonwa.gov. C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Membei-s Bonnie Walton, City derk Justin Lagers, Applicant Sally Lou Nfp'er, Owner G. Richard Ouimet, Owner Partiei of Record RentonOtyHall • 1055 SouthGradyWay "Renton;washihgton98057. rentonwa.gov 000065 EXHIBIT G De~;~;,aw si ... .. . City oLr ', .· ...• ----=------~· l (~&]~ May 19, 2014 • Roger Paulsen · 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Community & Economic Development Department · C.E. "Cliip''Vincent,Administiator · Subject: · · RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION El:lclave at Bridle Ridge PreUminaryPlat/ LUA14-000241, PP, ECF · Dear Mr. Paulsen: ·. The Environmental Review Cornmitt.ee (ERC) held a meeting.on May 19, 2014 to consider · your Request for Reconsideration, submitted April 16, 2014:. Please find auach~d to thi~ letter a copy of the dicislcin of your Request for Reconsideration signed. by the members of the ERC including one .new SEPA mitigation measure. ff you have ~ny questions, please contact the proJect manager, Jill Ding, at (425) 430-6598 . . or via email atjding@rentonwa.gov. . Sincer.ely, . ,.: ·. ~~er;31111m&/Pf t--·. Gregg Zimmerman . · ·. · · Environmental Review Committee, Chair Attaclimtants cc: Bol'lnie watto.n;_ Oty Clerk iustjn t..,gers / Applicant Sally. Lou Nipert / Owner G. Richard Ouimet/ Owner . Parties of Record . . . Re11ton City Hall • 105SSouth ~radyWay • Renton,Washington 98051 • re~tonwa,gov · 000066 ·. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ANO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: FROM: Environmental Review Committee {ERC) 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). ,he ~ was 1:mbltshed on,AprW4;·20!4 with an appeaf peood that erided on A']!ltiH~--,-c~,:,, ;:c , , 2014. A request for reconsideration of-the SEPA: determination was received'oh"A:pril-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 byTraffEx (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 ofthe 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 th€ existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has revJewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h:lced\planning\current planning\projects\!4-000241.jill\er<: reconsidaation recommendation memo.doldocx 000067 Environmental Review Ct.. ..Jitte.e Page2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal 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 Fat the 156'h 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 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 ' ,-: __ .,.-Atetftiisr/SE l4211 if-S1rl!~{~1:~isection; it ITT'ifnih~fiucfe "a'LoSana.~~R{&rth~:·.c; i ..,.'.,._,.,, .. i\,".<•.' .. ~.'·th' .. _~-·-~-•·.----~.'th.!_ -'.•''·' .. ~~f'·•·-•.,_, ... ,.,-. •. , .... ;., dC <·.· .. -., .... -~ ·.,.· 156 Avenue SE/SE 5 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 res.ult 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 anafysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156"' Avenue SE/SE s'h 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. T~ere.fore, 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 1S6'h 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:\cod\planninglcurrent p!anning~jects\14-000241.ji11\crc reconsideration recommeodotion mcmo.doldocx 000068 Environmental Review Collllll.ittee Page 3 of4 May 19,2014 156th Avenue SE/SE s'" Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the .c:1~.;;._7:· :..,,:·-,~.--. -~ ', ~ "·,:.·. • I ;.-,:;7; 0 " . ·•...r-.'•· .-~·.··. • t '-. :•' ,.,...;v~-..,..,-__ .--. ·-____ ~ · existing DSN"-M'with on·e·new mitigation nieasure 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 Fat the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips= 0.00587 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'.>lanning\current planninglprojects\14--000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx 000069 Environmental Review C<,_ Jittee Page4 of4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 GreggZimm r a Administrator Public Works epartment Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department signatures: ,::_,,);qr/Ji 6-b "i /1 ir ~ --+--'=4----lf------"-----I I Date Services Date Date '" C.E. "Chip"'vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development Date h:lced\plaoning\current planninglprojects\14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation.memo.dotdocx 000070 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) -Plannfng Ofvlslon of the City of Renton. The followtnc briefly de:scrfbes the applli:ation and the neces5ary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 lAND ust NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: Li.JA14-000241, ECF, PP The Enclave at 8ridle 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 p,oposal would rt:sult In ti1e creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts. {Tracts A and BJ and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 squan!! feet to 12,566 square ket. Access to the riew lots would be provided via a new public: street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment {LUA14-000250) ts proposed between ta)( parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will res.ult in 30,175 squate feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdfvlsion. No crjtical areas are present on t/ie project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 15611\ Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, Mm GATED (DNS-M): Al the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the propos@d project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to glve notice that iii ONS- M Is likely to be ls.sued. Comment periods for the project and ttie proposed ONS-M are Integrated into a single comment period. There wilf be no comment period futlowtnc the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Signiflc-ance~ Mitigated (ONS-M). A 14·day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE AP PUCA TION: February 27, 2014 March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Ju.stin Lasers/ PNW Hotdlngs1 LLC / 9675 SE 35th Street Suite 10S, Mercer Island. WA 98040 / EML: Justln@amerlcanclasslchomes.com Permits/Review Req1,1~ted: Other PermTU which may be required: Req1Jested Studies: Location where application may be revlewed: PUBLIC H~ING: Environmental {SEPAJ Revfew, Preliminary Plat Review Con.structlon, Building. Fire Drainage Report, Geotechnh:al Report, Traffic Studv Department cf Ccmmunity & Economic Orvelopment (CED) -Planning Olylsfon, Sixth Floor Renton Cfty Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing Js tentatiyely sch~duled for April 22 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner In Renton Counc,11 Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like tc be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return t1J: Oty of Renton, CEO -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Wa.y, Renton, WA 980S?. Name/File No.: The Enclave at Bridle Ridif!/LUA14·000241, ECF, PP NAME:--------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ City/Stm/Zlp: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: -------------- ------·----000071 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW, Zoning/land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Recufatlons Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mltlptlon Measures: The subject site Is designated Residential Low Density (COMP·RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4on the aty"s Zoning Map. , Environmental {SEPA) Checklist The project wm be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Residential Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures wifl mcefy be impo$ed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measure$ iddress project Impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall be uquired to comply with the submitted geotechnlca/ report. • Project canstruc6on shall be required to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to JIU Ding. Senior Planner, CED-Plannlng Division, 1055 South Gndy Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on March 24, 2014. Thts matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on Aprll 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 ensurt that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425} 430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date lndieilted above, you mav still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the propasal before the Hearing Examlner. If you have questlons about thrs propo.sil, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additfonal information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submit, written comments will automatically become a party of record ind wlll be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6S98; Eml: jding@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to recelve further Information on this proposed project, complete thrs form and return to: City of Renton, CED-Planning OMslon, lOSS So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.; The Enctav. at Bridle Ridae/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAM£;--------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS:----------------Citv/.State/Zlp: __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: --------------- 000072 D Cash CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 ~heck No .. _0---''1__,L{'--'C\""'0 __ _ D Copy Fee ~Appeal Fee Description: 0::£9:fd.,l, if. LUA-1'{-C(i;,)H:\ tr,·,.,: c vr Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip J . ' Receipt N~ 2125 D Notary Service D ________ _ I Amount$ »;C "Cu City-Staff Signature 000073 June 9, 2014 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY: Roger A. Paulsen RE: Environmental Review Determination; Enclave at Bridal Ridge; LUA14-000241, ECF, PP To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Determination as referenced has been filed with the City Clerk. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in a hearing scheduled for 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The hearing will take place in the 7'h Floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Enclosed is copy of the appeal filing. Also enclosed is copy of Renton Municipal code section 4-8-110.E. regarding appeals of Environmental Review decisions or recommendations. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Applicant Justin Lagers Owners Sally Lou Ni pert and G. Richard Ouimet Parties of Record Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Gregg Zimmerman, PW Administrator 000074 Easy Peel® Labels Use Ave~ Template 5160® Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38th Pl, 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Mazama, WA 98333 ~quettas faciles a peler Utilis:A~ I@ n~h1u·1't 4Vi:RV9 ii::1,;n(I I I I J A -'"~Paper- I Bend along line to 1 expose Pop-Up Edge•• J ~ AVERY@ s150® l Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Bothell, WA 98012 Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE DAVID MICHALSKI Renton, WA 98059 6525 SE 5TH Pl RENTON, WA 98059 Roger Paulson Gwendolyn High 6617 SE 5th Pl PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 ... Sens de Repflaz a la hachun, afln de I -4. • .c.1--•--'----' ,.. __ • ._ ..... r 000075 www.avery.com ------------- Denis Law c· f - --~M:•y:or _____ ,,., r ltyO /l June 9, 2014 Mr. Roger A. Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton,\NA 98059 j .--2-r· 1: ro· t l. City Clerk · Bonnie I. Walton 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 Jetter 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 Jetter 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 19m clearly sets forth the option for appeal, however there is no option at this point for request for reconsideration. Therefore it is necessary that the Request for Reconsideration filing dated June 5, 2014, be considered invalid and will be marked void. The appeal process, however, will now go forward based on the appeal document you submitted June 5, 2014. The receipt for the appeal fee is enclosed. Our appeal notification will be coming to you by separate letter soon. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie \Nalton City Clerk Cc: Gregg Zimmerman, ERC Committee Chair · Jennifer Henning, Planning Director 000076 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 43Q-6516 • rentonwa.gov June 5, 2014 of Renton · City Clerk 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON JUN O 5 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE f'4nd Del, 1/&ed 10: {)cJ o,.,, OR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION UANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) 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 (SEP A) 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 Ren ton's adop d codes, policies and procedures. Thank you for taking the time to consider ·s 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 1:i 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! submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a pr · ous 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 tion network via the SE 5'h Place/ 156"' A VE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare eat-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the nee sary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEP A, has the potential to adverse! · 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. 1 000 77 Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issue for which I request your reconsideration relates to the transportation impacts of the proposed project. Concern: Transportation The proposed access to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge project site is via a new looped internal public street with two access points off of 156"' Avenue SE, just north of the 156th Ave SE and 142"' 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 22"', 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 'wi.J.l operate at an acceptable level of service (C) for future conditions. Subsequent to the April 22"' Traffic Study and the April 29'h Addendum, the City added to its Transportation Improvement Plan (HP) the installation of a traffic signal at the 156"' Ave SE and 142"' Place intersection. Reference the May S"' letter from Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations (attachment E), and the May 22"' letter from Mr. C.E. Vincent, CED Administrator (Attachment F). On May 19'', the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) met to consider my April 16"' Request for Reconsideration, and retained its threshold Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, with one additional mitigation measure: Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of Fat the 156'1 Ave. SE/ SE 142"d PL [Sic: intersection] and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project sha/f be responsible far pqying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156'' Ave. SE / SE 14 ?' 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 Request for Reconsideration is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern, including the intersection at 156"' Ave. SE/ SE 5th Pl., and the intersection of 154"' Ave. SE/ SE 142"' PL.. lbe 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 S'' 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 142"' 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 000078 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 Ciry. 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 191h, 2014 Threshold Detennination 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 5th Place. • Once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis confonning to the City's requirements is completed, reconsider the SEP A 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 Submi~ ~q,~ 6617 SE Slh Place Renton, WA98059 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 -CE. Vincent Letter Exhibit G -ERC Meeting Summary 3 000079 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT A 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 156 1h 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 tum 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 156'h north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 000080 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 tum (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; I 42"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 l 561h/ 142"d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 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 000081 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (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 000082 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000083 April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT B 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 ofRenton'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"' A VE 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 I 000084 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the rime 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 (fIA) 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 i.r based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of&nton 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 I lour 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 000085 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 (U)S) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicini!J ... " 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 SE/ SE 142"d Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156'' / 142"' Place intersection. They did not. In fact, the 156"' Ave SE/ 142"' 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 S'' Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour Qust 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17"'), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156"' at SE 5'' Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156"', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may " ... impose left turn restrictions at that intersection." (See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156'' / 142"' intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will 3 000086 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156'h/ SE S'h PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156'h Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156'h, the ERC's 1breshold 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 !!!f!! 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. \Vhcn one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an other,.~sc required Traffic Mitigation Pee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: "It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact (sic) the City of Renton 's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fies and the constrnction 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 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 (i\pril 15"') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 000087 This e-mail serves to document yet ag.ain 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: Sent To: Cc s.,t,j«t: At!Khmlnls: Steve Lee Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:14 AM CityClerk Records Jan ffli.tn; Jill Ding; Ned R. Wans: Jennifer T. Henning; Rohini Nair RE; New P\Jblic Records Request -PRR-14-08S (Paulsen) Tr,nspoConcPolicyl40415.pdf See atuched files that are related documentation on the City prc,cess for t<ihcurnrncy, sundards and processrelating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. I believe this Is tile information Mr. Paulsen is seekirig: The infOrtnation, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Pauls.en how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4~&-070 notes that trarl5parta.tion concurrency can be a combination of Improvements or strategies fn place at the time of build Ing permit i5suance, or with.in a reasonable amount of time after building is.suanc:e, per 4-6-070 A.I. or a financial commitment ls placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is senerally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division i.s. the technlcal review authoritv and ts currently asseuJng any improvements a:re warraoted (if any) ford. S£7S, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currenti-f provided some direc.tioo as to an initial response with the statement, "'Wfr.h1n the City of Reoton, 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 1-40S (which the State is pursuing J to provide mo"' traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road." 'Thank>. ·Steve Lee, PE, MS, CESCL City of l\eoton Dev. Engineering Manager 42S.430.7299 5lee@r,entonwa.gov 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 en~gement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"". Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 000088 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 22"', and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately :inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, :including at the :immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5'h Place and 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 SEP A 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 he 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 000089 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B -Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C -Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D -Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E-Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 000090 EXHIBIT C Tlit OKUVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE xxx-xxxx ~ ·-- L t- r t! ,, -r r r ,- 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 C!i!lfEx TRAFFIC £XP£RTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 000092 TraFF[ff)x April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3610 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: NDRTHWCST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St.i #590 Kirkland. WA 98034 Phone: 425,522.<1118 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analisis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 h Pl/1561h Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic grow1h and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"d Pl. SE/SE 1561h 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 ~eak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/1561h Ave SE and 142"d Pl. SE/SE 156 h 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 000093 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge queues were observed to back up from the 142nd Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection to SE 5th PL in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5'" Pl/ 1561h Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB(C16.1) 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"0 Pl/ Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) 1561h Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5th Pl./156'h Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142"d/1561h Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 000094 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traff@;r PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/156th Ave SE and 142nd Pl. SE/SE 155th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix . . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142"d Pl. SE/SE 155th intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th Pl. 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 SE 5'" Pl/ 155th 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 I 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 13.3) SE 142"0 Pl/ Overall (F 66.4) 155th Ave SE Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 000095 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 1561h Ave. 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/1561h Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page4 000096 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH&})! SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TJONS 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 1561h 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 larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Gaglia Principal TraffEx Page5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000097 EXHIBIT E J PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Issue: MEMORANDUM May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 1561h Avenue Southeast 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 inters.ection of Southeast 142"• Place and 1561h 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 afso meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual af Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C0 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 1561h 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"• Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h: \division. s. \ t ran spo r .tat\operatio \roo \tom \tom9645 a . doc 000098 / I I . Denislaw EXHIBIT F:...-~~~-------___ :M•:yor~-----~-t , ~~tz_o~ l -, _ - May 22, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE s'h Place Renton, WA 98059 0~.( ~~JJ.t:011 Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part cifthe review of your Request for Reconsideration, the City conducted an independent study ofthe 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. The study concluded that the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the lSG'h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the . developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430-6598 or via email at jding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, ' / c.. <z.. v.~ ... -~ C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin lagers, Applical'lt Sally (ou Nip"er, Owner G, Richard Ouimet, Owner Partiei of Record Renton Oty Hall. • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 000099 Denis Law Mayor May 19,2014 Roger Paulsen · 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 EXHIBIT G ' t , Cityof-.. .. ., .. · (~C~'Jri r•1r·\ ?1rr: l ·,;.J."~....!:'..J,~~~ Community & Economic Development Department · · CE •chip"Vincent,Administrator Subject: . RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION . . Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP, ECF .. OearMr. Paulsen: · The Environmental Revi.ew Committee (ERC) held a meeting.on May 19, 201.4 to con.sider your Request for Reconsideration, submitted April 16, 2014 .. Please find attached to this letter a copy of the dt:cislon of your Request for Reconsideration signed by the members of the ERC including one new $EPA mitigation nieiisure. /fyou have any questions, please contact the proJect manager, Jill Ding, at (425) 430-6598 or via. email at jding@rentonwa.gov . . Slncer.ely, ,: ·. --/;:)~er;}>1111mt11/lf~ Gregg Zimmerman · , Environmentai'Review Committee, Cha\r Attadments cc: Bonnie Walton;. City Clerk. fos·t1n.tager5; t ApPlicant sally Lou Nipert / Owner G. Rlc~ard Ouimet./ Owner . Pal:tles of Record Renton Oty HaU ; 1055·Soutlq:;,adyWay • Renton, Washington 98057 • r~ntonwa.gov 00010() I i DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: FROM: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) 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 S, 2014). --0 = "' , , --·· ,he ONS>MwaspabllshNJ: on;AprH'4,'2Dr4with an appeat pencfdthat elided on Aµn14S:·'<--c.cc:,, ·"" ; ,. 2014. A request for reconsideration ofthe SEPA determination was received·on·A-pril 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 ONS-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'" 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 b:\ced\planning\current planninglq,rojects\l 4-000241 jil!I= reconsideration recommondation mcmo.dot.docx 000101 ,: f4 i. - Environmental Review Co1.. ...tte.e Page 2 of4 May19,2014 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 156'h 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 Fat 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 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 ,.,..,,,,,,_n .... Aten"oiiiS[/SE 142",f-strl!e{i~t~rsection; it 3Tcfn5i'i~fiudea0 lOS ana~1isfortI1r.:._ ' ' , · ·. ,,,. isG'h Avenue si)si:' 5th Pla~e i·~t~;secti~n. ,. , -. -. 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 res.ult 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 submltted 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 156'h 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: \cedlp!anninglcum,nt planninglpro j ects\14-0002 41.jill\erc reconsideration reconunendoti on memo. doldocx 000102 Environmental Review Cou.u.D.ittee Page 3 of4 May 19, 2014 156th Avenue SE/SE s'" 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 proje_ct. 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 addrtional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the --'""""' "'e'xistTni DSN'-M'witii'-~n'e'~J.~ mitigation rrieal~ffas'foliows: ·"'·,~,~c -, -· · -· 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). Z. Due to.the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of Fat the 156th Avenue SE/SE 14Z"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 156'" Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips= 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 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: lce.1',>lanning\current pl!u:ming\proj ects \14-0002 41.j ill\erc reconsid<ration recommendation memo. dotdocx 000103 Environmental Review Co~ .ittee Page 4 of 4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 Gregg Zimm r a Public Works epartment Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Date signatures; Services 't C.E. "Chip"'vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development . --"., -·. ~ h:lcedlplanning\current plaruringlprojeets\14-000241.jill\erc =onsideration recommendation.memo.dotdocx Date Date 000104 June 5, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge -Project LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear City Clerk's Office, CITY Oc ~ENTON JUN O.f 2014 RECEIVED 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 Project on May 19th. Enclosed with this cover letter, please find a new Request for Reconsideration of that updated determination, and a new Request for Appeal, pursuant to the guidance provided by Renton Code Section 4.8. 11 O(E). The personal check (#9443) in the amount of $250 that accompani;.d)"Y original appeal can be applied to this new appeal. J(/[{,() c1/(« I Jtt/61} i/lf) ts "1 f 'ff I) 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!! 6617 SE 5"' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 RogerAPaulsen@cs.com Enclosure(s): Request for Reconsideration, with attachments Request for Appeal, with attachments 000105 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of '.neral circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on May 23, 2014. e full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is me sum of $84.00. //2;~ /,?; ,/JY,! ,!<l-z '-Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 23rd day of May, 2014. ~ "I C'1 // )'. l 'I-ii.. Lu«....(_, cY U. 1..1,t..:L ,.._ Kathleen C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Buckley, Washington CITY OF RENTON XOTICEOF El"iVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIROl\'MENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE A'.'iD PUBLIC HEARING REf\TON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determi- nation of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) for the following project under the au- thomy of the Renton municipal code The Enclave at Bnd\e Ridge LUAl4-000241 Location: 14038 156th Ave SE. Decision issued on Request for Reconsideration submitted 4/17/2014 to retain existing SEPA DNS-M with one addi- tional mitigation measure. Pro- ject proposal 1s for preliminary plat approval of 3 I lot plat wrth two tracts Appeab of the DNS-.\1 must be fikd in writing on or befort 5:00 p.m. on June 06, 2014. Appeals must be filed in wrrtmg together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, I 055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4.g. J JO ;md more infonnation may be , ~, '." . obtained from the Renton City ~~~~'\-tt~/if/li, Clerk's Office, 425·430~6510 _§-' ~\,... "'";1 ,ity,t;,. ,,,, A Puhhc Hearing will be held ::=-.,.X°'"~,,tS10N '&_1,,1~~ ''11. by the Hearing Examiner in the E ......., §'~ +"~'1,., ~ ~ounci! Chambers, City Hall, on : ;:J';:;z; .~oTA~..L '1)~~ ~me 24, 2014 at 8:00 am to c_on-; -38 rt'l~ Z ~er the submitted appl1cat10n. i ~ -• -cng IJ the DNS-M is appealed, the ~ ~ ,<) V E if,pcal will be heard as part of ~ ~~1 lla\ . .\ ff< ,!11s. public .hearing. Interested 1,1 -vj,'1,1,<J~ 19-'\ b .. f "O §parties are mv1tcd to attend the 111 ~ 1•h\\\\\,,.._, .... ,-. ~0 $" public hearing. ,,,,, O;:: WAS~"-,s-~ Published in the Renton Reporter 1111i,\\H\\\\\\,,,,,'-on May 23, 2014. #1056968. co Cl ... Cl Cl Cl Denis Law c· · f ---~M:,y:o, _____ .... i' C . 1tyo /l. _ .· .-· . J~~MIDlil May 22, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place · Renton, W.A 98059 Community & Economic Developme_ntpepartment C.E. "Chip'Vincent;Aclministrator CITY OF RENTON MAY 22 2014 . RECEIVED - CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: ·. Enclave at Brii:lle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUAi4-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr:Paulsen: · As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration, the City conducted an jndependent . study cif the lSG'h Avenue SE/S~ 142."d Place intersection. The study conclu.ded that the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place i.htersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has . added and is prioritizing the installaticin of a traffic signal at this locat]onto its Trarisport_ation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Entlav~ 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 Committeie (ERC) has decided to require the. developer to pay their fair share for the installation ofthetra.ffic 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. lfyou have any further questions on this matter, please contactJill Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430-6598 cir via email at jding@rentonwa.gov. C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Att-achmenis cc: ERC Members Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Justin Lagers, Applican.t Sally Lou Niper, Owner G. Richard Ou"imet, Owner P_arties of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way ,·Renton,Washington 98057 , reritonwa.gov 000107 J . PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Issue: M E M O R A N D U M May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes; Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations . Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d .Place at 1561h Avenue Southeast 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.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 a.nd 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Maaual 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 Co~trol Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C 0 4from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 156'h Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a d~er; . Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents .. h: \divi, ion .s \tra nspor.tat\operatlo \ro n \tom \tom964Sa . doc 000108 Page 438 2009 Edition Standard: /-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: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to tbe intersection; or··,. B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-1 exist on·.· · the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. · · .,: In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On · ;· the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours •. Option: os If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-l may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Guidance: 06 The combi11atio11 o/Co11ditio11s A and Bis intended for application at locario11s 11,l,ere Co11ditio11 A is 1101 satisfied and Condition Bis not satisfied and should be applied 011/y after Oil adequate trial of other ailernatii·es: that co1dd cause less delay and inco11ve11ie11ce to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. Standard: 01 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on .•. the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; anci.t B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on·.w the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, 'he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. SecL 4C,02 Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A-Minimum Vehicular Volume Numbsr of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major street traH'!c on each approach (Iola! of balh approaches} Vehicles per hour on hlgher·volume minor--slreet approach (one direction Oflry) 100%'1 BQo/.,b 2 or more 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 '!4,0 < ;,11;?.:,;. 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition B-lnterruption of Continuous Trafffc Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicles per hour on higher-VOiume traffic on each approach {total of both approaches) . minor.street approach (one direction only) Major Streel Minor Street 100%1 80%' 70%e 5S~d 100%1 , ..... -.)~.:.-·1 2 or more 900 720 630 504 75 60 53\42 2 or mare 750 600 525 420 100 ao 10 l ss • Basic minlmum hOurly volume b Used for combination of Conditions A and B alter adequate trial of other remedlal measures '" May be used when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community wilh a population of less than 10,000 11 May be used for combfnatloo of Conditions A and B after ad~uate trial of other remedial measures when the major--streel speed e,:ceeds 40 mph or in an isolated commuf"Uly with a populaOon of less than 10.000 !.'. ··.', Page 440 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 500 400 l----.f-~--+--"'-,..---+---1-------c-+--~--+~~+-----+-~-+~-----J 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE MINOR I I STREET 300 f---=i--..:c-+----""'..!--~-+---::,,,,d--t-r-'1:..:LA:+N=-E-=&....:1t=LA:.!N:.::E::.+--+---1 HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH • 200 f---+---+---+'....._.+-=t:"-::--1----'::,,.,,i..:---t----+--+-----j VPH 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 115 vph appl'les as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach w~h .one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESSTfiAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME 300 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE I I 2oo f---~---''l"-,,;;:c~--P...._:---+~-..::-t-,,.,c_!.1=LA~N~E=-"&~1~L~ATN~E,___+-~~~ APPROACH- VPH 100 200 Sec:t. 4C.04 ------· ·-··,~-------··-- 300 400 500 600 700 800 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 900 'Note: BO vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as lhe lower threshold volume for a minor~treet approach with one lane. 1000 20 09 Eui,ion 600 500 -...... MINOR 400 STREET ' ........ HIGHER- VOLUME 300 APPROACH - VPH 200 100 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour ' ..... '-... ~!'...__ ./ 2 OR MORI LANI$ & 210R MIRE INES ........ ...... '> / 2 OR Mo'RE LA°NES & 1 LANE ............ .... I'-,.. ...... ~ I I I I'-,.. ...::......_ -.... C> <'..TANE & 1 LANE r--...... --( -------- Page 441 150' 100' 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1l 00 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Nole: 150 vph appues as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET 300 HIGHER- VOLUME / 2 OR MORE LANiS & 2 IR MO'E LANIS 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE APPROACH-200 f--~+--~--P-....~----'"'"-1,;;;::---j~-,<;;:t--~+-~-"-t---~-t~--i VPH 100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 100 vph applies as the tower threshold volume far a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor 4 street approach with one lane. 0081''1 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 vehlhr (total both directions) Vs= Average of the 8 highest hours of side street volume in veh/hr (total both directions) Nole: 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) I (K x Cv) Pm= Average of the 8 highest hours of main street pedestrian in pedlhr (total both directions) Wm= width of main street In feet Cp = pedestrian constant= 78000 PR = Pedestrian Volume Rating = Vm x Pm x Wm / Cp Total Rating= AR+ VR + PR Intersection A :i'\R Vm SW 41st ST/Oakesdale AV SW 5 WO 615 S 4th ST/Wilfiams AV S 0 ::::q::: 442 NE 44th ST/1-405 NB Ramos 3 :::ao:, 539 SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 ::1120 783 S 7th ST/Talbot RDS 0.3 '.:,:i;::: 990 NE 12th ST/Union AV NE 0 ;'.:'():;: 449 SE 31st St/Benson RDS 2 :'.:40;'. 1221 NE 4th ST/Hoquiam AV NE 2 :':40 1899 S 55th ST/Talbot RDS 3 :JlQ.: 898 N 44th ST/1-405 SB Ramps · 3 :,1lQ 460 NE 12th ST/Kirkland AV NE 6 :JW 542 SE 142nd PU156th AV SE 0 0 976 S Eagle Ridge DR/Benson RD S 3 :::en: 1148 N Landino LN/Garden AV N 0 :::O: 504 NE Sunset BUHoquaim AV NE 2 '.:40: 838 S Carr RD/Mill AV S 1 ::~: 1887 NE 4th ST /Bremerton AV NE 2 ::4g, 2035 SW 34th ST/Lind AV Sw 2 :::40 1161 NE 21st ST/Duvall AV NE 1 ::20: 1310 NE 12th ST/Duvall AV NE 1 ::::io: 994 S 26th ST/Benson RD S a ::::().::: 1008 NE 6th ST/Duvall AV NE 0 ::-:o::: 949 NE 10th ST/Duvall AV NE a :::o: : 458 NE 4th ST/Queen AV NE a :.o:: 1641 Vs :C:/K:'::;: Cv </:VR::;::: Pm 407 /QI18:': 900 ·34sa;1~: 0 357 :;:8),H 1000 ,1;i$a:~: 12 476 :,:;0;20 900 "1429:A:2: 0.5 306 ::::lt59·· 1200 :337.S)F 0.5 315 ::::0.:79:;: 900 : 43il.:f8::: 9 220 ;:::0,37:'.'' 750 : :3S41Jfi::: 6.25 270 .;,::1,14: . 1100 ::,2!>2::t)4':: 0.33 153 ,::M2:: 588 :::2:.2,74,: 0 174 ::::r2r:: 750 :::.i~~::so:' 0.37 179 :;Q:£Q : 1000 \1;"l&'i26\ 0.17 120 :;1,J:4:: 900 ::::ll3:2/:i:<; 5 167 A:sir 750 ::'15.GJJ.t:: 0 93 :C:2J2.:' 539 ':::.93,$$/ 0 158 . ::1).at:::: 750 '::i3:1':B7· :: 16 69.5 :':,t:10 ·. 368 ::::z5:65'.': 1 44.5 :::,;,:~re 441 ::;:5:r:44::: 1 20 -:.C:4.:1!3 ::: 441 ::"2,M~::: 4 49 :-::2,71r-:: 1200 :,:'17.:24::: 0 37 <:M4 441 ?'3S:Oo:: 0.5 37 '2:67. 441 /2S;l:l4:>:: 7 27 ':;l\19::: 368 /2-3:tz.>: 15 38 ,:,z:aa::: 441 :.::29:1:9:-: 2 48 ::::111.1. · 441 ':'.26.ll!V. 6.38 16 :_A,17: 441 <14-2,l 0.16 ( Wm :::BR:::: 56 ::o;oo, 43 :,2:92:: 40 :0;14;: 51 ::0:21:;:: 74 ::8;45> 45 '::1-:6i( 51 ':\):;26:: 62 ::tJ:po:: 36 ::0:,15:: 56 ,:Q:Qe:: 38 :J:i:\:t: 39 ;:l):00,: 39 ':ll;oo:, 41 ,:!1:z4,: 37 ,:o:4!!:' 49 :1;1~:: 56 ,,5;eif: 58 ::o:.oo:: 53 ::0,4!( 51 :4:se;:: 47 ::s,t1:: 58 :1.41: 58 -.2:H: 66 · .o:.~2: :Ji>Jat · :s\558 :1.s~a 4::1$9 :AS8' /453 >:355 :;::,02: :,:zro,· :,:224<: A~.8:- :::1 eS:: .::J5ll: :::;·54:; ::.1.J6 ·::i:rn;.: '.:'.:':!9:': ::JlB::: ·:::.5:1\· ::::S/:i::- :\$4:;:' \.:32:::' :> 31'/ ::::29': :c:14: Donel done done done done done done 000112 TOM9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142nd Place/156th Avenue Southeast WARRANT! WARRANT2 WARRANT3 WARRANT4 WARRANTS WARRANT6 WARRANT7 WARRANTS WARRANT9 F(II; TOMl620W Meets warrant -volumes meet Condition B for eight hours. Meets warrant -four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-l for seven hours. Does not meet-this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. Does not meet-the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. Does not meet -this is not a school crossing. Does not meet -there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. Does not meet -there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. Does not meet -We classify 1561 h Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142nd Place as a residential street. Does not meet -This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. 000113 0 0 0 ..a. ..a. .a:. !_c>M I ~~45W j HOUR END 0 100 100 l .. 200 200 ; 300 300 400 400 500 156th AV SE NB -.. SB- 7 6 4 12 38 89 13 8 2 3 3 590 , ~oo 600 i 700 700 / 800 800 ! 90if ; 1 145 18 82 ·· goo·· , 1000· ·· 1000+ 1100 ---·· ~······""'" -- 1100 i 1200 1200 ' 1300 1300 I 1400 1400 ! 1500 1500 1600 _...... . ......... . 1600 1700 1700 ; 1800 1800T 1900 1900 i 2000 2oooi··2100 2100 . 2200 2200 2300 2300 : 2400 I 228 137 , 165 67 136 85 • 132 . --92 124 96 113 1 110 I 108 135 "-"·------·· , 186 147 , 167 176 ---···· .... ,, ....• -. .......... ____ . 155 175 161 192 , 130 165 99 119 70 108 47 77 21 45 13 36 2356 2091 ! .. /., __ NB+SB . --·------ 20 14 . ': 6 15 41 107 227 365 232 221 224 i -----1- 220 · 223 243 333 343 330 353 295 218 178 124 66 49 4447 Sheet1 SE 142ND PL WB ....... EB EB+WB TOTAL 28 14 8 8 12 50 128 259 282 217 208 248 265 308 453 606 725 723 578 343 231 170 102 56 26 17 13 13 30 54 31 21 21 42 168 218 630 758 692 951 ·····/ --·-· --· 665 1 ... • 947 442 . 659 ,. --····--·-. ;_ ····-··-· -----·-·-····· 310 518 293 541 . ---"" . . -···---. 269 534 288 596 .. .,,_,. .•. -··-----' 316 ; , 769 454 i · 1060 ·-·------------···-·-- 441 · 1166 465 ·'!;11aa 389 , :·gs? ·· 266 609 223 454 ····-------····----- 151 321 104 206 64 120 !- 6022 6729 12751 Page 1 74 45 27 36 83 325 985 1316 1179 880 742 761 757 839 1102 1403 1496 1541 1262 827 632 445 272 169 Denis Law-c· f ___ _:M·a:.yor . -------:· f) ''i:"{tf;~f:., /;)YrTl ~\~,Sjjji.§,~~ . Communify&Economic Developm;,;,tDepartrnent · · · i::.i:, ·chip"Viricent,Adrninistrator May 19, 2014 CITYl)F RENTON Roger Paulsen .6617 SESth Place . Renton, WA 98059 · Subject: · RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. ·_ MAY 20 2014 RECENED . · CITY CLERK"S OFFICE Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preljminary 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, ~ubmitted April 16, 2014 .. Please find attach~d to this letter a copy of the dt:cislon of your Request for Reconsi_deration signed. by the members of the ERC including one new SEPA mitigation ~e<isure. · ·· · if you have any questions, please contact the project manager, Jill Ding, at (425) 430-65.98 or via email atjding@irentonwa.gov. . . . . . Sincernly, . " -1)1ter;31t11mU//1f 0--- Gregg Zimmerman • En.vironmental Review Committee, Chair. Attacllments · · cc: Borlnie Walton,_ City Clerk . fos't!n-lager5: / A,pFJTicarlt · 5auY. Lo~ Nipert l Owner G. Richard Ouimet_/ Owrier . Par.ties of Record . . . . . . Renton Gty HaH ; 1055 Sou1h!,rady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 .• re~tonwa.gov ·000115 I I 1 1 ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ANO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM May 19, 2014 Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Jill Ding, Senior Planner Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated {DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: · 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). '"-""' .,. · · -· The DN&sM wa5,pub:lished on'Af)tH'4; 2fil4 W1th an appeal peood that erided on A,pcriM~c-:--,,·c:c 1 .;:, ; • 2014.·A request for reconsideration ofthe SEPA determination was received'oh·April-17; ·• '-0 - 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"' 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 revjewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h:\ccdlplanning;\cwreot plaoninglprojects\14-000241.jill\ert: reoonsidaa!ion recommendotion mcmo.dot.docr 000116 f_Jlvironmontal Review Committee Page2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142°d Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. With the installation of a traffic signal 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 Fat 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 $S00,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 156th , . .,.__~"A~eK'J~·sr/sE 142~d~stri!~{f~t~fsection; it aTctnth~Eiude'a'ios ana~~i?f~'Tti!!:.:_. ' ~-, ... .,~ ... ,:tc,,-r.---=-··th' · ·-·~.,.-,··-·-•··;"'th-: ·:,.J·•-•!.~ •. __ ··-... _ ,· . ,., . ··-• .•, ~.--~-. ·• ., .. , .. ,• .. 156 Avenue SE/SES 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. Tllerefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:\ced\planning\cumnt p!amtlng\projects\14-000241.jillle,t, r=sidaation recommendation IIl<IDO.dot.docx ' i !· I I -· .. :..--·, ,. i · .. l 000117· Environmental Review Committee Page 3 of 4 May 19,2014 1561h Avenue SE/SE 5'" Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the "'"~;.;;-··~· .• ,:··-.. ·· -: · -.~ ·. ~ ···.~----• ,;-/.'.".'" ~, : .. _, ~-_"::-j'; ., • '~ -• • ,.,.:r·,.-... .,.,-,_.-,~ .:.,_ :_._.:.. ;· . ··-. existing DSN'-Mwith oneiiew mitigation nieasure ·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 Fat the 1561h 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, Crty 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: lced\plaoning\current plmming\projects\14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration reoommendation memo.dot docx ., .,. --· 000118 Environmental Review Committee Page 4 of 4 May 19,2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department signatures: s,lJ<U/'I 6-/; 1 /1 1r 71 ----ct-"=-"".----;t------:-~~---I I Date Date Services Date ~ C.E. "Chip"'vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development ··.-i>;'fy-. ":"·-~ ..,.,.... •. ., .. ~; ~ Date h:\ced\pbmning\currentplanning\projects\!4---00024!.jill\e.c=onsiderationreco=dationJDe!llO.dotdocx 000119 April29,2014 Mr. Justin lagers PNW_ Holdings, L+C. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ~ City ofRenton 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 infonnation in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analfusis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 Pl/156!h 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 otheiwise noted. :.: -... ~:'·-__ :;-~--•• • .::. --:,.!" ' :. The arialysis is summarized as follows: .. ; .:_ ::. :· .. ~~, ~-~--.~·-··· • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due· to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"d Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS. AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/156th Ave SE and 142"d Pl. 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 intersection.s for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Paga 1 000120 I -,.-... ·.._"-I I i -------·· ... "-. ·----- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11'[di~@fill e DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: . l_ssue: M E M O R A N D U M Mays, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportatio_n Dpe!""tions Manager. Ronald Mar, Tran,portat]on Operations PrOpose_d Signa.l, Southea?"t 142.,,i Place at 156thAvel)ue Southeast Should we irista)l e signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd_Pl~ce and 156th Avenue Southeast as requested by carlos Bayne pf 911bayne@gmail.com?. _.Recommendation: We should place this inters~ion ninth in ?llr priority list of locations to consider for a <1.ew signal. · .,..-~~·~.;:··. ·.?<";. .,,_., ,;..,. ,t -f'·¥-~;; ;:--r:-' Background:· We hav.e .analyzed the int.erS:ection of South,;a_st 142•d Plac~ and 156"' Avenue Southeast for signai" warrants acc~rding to Section_ 4C of the Ma,,ual oj' Uniform Traffic Contio/ Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, fnterruptiiin of Contin.uous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes-for Four Hours. Please flnd attached a mpy oithe traffic volurries, Table 4C-l tr,;ni the Manual oi Vnifann Traffic Ca~trol Devic;es, fjgur~s 4C-l through 4_C-'4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and.a copy of the Signa_l Warrant Analysis. · Tl,is intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash e)<per1e;nce. Since.2.009, t.here have . . th . . bele(l five recorded accidents on 156 Avenue Southeast. Three were rear encl accidents and the other two inVQlved vehicles run off the road to avoid hittjng .a d~er. Of these, only one·accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142'' Place and 156th·Ave.nue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at lea$l:·two blocks away from the int~rsection in question. Please finil attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents .. h;\<frvisL?n-s\transpor.tat\operati9\,:nn\tom\tom9645'.doc 000121 PUBLI(: WORKS DEPARTMEI\IT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: . lssue: M E M O R A N D U M Mays, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Tran~portatjon Operations Proposed Signa.1, Southeast 142~d Place at 156"' Avel'lue Southeast Should we install<> signal at the intersection of South.east 142"" Pl~ce and 156th Avenue Southeast as ri,quested by Carlos Bayne ofcmbayne@gmail.com? . ·Recommendation: We should_ place this intersection ninth in !)Ur priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. · Background: We hav.e .analyzed the int.e.rsection of South~a.st 142•• Plac~ and 15611, Avenue Sou.theast for signal wa,nnts according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets warrant 1, lnterruptign of Contin.uous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location aiso meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find-attached a copy ot'the traffic yolurn~s, Table 4C-1 fr~ni the Manual oi Vnifor'm Traffic Co~trol Devices, Figur~s 4C-1 through 4p.1i' from the Manual of Uniform Traffic· Control Devices and a copy of the Si'gna_l Warrant Analysis . . This Intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since. 2009, t_here have been five recorded accidents on 156"' Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two invqlved vehicles run off the road to av~id hitt)ng .a di-er. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156"' Ave.nue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at lea~·two blocks away from the intersection hi question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h:\dlvision.s\transpor.tat\oper.rtio\J:on\tom\tom!l64S..doc i ·c-___ •• ..-l . ·r ·1 ·T· . I 000122 DATE: TO: FROM: COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT April 18, 2014 MEMORANDUM Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJE;CT: Tr.Ifft~ Concurrenqr Tert for The Endave 'It 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 ,.·-,-··--···----.1.·~ ,'i ~-~, .. ._,,~ Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic ConcurrencyTert 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. B'lci<ground Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6--070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070_D, which is listed for reference: 000123 Transportation Concurr-ency Test-lne Enclave 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 acuvity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System estabfished in the Transportation Bement of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to mies 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: Pnor to approval of any nonexempt development aciivity 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 wfth 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 petmit. 3. Failure of Test If no reconsideration is requested, or d upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrencylest,-'11eprojr,ctapplicalion shall be denied by the decision makerw)ththe·authofityfo''-"·''' 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 on application of site specific mitigation, development will hove met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 i . . . . . ·---· I ' ;,. -~ ::. ,.,._,_,. ;·...-~~~ 1 000124 CITY OF RENTON c;>'V APR 16 2014 r1'f 10· ".) ,.,., April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RECEIVED • CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Envirorunental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Enviroruncnta! Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed ,x~th the intent of utilizing all available administtative 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 ofRenton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction Mth respect to bow 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 Mth no option other than to sirnply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line Mth 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 countty 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 000125 --·-· --.... requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEP A, 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 dear 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 pr,/iminary plat site plan and the City ofRmton Policy Guidelines far Traffic Impact Analysis far 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 dearly 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 sball present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 000126 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 requited 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 DJ, the Committee states: 'The Traffic Impaa Ana!Jsis (Exhibit 10) also includes a Leve! ef Seroice (LOS) rrview of the S111TVtmding intersections ill the immediate vicini"!J ... " This report goes on to conclude that: " .. .th, surrounding intersections IIJ()t1/d crJ1Ilinue to operate at an acceptable Level ef Seroice (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156'' 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"' / 142"• 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 requite additional information ftom the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour Gust 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 SES"' 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 Tbreshold 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 tum restrictions at that intersection." (See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"' / 142"• intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy'' will 3 000127 i I force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156"'/ SES"' PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156"' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156"', 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 improv=ents; 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 ER C's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: "It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly advme!y impact (sic) the City ofRenton's street {)'Stem subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the constrnction 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 Y car 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 requir=ents under State Law (RCW 58. l 7 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the rime 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 Gty'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 ''cumnt!y assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) ... ''. This confirms that work is on-going at this rime (April 15"') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 000128 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental irnpacts 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 rnerits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From: Sent: To: Cc 5ubj<ct: At1achmtnts: si.,.., u., Tuesday, April 15, 201411:14 AM C,tyClerl:: llea>rds Jan Dlian; Jill Ding; Neil R. Watts; Jenr,iler T. Henning; Rohini Nair RE: New Public Records Request -PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) TranspoCond'olicyl.40415.pdf See attached files that •re related doannentatfon on the C,ty pr~f;,;:co~cy. standard,; and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. I believe this is the information Mr. Paulsen is se<1kint·The infoonalion, as extracted from the approved Oty Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers• multi modal test. Renton Code Sectlon 4-6-070 notes that transp~n concurren<Y can be• combination of improvements or strategies ln place at the time of bullding permit Issuance. or within a reasonable amount of time alter buiding issuance, per 4-6-070 A.l, or a financial commitment is placed. A fmancial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generallv used by the City for Improve me ms throughout the Clty. Our Transportation OMsion is the technical review authootv and iscurrentty assessin1 any im~s are warranted (if any) (o.-d. 5675, 12-3-20l2). The Transportation DiVl&ion has. currently provided some direction as to an initia:I response with th@ .stat.eme:nt., "'Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cem1!tory Road) make,; it in fea,lble to provide t,lditional acce,s_ Widening l-405 (which the State is purwlng) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road.' Thanks. -Ste,,~ IJ1e, PE. MS, cescL City of Renton Oev. Engineering Manager 425.430.7299' slee@rentonwa wi Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in tny 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 en~ernent in the environmental (SEPA} review of this project. In short, the notice irnplies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment priot to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22",. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 000129 until April 22"', the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEP A review and determination, will have passed (see Exhibit E ''Notice of Application ... ") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"', and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEP A 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 bearing 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 SEP A 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, . . 6:S!~ 6617 SE s"' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 000130 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -SEPA Determiruttion 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 000131 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXIIlBITA SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay@Jding/Ji)J'entonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #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 tum 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. I 000132 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 I56th/ 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand tum (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 l 56th/ 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 l 56ili/ 142"d intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City ofRenton'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 l 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 000133 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. AB 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 SEPAappeal 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 ofmy 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 000134 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen(@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Ekctronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000135 IEllllBITB I THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by 1:~'lffEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 000136 TraHm December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW HoldlnJls, LLC. 9675 SE 36 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton T raffle Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: NORTHWEST TRAFF7C ExPERTB 11410NE 12411St. #590 Kilml. WA98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 156°' 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 Polley 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 to1561h Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 156°' Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Pago/ 000137 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 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 20 11 31 63% 37% 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 CONOmONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156111 Ave. SE SE 142nd Pl. Page2 Minor Arterial Residential Access 000138 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge 156111 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. 156111 Ave SE Is strai~ht and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 1561h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pf. 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 Pf. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDmDNS 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 lo 1561h Ave. SE and the 156111 Ave SE/SE 142nd St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Po6cy 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 1561h Ave SE/SE 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 Bare high, LOS C and Dare moderate and LOS E and Fare 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: Page3 000139 The Encleva at Bridle Ridge TYPE OF A B C D E INTERSECTION < >10.0and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and Signalized 10. ~20.0 ~35.0 §5.0 ~0.0 0 Stop Sign Control ~10 >10 and~15 >15 and ~25 >25and~35 >35and~50 .0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDmONS 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 155th Ave. SE/SE 142"d Pl. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this Is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significanUy 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 Page4 F >80. 0 >50 000140 The Enclave at Bridle Rldge TraH/Nrf approximately 250 ft north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 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 dally 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 1561h 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 [arry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Poge5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000141 TABLE1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access I 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access I 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 156th 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 (8 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 detennines 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 Page6 000142 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Vicinity Map l:!i!l!Ex TRA'F'F1C ExPERTS Figure 1 000143 ... ----.... ---~ I . "J -! \-.,~-l i .. _:(~ r. ' ' La.. _ ... ,. ·'f".'-~':'_...,..,--~~. :. '-,~ ..-i .-) ,=-: ... : . I -·,· .. __ ......... The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Site Plan '!at!fEx TRArFIC E'XPERrs ·r. N \:S~"."->~~~-;;.-:; · .. ,~r"i~ 1e, . ' :,._. -+ '.-.· .. r.·.·· l r Figure 2 000144 PM Peak HourTraffic Volume Enler 20 Exit 11 Total 31 N Acooss/ 153th ave S AOO:Ss/ 1561h Ave "' -4 , I J@ 0-.., I 0 "' 1561hAve/ SE142 Pf The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution Legend 15 % Percentage of Project T raffle -+-3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 3 000145 .,.t.,J, .. TraFf'Ex j • %>;t2'.JJtt:~ .'!,. :-~:-· ".,,.:"'J?;,"""''!-"''ES"'£."~""~"'c1""'R:-r..,-s--l -, '-·"to''.,_:-::::·' "t<~ .. > ,,;.; ·, ~-~-· -~-·:., :'.>t' '-: .. _·.:...<I ",~SEJ\3tcUr: j -----~> ·~ . ._'_, '·r·,;i ·,)..'-• f •• ~iJ··· ('{;:tr···< , /•l(:i;j,:i,:'.'.b!r:(~.•i T .i\,']f';; ;j;}.j[(f)$ff;,f;ti~:fr;:f:•! '\ -~ ----. . . .. _ ., _:,.-''. :'i~:-2.::<:: ·._.:-~.ei··· ... ..:.;:c-: • .'· .. 'cc;...:c...E.."',}-.. Existing N A=ss/ 1$1h ave S Aa;ess/ 156th Ave 156thAw/ SE142 Pl Future without Project N Aa::es'S/ 155th ave S Aa;esel 156th Ave 156thAWII SE142PI Project Traffic N Aca,ss/ 156th ave S Ar::ass/ 156th Ave 156thAw/ ~c142 Pl The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future with Project N Aca,ssi 156th a\/8 S Aa:eos/ 156th AYO 156thAw/ SE1421 Figure 4 000146 -~-·-··· .. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000147 Prqwo:I &.r. Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. ~ (2:53) D-fi009 FA.X: {2S3).922:-7211 m1•-da11: 1'6111.A~!iE.t.SE H:?nll'l l.acisloa: a-.-·~ r-f'ICffl Nottll °" CS I) f,omSDlllian (NJIJ ,_,, U6chA•TS!: IS6tbA\T.Sl: ·~-T L s R T L s R T ::t:i~r · 2 'i l1s": "' • .,, . JI ' .. "ai:'I) 4:l1lr • • il Ill " u • ... :4:St': . :f ··o ii U6 ;-.,q·· "' 'Ji(: . ·o· '-o .S~_P • • II '" " " • #~r, ·d ·. ,to • ... "J· ·1a ·_: i.1 : • • I3.~r I " '" ' " " • 0 -'H5J' • ··.o . ·2, '" ·o. " " . 0 .. • 6.~P • " , .. " " 0 .... 6~_5-i>. .. •. 0 •• ::o· • .··o 0 6.:lDP • • 0 • • • • • -~~5f' • • ' . • '., 0 I 0 ' • • 7:00P • • • • • • • -·-" • '" '"' ' "' 117 • • I· ·, .. _·l'ak}I#. i:1S:™" h '""' • I • I "lu, , I " I " I • • I ,.__. "' '" ... v ,.,. ,... rur .1 •• E-Mml: iam@TC2fnc.com ffom E11t an (WBJ • L s ,· .. • 0 ' . 0 . • . ' • ; • • 0 0 • . . • • • SiUJ't.l .• ' I • I • n S:l~ 1'1,1 WllE/OBE 0.111 or CoUflt T"5'1:!111r.1:0IJ Cll•cbd By: Ju, • ":·b • -~:·O". . 'o • •• 0 • • • FnunW•I OCI CBI ..... StlG!dPI Toal T L ' • ·O·'· .. 10-.-• ,; "' • ,. • n "' .. .'ff .. • l9 3,15 • " • " "' ,· : ,ci :·i., .:~ ... ---306· • 7l " "' •• '' .·ti"· . .,, .· JJ9 " 17 "' ,·, •• " 0 , , .. ti···.' • • • • ;:·.Q'. • • • • • • "' "' ~491 : . .'• .. . "' I 0 I 100 '"' "' "" ~ "" 0.93 I 1util f.DPl-!Ff>nk!loor'o'olu:-..:- f'llf ~~IV °""' In: '"' Out: '"' jsso- ,4 "' ,,. '" 1-10 .... .... H • • .. ., WU NB " . Tla1 • .,, 1.0",i. • • TRA13184M 01p 000148 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE 1212ll/2013 t ' < ,1 _ , ~ • '~:-~--_ .. ;l -.-_,:' • • ', ,' ' ~-• .: • ·-~ -----_---• , LBne Configurations !Jjm1.pl\iitigf' ·'; .. Volume {vph) fWa!c:H'!iirl'a<:iot , Howly How rate (vph) ]ii,!~y ' '·.:':ii. . . ' HCM Level of Service !nie~eetl11riJapacliyj}t~Q!! , . : Analysis Perio(i (min) I• ---.---- Baserlll8 )l2_.S F ._·· -•. 8.5.7% ,_-.... , . ,-IGIJ ~of Se~ 15 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000149 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations ~Qoi;irnl-· · · Volume (vph) Real< HQ\J.fac!Qr ···••. Hourly flow rate (vph) V :Stop • 328 106 o.~-· ·.o,93 353 114 98 ·0:9;1';:. 105 Volume Total (vph) 467 177 825 VoimeW!(~J. · ~ ;ios -o ;··s .... g ... t> ... .,,,_ Slap · 67 72 695 ll.93 . , Q,93. . . Q.~8 .· . 72 77 747 ~~ume f!jght (vphj .· o.'.~.. ·. o 747 , ~ (s) •• ;.. ··"·· .. o .• i~ ,0.51 ::\ l:>epar1tlr~.fi~ (~) . 62 .. 67 . 5,3 f),lgree !Jljlzaiion; x , o .. 80 . . 0,33 t2?, ~~ (~hill)). . .. . ·•.· ... 2$5 .. 78\ .... _51B . 6.61? .. C~nfr<il J.!eJ,iy l~ . · ·· ·. . t~s: 133.1! ·. ;~1fi~nt~: .·. 29~ 12: _ 133J P8Lij{ .. ,.:.:· ... '~:"t'.. :' .· HCM Level of Service iiitii[sii®&,'.~a~clly]tiliza)qn . ~alysis P,11ri~(min) .. · Basefine an F 90~ 15 iCU Level of Service · · ·. 12/2~13 :·, .. Synchro 7 -Repon Page 1 000150 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations ~:¢omro,f;]_:-.. Volume (vph) J>eaidlour Facio, Holllyllow rate {vph) t + · J:c_: :T. , · . . s1o1_ . s1! 332 106 98 69 73 Q.93 o:oo: > o.il:l o~, o;w 357 114 105 74 78 697 0.93 749 12126/2013 ·-.' .. ___ .,_._. I ~ " l ' -' • r • -~ --------~ ' ~ ' --, --------' -- Volume Total (vph) Y.#Jrne l'J!tt iv[lhJ Volume Right {vph) Hadj [sf ' . · [)epartura Headway (s) P,e#Jtliif12aii9n, x \ Ca~(veh/h) Contiii!Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Ap~[Oa()~Jg_s _: Qelil)'.: . \L' i. ._-· .. 471 180 828 :-wt } :jo5 .:; o ll · • · 114 0 749 o.oo ··•· · 1i,12 .-0.51 ·· · 6.2 6.7 5.4 0.81 · o.~ • 1.23 571 516 662 30.1 · -13.o H'i:i 30.7 13.0 137.1 0 B ;-~f. HCM Level of Ser'lice !~(e.~on'Ca~ UHl~~on ..• · . Analys~t~riad (min) 88.1 F ·-. 90.8% ? !_Cu Lti•etotServicS •, · 15 Base5ne . ,_ E-..• : Synchro 7 -Report Fage 1 000151 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Conflguratlons ll@iiilil'.!lhihI : Sign Control ~tie;.· .. ·· PeakHour Facto, !iriilftfuri.n4(vph}' •. ' .. Pedestrians ii~@<):·•· Walking Speed tltis) l'ef~i,f~!i ••...•. • Right tum flare (veh) ~_irdf~ type ' - Median storage veh) Pii~llni si~P.1!! iill _: pX, l"8,toon unblocked 1/C, confllctin~viilume ' vC1, stage i conf v~I ~:.t.ioo~ ~ntvpl · vCu, tlllblocked vol ic,'~11~1sf 5· .. tC, 2 stage (s) .V .... ft . 2. · 4 . 177 . Slop Free ll% 0% 0.93 0.93 0.93 { . ,j .190 1039 192 .M ,62 Js.. :s::r 99 99 if{~)',: .< ·. pO~ueuefr~% ... ~ g,~tjty (~L . • "?56 · .·855 -· . 3 0.93 3 7 0.93 •8 .. 11l4 194 ·. 4.1 ~.2 99 . 1.~2 <f 774 Free 0% 0.93 ~t 'None ---" "" -' ' ' 12126/2013 ----. ---~~----· ----~ -- ~oltinie:Tawl Volume Liiit ~_eRighl ,·., cSH ,;i ' ' ., "'~"" ·. . ~/uirill tQ,,,_~,. Queue Length 95th (It) !:o!i~ tleiay (~j lane LOS ,;;,,,;,;~;.;; Dela 'l ) : . f'"11'"""' .... y ~ . Approach LOS Baseline .. · :· 6< . 1~ · · 640. 2 0 8 · 4 ' ·· .. 3 : . o 481 1700 1392 -0.or , 0.(1 ·.· 0.01 · 1 0 0 · 12;5 ·. o:o'. o;l B A 12;6':. :0.0 · ·O.t · B 0.2 $.:!%. . . ,.fg(i Leveiof $1,!Vi,.e , 15 B· Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000152 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Y. f> ,q'QI\JfueJw,li!hjJ .·. •.· .. , 1 . , : "L. . !ls' • Sign Control Stop Free ij~'i,!Y "'':'\\ Q%.''. JI% - Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 o.93 li~ti@ilo)l'-iaii>1yp11f 1 __ .§ : 1~ Pedestrians ~~.Wis!ll((fl)\/ .. Walkif,,Q_ 5.f>!lecljfll~) ~ijocka,ge,-• Right turn flare (veh) Meiliaiijypii ' . Median storaga veiiJ lips@a,rjjilgrial(ft) pX, platoon unblo~ _ Y!), i;linffifting voillme .: ·.· vC1, stage 1 oonf v~I vei:si;iga 2 oonf vo1 · vCu, unblockedvoi IC, ~n,gf!! (sl' . \ - IC, 2 stage (s) ifi•fi.i't',· ,,_ ._., .. ·. pO 'l"""" free % l=M ~qijy (Vllh/lll L VdtimeTotal -· · :. .. , ,. ,, vorurrie t.elt -·-·· -·- voiiiine-R' lit • · • 19 .. ·_ cSH Y.Q!ume' lo .eaJj,i,city : Queue Length 951h (ft) Cootroi i,.i.;, s . . . ... . .. _ "';"'1 ( L Lane LOS APP(oad,. lielay"js). •i Approach LOS Basettne .None .S,5;._-,lL 100 99 · _2~\ li!iil , :s-192· . · a34· · - 1 0 B 58r 1'10; 139r· o.or _ .. 0,1.1. ··c.0t - 1 0 0 . 11-2 : .Q.O 6.1. B A •1!:2 0.0. :Q} B o.~~ .. l' Free 0.93 a: w;' 0.93 827 . -· -··. 192 4'.t .2,f.::' 99 1as:l ::. ·. icu J.evel of~'~ . .. -~ ,-...... -.. ---- 12/26/2013 .> Synchro 7 -Report Page3 000153 EXHIBITC 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 (ADI) and AM-PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area 1 000154 EXHIBITC 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 "ill then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/1212008 H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\TlA GUIDELINES\GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL YSJS 2008.doc 2 000155 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE: Project Name: Project Number. Project Manager: Owners: Applicant/Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 31, 2014 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Jill Ding, Senior Planner Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA98040 14038 155th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 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 {fracts 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-D00250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 11123059057 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. 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A 329,129 SF Total Building Area GSF: N7A Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Co mittee issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (ONS-M). ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000156 City of Renton De~nt of Community & Ecooomic oe,,,,/opment THE ENCIAVE AT BRIDIE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 I PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND .. -·-· ... ,. En'Aronmental Review Committee Report LUAl4-40DZ41. ECF, PP Page Zof 11 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 (RLDJ 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 Oty limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250J was submitted con~u'rrentfy 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 8). 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 Ci 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. Envirunrnental Threshold Reaxnmendation Based on analysis of probable Impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a ONS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14-000241.dooc 000157 Gty of Rentnn Department of Community & Eronomic Devek>pment THE ENQAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Enviror,mental Review Committee Report LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Report of E'rrorl Reference source not found. Page 3of11 B. Mitigation Measures C. 1. Project construction shall be requked 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, ~013. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Neighborhood Detail Map Preliminary Plat Plan Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Drainage Control Plan Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February S, 2014) Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2014) 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 ta occur in conjunction with the proposed development Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely ta have the fol/awing 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.doa 000158 City of Rent"" Depattment of Community & Economic /leilefopment THE ENCY,VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Ccmm;rtee Report WJU4-DOl/241, ECf, PP Page4 ofll including hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entrance in accordance with Crty of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February S, 2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study, the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of field grass, trees, and blackberries. The Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site. Alderwood ·soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and 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 ma_terial; 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 S, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation {buttercup and red-osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present. The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERC Report 14--00024Ldocx 000159 ,,:,..--~-·. City of Jknton Department of Community & Economic 0,,,,,,/opment THE ENCIAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Environmental Review Committee Repott WA14-000Z4J, ED', PP Report of Man:h 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 1561h 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 of94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 1S6"' 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 ttiis 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 156"' 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 e!C Report 14-000241.docx 000160 aty of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development THE EN<IAVt" AT BR/OLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Review OJmmlttet Report LUA14-0II0241, ECF, f'f' Page 8of ll 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 ofcode required impact fees. · Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments l'he proposal has been circulated to Oty Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or• Advisory Notes to Applicant." -I' 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, Oty 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-7'tt Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPUCANT The followlng 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 otheiwise 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'dock (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 sln"1e family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to ERC Report 14--000241.docx 000161 aty of Renton Oeparrment of Community & Economic Development TIIEENCIAVE ATBRJO/z RIDGE Report cf March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Commltttt Report WA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 9of 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 4S-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed 'to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psl 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. z. A water availability certificate from.Water District 1190 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire departmerit 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 Oty of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and siK 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 file Report 14-D00241.doac 000162 City of Renton Department af Community & Economic Development THE ENG.AVE AT BRIDLE RfDGfi Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental R~iew Committee Repart lUAl4-oOOZ41, ECF1 PP Page lOof 11 for the forested condition extending frorn 50% of the 2 year up to the SO 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 r~port 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 Nort.hwest. 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 arteriaJ is 125 feet. If in future there are signlflcant 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. ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000163 City of Renton Department of Communtty & Economic Development THE ENCLAVE /IT BRIDLE RJDGE Report of Mardi 31, 2014 Enl.(fronmental Review (.ommittee ~port LU/114-000241. ECF, PP 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. z. 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 000164 -,., ". ______ _,_ EXHIBIT 1 lHE EHC! ' -11118w [j~~ ~/--- · I I \ "' ~ ~ --· \ / '---I---- />-,~, --~ --1--i --~~ --· r ' ~ "H ~ ~ p , ,.--,_: ~ ,-c--~~ ... -,-. r-aj; ... !a '--~-, i ,...., . n1 _.._L__ .._ ... --- I I I I ,.... ~:' II ~ f-I-µ,/~§/~ i • f-j-jP--~ !-- f-I ii I i,-i-~b~~r-,-1--,-r-r---v "'--llT-,----f-~ ' r- 1--f-le~ ,---,-e--~-f--:==----r-, ---,--r----Vf \ ' -t-, ~ -• I· w r---:1-,--,-.. --r--!'TT =r~,,/ "' =71 " --· t --~ '= ,_. -r-r--I= § ~ -i -~ -~ --;:::::n= ~ I-I-~ ' ,- l r-I 11 ~ I I I _..__. • I I I I • I I l> THE ENCl.A \€ -~ '- L - ~ lg ,~ ~ .. d '-- 11, '. 1--, ,, L ~ - ' ' ' ' I . 1111111 1111· Ill . r . I • o()c ... u.. 111 iii i ' , , 1111 !j:11111111111 · 1111 I' 11 · I • ii ' I a 1111 11 I jl l . . : _fi 111 I· 1: li I : ' I q,;; fn i .. ,. I! n l~ I 1 !1 i ii' · j!:! ~ . I Ir ! !i h,61\ I I . l""' . I EXHIBIT 2 ' I I ,. ! · 000166 ' I • i / I / I ~r I i IGi I ,! • ll I 1,, ' :i • 1 ' • l I ' c! ••• 'I l P. l EXHIBIT3 lHE £Na.AVE I . 'i I ! I li 6 t ~ P' I I !I • 000167 J I • I I __ ....,..... ___ _ i /':J. i ! EXHIBIT4 \ I ; / ~ l ~ \ I 000168 --·--------.----·- EXHIBIT 5 n-rE ENa..A.\IE • \ I I • I I I • (~,-1 1rnj!W ~~ I" ,., 0 1.Q,@ i ,I ~-a u ! ! I '• I I I• I I I ' 1 , I '! I -Rt I I : • 000169 Greenforestlncorporateu 6-"' I ) ·/./·· •, .-- Consulting Arborist 2/18/2014 Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 EXHIBIT6 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF P.!:NTON Pl.ANNING DrVJSJON RE: The Endave 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]. I received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from DR 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 tre~ is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree ls 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 618S) 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 rhlzomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. · 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 000170 I I I I I I I I I I ' I ' ( I I I ' I PREPARED FDR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 EXHIBIT7 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Of RENTON PlANNING DIVISION Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -1361h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 . Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 000171 -; ,, ,._~--~---- February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercerlsland, WA 98040 RE, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton swc Job#l3-187 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sewal EXHIBIT 8 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING D1Vi5JON 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 1561h Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity Map 000172 EXHIBIT9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156"' Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Appffcant PNW Holdings LLC . 9675 SE 36 1" Street, Suite 1p5 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by ll!lit31 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7tti Avenue · Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report ls~ue Date February 19, 2014 · t:12.014 D. R STRONG CanSulting Engineers Inc.. RECEIVED FEB 2 7 zo 14 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING OIV/Sl()N 000173 . ---·· . ./ \. \..,_·~-.......' EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by TL:i!l!Ex TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124"' St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON l'lANN~ DIVISIQ,v 000174 -·-.. March 21, 2014 Jiff Ding. Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 David MichalSkl 6525ses•p1 Renton,Wa 98059 EXHIBIT 11 This memo is regarding my concerns over ttie Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-0J0241/ECF/PD. I live off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is reg;mling the traffic go_lng North and South on 156"' Ave Se. Since th!! bui"1.l.ng of the bridge across Cedar ~~ettjl!:,_~..,.·=-- traffic on is6,. ave se is unbearable. Coming.out of any of the side streets off 156., ;,;;i,-s~-~ sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At 1ne 3 way stop south of me vehldes do a quick stop and accelerate ·up the. hiU 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 temble traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156"'. I feel that animmedi.ite traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there Isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thoughtabout additional acc,,ss off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Email: dcrnichal@msn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 000175 March 22, 2014 Ms. Ttll Ding Senior Planner CE])-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, EXHIBIT 12 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 Tue scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5111 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 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 156"'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"", 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. 000176 The addition of ANY new trips to SE 15611> between SE 5lh 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 healtlt, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access I 5611> from SE 511> Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 5 8.17. I am also v~ concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 1142nd 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 156111 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 15~/ I 42nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA detennination 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 I 56tb/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City ofRenton'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 Sew~r 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 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 ithas annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate.future waste water access to the new sewer (jnes being installed as part nfthis 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 Jots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project 000177 .·;.--. ---~ -~-------------------···-· 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 lotofthis 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 approva~ 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 <in 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 SEP A. 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 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.!!!! 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"'\ 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"" to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the pi:ocedural 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. 000178 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at Roger:APaulsen@es.com. Sincerely, Sl!llt Electron/cally Without S~naJure to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000179 ----------~~~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DITTRMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNS-M) A Master Appbtfon tau been flied and ilCCl!ptod·Mth the Deprtment of Communlty & Ea>nornk Development (CEOJ-PJannlns Olvh:Jon ofthe: City o, Renton. The followin& brf&ffy diHtribet the applic:;dion and the ~ry PubllcAp ....... ls. DATEOFHOTICEOFAPPUCATION: Mari:h 10, 1014 LAND USE. ~UMWt: I.LJA1<4-ooo241. £Cf, PP PROJECT NAME! The Enclave at Bridle Rid~ PROJECT DE5ClllPTION: Prapased subdMslon of a 8.8 acre project Rte loc:ilted within the R-4 IRcJldend.al 4 dwelline t.1nlts per aae) u.n,ina designation. The prop 0 0Sti woukl ruult In the cre.111:ion ·of 31 lots tnd 2 tm:r.s· (Tt"KU A incl 8) and·a 11ew pubflc: stteet. The proposed lots would ranee ~ site f{OQt !.,DSO square fee, to 12,566' sq~~ fl!rt. Acuss ta the ne!W bu WO\lhf be prortided WI a new pubBc W'l!el: off o, 156th Avenue SE. A-kit fine ad'"JU5tment {UJAl4-000ZSOl is proposed betwffn lax p;arccls 1423059057 and l.ll230S9U2 which will result In 30.175 ~qtJa.re feet of pan;el 14230S9057 bdn& rtmoYtd Jrom the: propo$itd subdivision. No altlc:al areas are present on the p,oject site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156"' Ave 5E QPTIONAL DlTERMINATIOM Of NON·SIGNIACANCE,, MmGATED (DNS-MI: As the lead ~ncy. the City of Re moo h;n detemdncd thlt sirrrif"iant 1:nvironm1mbl lmp;11cts are unlikely to result-rrom the proposed project. Therefore, ,n p!!rmltted under tht! RCW "43.2lc.11D, ~ Qty of Renton is using the Optional ONS-M process: to give notice that a ONS- M Ui Ubly ta~ blued. Commitnt ~rlods for the project and the p,oposed ONS-M are inte&nited into a. sq:1e comment paiod. Thl!!ll!!! will be, no comment period fulawlng the issuance of the Threshold OetermlNtion of Nall:-Slgnific:al'l(e- Mitigated (ONS-Mj. A 14-day appeal period will fotloW 1M lssuana! of the ONS.M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: Nonce Of COMPUTE Af'PUCATION: February 17, 2014 March 10, 2014 APPUCANT/PAOJECT CONTACT P£ft~: Justin· la(ets i PNW Holdrnp, LlC / 967S-S£ 35• Street Suite .IDS, Metcef" ~~nd, WA ~8040 / eML: J~n@affll!!rica~lauichomes.cum Enviroririlent.il IS~A)' Reo.,/'ew, p~~nary ~ Review other Perrilibi wbldl may Ire tequlred:. fle_qu~ Studies: Construcdori, luUdlne,. Fll'I! Drafnap Rl!Jlart.Ge<itechnlcalReport,. Traffic;Study · loQitfop where appllcatfan mty bf!~ PUBLIC HEARING: Department of ~.unity & ~namk: [Jnelopment (an)-PlilMlnc DMsion., Sbnh A~ Renton Oty Half, ioss South Grady Wav. Remon, WA . ...,. Pubffcbcll'fns istcnlatfw:lyschtdulcsffiirAprjl 22, 2014 b!fot1 the Renton He!'!nc famln!r WI Kenlon Coundf Ownffl"a.t 10:00 AM en du= 7th ftoorof RffllOIICty Hall located atlOSS South Grady Way. · If you would Ji., to be mad~ ii .party of !'!:curd tn receive-further fnfoffl\ldan on this" proposed projl!!(;:t. complete this funn and retum ta: Oty of Renton, CED-Phnnfnc Division. 1055 So. Grady Way, R·l!n_ton. WA 9ios7. Narne/FAe Na.! The EndaV'l' ilt Bridle Jlfd&~UA14-00024I. ECF, pp NAM~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MAIUNGAD0ft£SS: ______________ City/5tilteflip: _________ ~ TEU.PHONE NO.:------------- 000180 CO:~SISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoninc/Land Use fnvinmmental Documents ~t Evaluate the frPj>Qsed PraJeet: Deve·topml!!nt Regulations Us:ed Far Project MJtlptJon: The sub~ site i! design.i:ad_ Re$ldcntial low D~ty {COMP·RLDJ 011 the o:y of ~nton Comprehensive Land UseMiilp an~ R.; on the Gt(s Zonlni t,riap.. _ The pro~c:t will be 5l!h~ct to the: Crty'i SEPA ordlrrance, RlvlC 4--2-110 Auldenti.il Cevclopment. ar,d other applfeable codes and rci:;ulaUoru; as appropflatt. ~ l"oJowJng Mltlg.atio"n Measures will _likell' be imposed art the proposed · project. The5~ retc1mmended·Mltrga6an. Me,suru ilddreli project fmpilct.s not CO\."t!.red by exlsling.code5 and n!!guliltkms c1 cited abcm!. ,. Praject amstrvctlon shall M required to comply with the svbmftted geoteduiicol report. • Project conW'Uctlon shaft bl! nqulred to comply wfth the submlt:b?d traffic study. Comments trfl the above appfia.tfon.must be submitted in writinc to JOI Oi1ti, Si!nior Planner, CEO-Plafl"nMg: OMslon, 10S"S South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9SOS7, tiy· 5:00 PM on Marci, 24, Z014. Thb: rn:nte.r ls also ttnt.rtJvefy .s:dieduled for a publk hearine: on April 22, 20141 at 10.:00 AM. Cotmiff Chambers,. Seventh Floor, Renton Cty Hat~ 1055 "South Grady Way, R.enWII. If yi;w 11re !nteruted R'1 attending the hearing:, please eon tad the Phmnlng: DMiion to en.sure: that the hearing has not bei!n rescfledulecf ·1t (415} 43o-6S7S. If comments cannot be: submJtn:.d iii writing by the dare tndicakd above, yci,u !'M)'.still apptiU'. at the he.aring· and p~t ymrr tol\VTlents on \he proposal before the: Hearing Examiner. If you {,ave questlalU ilbout this pr:Oposal, or Wish to he made I p.wty of J"eCOfd and' fl!reive: addilion.lJ infomiation by mail, please conhc:t the pn>ject rn2mc1ge:r. Anyone v.71o submits written comments wjrhutDmatic:.ally becom~ a p..rty of "re_ci,rd and will be· ncttfled of.ny dedslo11 _on Vlis pn:;ijec:t CONTACT PERSON: Jill Eml: Jding@rentonwa.gov --·-·--: •---·-·-·----- Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; PLEASE !NO.UDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPl:R FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would Uke: to be m2de a par..v or record .to i"eccfve ftinhfr lnfam\iJtlon on this proposed project. complete this form and r.etl.lrn ta: aty of Rem:on. CED-Ph1nnine Dh•lslon.1055 So. Grady Way, Renton., WA 9SOS7. Nami!/File No.: The Enclave at &~die. Rids_t/lUA14-000241. ECF, PP . . NAME:----------------------------------- MAIUNGADDRESS: _____________ aty/Stale/Zlpc ________ _ TELEPHONE NO.!-------------- 000181 IEXHIBITEI ,-.:: .. ;.;..C~ity~o7f'"~------== .. f~J~Jo·titcwJJ,-.l NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNS-M) A Master Appllcatlon has been flied and accepted with the Department of Community & EconC'lfflk: Development (CED) -Planning Olvtslon of the City of Renton. The followlnc briefly descnbes the appliation and the necessary Publlc: Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION: March 10, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER; PROJECT NAME: LlJA14-0002.4~ ECF, PP The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT OESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within th!!" f\-4 (Res.icientiil 4 dwelling units per act:e) ?tining designation. The pioposal would rE.Sult In the Cl"t?ation ,af 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and BJ and 'a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566" sqvare feet. Access ta the new SoU would be provided vfa a new public: street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (lUA14-000250) Is proposed between tait parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which wlil result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 belog removed frvm the proposed subdivislon. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156"' Ave SE OPTIONAL OrrERMll'IIATlON OF NON..SJGN'IFICANCE, MITIGATED (ONS-M): As the Lead Agency, the dty of Renton has determined that significant environmental fmpacts are unllketv' 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 ta give no,tice that a DNS- M (s likely to be issued, Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS.-M ate integrated into a slnflle ·aimment period. There will be no coinme:nt perfod fella.wing the issuance of the Threshold Detennination of NorrSignificance- Mltlgated (ON~)-A 14-day appec1I period will foUow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTIC£ OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: Februaty 27, 2014 MafCh 10, W14 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT Pf.RSON; Justin Lagers/ PNW Hoklings, LLC / 9675 5[ 36'" St~t Suite l(JS, Mercer Island, WA 98040 / EML:justln@amedcandassfchomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Other Permltswhfch may-be required: 11.eque.sted Studies:, Location where application ~y be-(evlewed; PU8UC HEA.Rl'HG: Environmental (SEP_A) Rl!til'lew, Prellmln;ary Plat Revl'ew Constructlcn, BuUdlng, Fire Drainage Report. GeoteChnk.a.1 R~p~rt,. Traffl.c Study Department of Community & Economic Oenlopmeot (CEO)-Plannin1 DMsl'on, Sixth Aoor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Ren to~ WA 9BOS7 Public: h,:adll! l!i ten@tiyeJv scheduled for April 2Z 2014 befom the Renton Hearing Examiner In R'enton CouncU Chamber} at.10;0Ci AM on the 7th noor of Renton City Hali local~ at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of ret0rd to ret:;l!ivc further Information on thb; pro~ed project, complete this form and return to: Oty of Renton, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Wav, Ren_ton, WA-98057. Name/Rte No.: The Enclave at Bridle l\idBe/WA14-000l41; ECF, PP NAM£:------------------------------- MAILING AODRESS: _______________ Oty/State/Zlp: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.:-------------- 000182 I . I ! CONSISTfNCY OVERVIEW, Zoning/Land UH; Environmental Document.s that Evaluate the Propasl!d Project: Development Regul,111:Jans USl'!;d For Prujett Mltiptfon: The subject site 1$ _d!Sign.ted ResideritJar low Ocnslty (COMP-RLDJ en the dty of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map ilnd R4 on the City's Zoning Map. , Environmental (SEPA) CheddJst The project_ wfll be subject to tile dty's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2.-U.O Residential Oev•.dopment, and other appli,;.able codes and regulation$ as appropriate. T.hit foJJowl~ Miti~tlon .MeasureS-wBI likely be l!Tlpo:sed on the proPQsed project. These ·recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not eovered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. Pro_ject ccnstructfon sho/1 be requfred ta comply wJth the submitted gf!otechnlcol report. Project construction shall be requirt!d t.o ,amply with the submitted traffic study, 'Comments ~n the above applfcatlon must be submitted ln wrl,µng to Jill_Dlnr, Senior Planner. C£0-_Plannfng: Olvlsion, lOSS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by S:00 PM on Match 241 Z014. This mattu ls alsa tentathn~ly sche-dufed for a public: hearinr on.Ap,11 22, 2014, at 10:0Q AM', Cot.1nctl Chambe.rs, Seventh Floor, Rentbn City Hall, lOSS South Grady Way, Renton. If you an! Interested in attending the hear1ng, please conta:cfthe Plannln£ Div~on to ensure that the hearing has not been reschedu1ed·..it (425} 430-6578. If comments cartnot be submitted In wnl:ing by the date ind~ted above-, you may still appear at the hearing and present your commenu on the ~roposal before the Hearing E.iraminer. If you have questions lbout this ptoposaL or wtsh to be made a party of record and re~ive addition.ii lnfonn.1tlon by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submiu written comments-will automatically become a. party or record and wlll be OOtlffefi df c1ny decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Eml: jdlng@rentonwa.gov Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT r.lUMBER WftEr.l CAWr.lG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would Uh =to be ~de a pirty of t!cord to receive further 'lnfonnation on thlfi proposed project, complete thi.5 form and rtt:urn to: City of Renton, CEO-Plai:inlng DM.slon, 1QSS So. Grady Way, Renton, WA !}8057. Name/file No.: The E.rido11V1!! at Brid.le Rldge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME:--------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ Oty/State/l!p: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: -------------- 000183 CITY 0,0 'lENTON oim April 16, 2014 APR 16 2014 LO'·<;J(' 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, RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S O<rlCE 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 4.8.11 O(E). 11 ta i-t' .1, t ~I\., ,.,_ Jlo. Pif' Also enclosed is the required fee for the Appeal, in the amount of $250. C, V, q f~ 11-(1! /p'6 / It is my understanding that the Appeal fee will only be processed if my Request for Reconsideration is denied, or results in no change in the City's Threshold Determination. I plan to be traveling between this date and what I understand to be the earliest possible formal appeal hearing date of April 22, 2014. If a new hearing date is set, or if any associated procedural actions are required, please contact me via electronic mail at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. 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. 6617 SE 5"' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 Enclosure(s): Request for Reconsideration, with attachments Request for Appea~ with attachments Personal Check #9443 000184 CITY OF C:ENTON April 16, 2014 APR 16 2014 i O . 59 6}/1'\ RECEIVED Ul\j/V\ CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton Attn: Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.llO(E) Dear Hearing Examiner, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.11 O(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 Rcnton'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 4.8.11 O(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 000185 Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Appeal (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE S"' Place/ 156'h AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Appeal and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEP A, 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 (JL",) 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 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 000186 Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Detennination 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 ER C'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 Traffic Impact Analyris (Exhibit 1 OJ also includes a Level of S eroice (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 Seroice (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156'' 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"' / 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 infottning city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE S'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 Gust 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 S"' Place, or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Detennination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. 3 000187 Point of Appeal #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Conunittee 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 tum restrictions at that intersection." (See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"' / 142"' intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156"' / SE 5"' intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156"'. 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 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: "It is not anticipated that the proposed project significant!J adverse!J impact (sic) the City of&nton's street !]Siem subject to the pqyment of code required impact fies and the construction of code required .frrmtage 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 156th / 142"', or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. 4 000188 Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "cumnt/y assessing any improvements are wan-anted (if a'!Y)-.• ''. This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15"') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Appeal. Sandi Weir From! S.nt To: Cc: Subjed: Attachm6nls: Steve Lee Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:14 AM City{lerk Records Jan Illian; Jin Ding; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. lienning: Rohini Nair R!:: New Public Records Request • PRR-14--085 (Paulsen> TranspoConcPolicy14041S.pdl See attached files that are related docomentation on the City process f~r-conc11trency, standards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. I believe this ls the Information Mr. Pauls.en ts seeki-flg. llle information, as e1etracted from the approved Crty Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4·6--070 note, that transportation concurrency can be a combination of Improvements or strategies in plaCt! atthe time of building permit Issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after t,,,;lding issuance, per 4-6--070 A.l, or a financial commitment Is placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally u,ecf by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Oi\/ision iS the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if anvl (ord. 5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division h;,s currently provided some direction as to an initial response with tile 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. w·1dening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing} to provide more traffic capacity could attract som• traffic now using !S6 th SE to access Cemetery Road." T~an~s. ·Steve t,,e, PE, MS, CESCL City of Renton ~v. Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 slee@rentonwa.gov 5 000189 Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22nd_ Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22"d, the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, ,vill have passed. (Exhibit E ''Notice of Application ... ") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"ct. and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEP A 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 'lbreshold 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, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, that the Notice of Application and SEP A 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 000190 Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request Appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Respectfully Subrnitt~ .t:h~~ 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 000191 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT A 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 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142"d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 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. 1 000192 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 156'h/ 142"d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand tum (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on l 56'h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142"d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156'h/ 142"d intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 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 000193 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 22n\ 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 000194 EXHIBITA If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000195 [ErnIBITB I THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by 11:gffEx TRAF'"FIC £XPE:RTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 000196 Tra~ NORTHWEST T'RAFF'IC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124111 SL #590 Kitland. WA 98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdlnjs, 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 1561h 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 to1561h 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 1561h 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 000197 The Enclave at Bridie Ridge TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge ere expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: . Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering 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 20 11 31 63% 37% 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 SE 142"" Pl. Page2 Minor Arterial Residential Access 000198 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tra~ 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 142"" Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156th Ave. SE/SE 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 1561h Ave SE or SE 142nd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDfflONS 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 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 Bare high, LOS C and Dare moderate and LOSE and Fare 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: Page3 000199 The Enclave at Brldle Ridge Tra'@, TYPE OF A B C D E INTERSECTION < >10.0 and >20.0and >35.0and >55.0 and Signalized 10. ~20.0 ~35.0 §5.0 ~80.0 0 Stop Sign Control ~10 >10 and ~15 >15 and ~25 >25 and ~35 >35 and~50 .0 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 lo 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 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 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 Page4 F >80. 0 >50 000200 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH§J:! approximately 250 ft north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142°d Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MIT/GA TION 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@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Psge5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000201 TABLE1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISnNG 2015 WITHOUT 2015WITH INTERSECnON 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access / NA NA WB (B 12.6) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access / NA 156th Ave. SE. NA WB (B 11.2) 156111 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 Capacjty Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page6 000202 .,. .. , .. ---,.:., .,.~:: ,--.. , .. :; ~ ., ' ·'ll c,i -!!I, .'kl ll:i!!fEx TRA.l'"FIC £XPERTS "'._ -.,ru 1 r m ··. 'SE 2nd Pl. S£i36ihst.· ·' • , . t 13714::rerrlieeSE • ' • S=3rdJ'1 SE 1.42nd st:; : ' , 'i 1 SE 139.th Pl : ;* Project Site SE137th St . SE4thSt . ~ g S': l 'Sf 5thSt tn m. s£141stPY .•. SE 142nd St ' I • ..... · \' : ; .· Sc.ft? .. , '' e,:l-l"' 4-' . i SElf~P! SE 143rd St ·. i ; \.. ' ' SE 1441hPI. .1. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Vicinity Map . ~ .SE 1441h St g: S': :2 "' . m ~ .. i:i I I ·.:: SE 1, .· I Figure 1 . l 1 s( ' 000203 ' --+T----- l _, ,. ,, 11:i!tfEx TRAFFIC cXPE'RTS .-• 156TH AVE SE ---~----------' ------' -------------,-------:---~--: .~- ,----. -··1 I • I I 1 ... I [ 1;11D r I -I ' : ~--_ .. .. -------~ .. -----~-, : ) ,: .... I ~.... : I I I ~-------~ ' ' ' . ' !~ : ,11' l I I j • .l '"-z-.----:: .... "'.",; . ':.-· ,.c: '-} Ii., \ I l.· i I I ~--_____ .. .. -------, I ' I ' t ' OJ : I ' I , ~-------- ' ·--------~ -' I ' I •...... I_ , ~ I I I I ' ..~ _____ ..... The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Site Plan _ .. ~~ .---: I. IOI : ~ -I I I I ' .. --~--,---J ' ' I ,.•. I L _______ _. -·: I l---~---.J I N -+ Figure 2 000204 Sl:l42ru!st PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 20 Exil 11 Total 31 SEl391h Pl N Aa:essl 156th ave S Aa:essl 156th Aw 156lhAve/ SE142 Pl The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution C!i!l!Ex ~AFFIC E'XPERTS SEHhtPI . se 142nclst .. i E SET<> .. S: V>d'PI ~I!'~ ..... 1.., ..... i .' . "' m . I Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic ..... 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 3 000205 "' ir· SE 139th Pl ·dS "' :', Project (D Site ';ft .., ; •t o I . <'> ' "' .SEl42ocl St ... @ SEH3rd St a' :' ; t . Future Project Existing without Project Traffic ~ .... "' ... 0 .... 0 ........ I C Q I C cb"c4 CDC CD cQ I rr Q ' t ,.r 2 t r 0 "'0 12 0 .... "' "' -- N Arn,ss/ 1!:llth ave N Arn,ss/ 1!:llth ave N Arn,ss/ 156th ave ~ .... "' .... 0 .... 0 "' .... ' • 0 cb'cO cb"d 0c I ,,... Q I rr 0 t , ,... 1 "' 0 "' 0 "' "' ~ .... - S Arn,ss/ 156th Ave S Aw,ss/ 156th Ave S Acress/ 156th Ave "' m~ "' "' "' -"' "' 309 , ' 328J® 4 J ' "@ J® 100', I 106', I O"""' t "' "' "' ,.._ 0 N "' (0 a, "' 156thA'l8/ SE142 Pl 156thAve/ SE142 Pl 156thAvel SE142 Pl The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes C!:ctlfEx TRAFFIC E:XPERTS l: SE141st Pt . .SE142ndS1 ·. J,SE l~'>dPI.; t . "· ~ Future with Project ;:!: ,.._ .... I C 4 CD C I r' 2 i::: "' N Arn,ss/ 1 !:6th ave S A=ss/ 156thAw 1aothA'l8/ SE142 Pl Figure 4 000206 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000207 ... i _... .... Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, lnc. Phone (2$3) &Zft.6009 FAX: (2S3) 922.1211 E-Mall; TOll!\@TC2inc.com WBE<DBE llt«NOttc.11: 156111AtfC SE&SE l<llACf Pl DDolCount Tues 12117/JOU loGlllon: Ram. W.ubinpm. ChacbdBr. ,_ r-l't'ft ""rth on tsBJ Froin-1111 cm ,,~ ... J fforn-ton(WB) lffmW•tn-J ...... """"' U6chA1.1:SE IS61hAli:SE • SEHladf'I Tnl Eodint~ T L s R T L s • T L s • T L s • -1:ur 2 0 " '" 0 " II 0 0 • • • 0 70 0 " ?SJ "4:30 p • 0 " "' I 14 12 D • 0 • • 0 70 • " 308 <4:.:151' ' • " "' • " " D • • • • • " • " "' '""' • • " "' 2 " " 0 • ' • 0 • 70 • " "' .s;1sr I D " '" I " 17 0 0 D 0 D • " 0 " ,06 $;JO r I • 20 '" D " IO 0 0 0 • 0 0 " • " '" S:,!SP 0 • 29 '" • " 19 0 0 • 0 0 ' " ' " "' 6:GOr • ' " 144 2 " 14 ' D • 0 0 I " • 17 ,., td5P 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • &,Of • 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 ' • • • • • • 6:-4H 0 0 • 0 • • 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 • • 7:00 p • 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 ' 0 • • • • • 0 Tool •=~ 12 • U7 rm • ,,. ll7 • • • • • I "' • 202 :?49-7 r~uour: -4:TS Pt.1 .. 5:ISPM T°"' 9 I o I 6" '" .i I ,2 I " I ' o I ' I ' • ,1,.,1, JOO "" A-ch "' '" • "' ""' %!IV ,,. ,.. ... ... '"' Pflf 0.93 I 1561h Ave SE :n !J • G:J ~-~:'._~ 0 ,Bil;t SE 142ad Pl 65' I .. r-,-J .... G""'CD B~~ l1u6c:, ~ 4:15 PM .. S;l5 rM r;;;- ""' N -· s E w ""'CL] " " I f 1nof 1.o Pllf Peak ll'Jllf Votwn:, "'" ... . i ' Oib:L_9 __ J PIIF ,.11v ''"' ·-• •• •• ""' --1 i 0 Cii:J Gi:J °""' WO •• ·- ""' ' ln: 12117 .. .:!.b~ --' "'" . ··-··-·· . • I J2J I Out: 12!7 •• 1.r.-. .. ,.. NOPE.OS 0 J!i6th Ave-SE T Jnt. .., J.0% "'" -' • Blqtoi. Fn,m: It I • I • l w Isa 0ueuea I ''"' .=,-]"" I i • ..... ·-· -' I 0 >4 "'~ i" • "'" .• ' \ 0 "' "' .. --' ' I 0 ... ., ' 0 ,,. ''"' I j I 0 ''"' -· i" 0 -··-·· "' WTQ --,-I I • "'" ---. I • 8-10 "' " "' • "'" -~-~~l~f_<; ' .. 0 S.10 5--ialNo!a "'" ' ' ' 0 .. ,. RoUit!J q&lrK -SB • at moat !hen: "'" ·-"·-I ' 0 ----! >4 hlCS-iwhielioa~~ ''"' --j 0 ls-t 1ipifics nillCI qu.:11eu far• I could .cc. ''"' --: j .. 0 ""' 0 """ --·-·· -. OI Of ,, oo • 0 0 • TRA13184M 011'l 000208 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE ..> ,. Lane Configurations ¥ Sign Control Stop Volume (vph) 309 100 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 332 108 Volume Total (vph) 440 167 Volume Left (vph) 332 99 Volume Right (vph) 108 0 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.6 Dagree UHlization, x 0.75 0.30 Capacity (veh/h) 572 526 Conlrol Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 Approach Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 Approach LOS D B Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection capacity Utilization Analysis Pertod (min) Basenne "' 92 0.93 99 1n 0 704 -0.51 5.2 1.12 679 94.8 94.8 F 62.9 F 85.7% 15 t ~ .,I 4 f. Slop Stop 63 68 655 0.93 0.93 0.93 68 73 704 ICU Level of Service E 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 • Repon Page 1 000209 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE ..> '). Lane Configurations V Sign Control Stop Volume (vph) 328 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 353 114 Volume Total {vph) 467 177 Volume Left (vph) 353 105 Volume Right (vph) 114 0 Hadj (s) . 0.03 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 62 6.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.80 0.33 Capacity (veh/h) 571 518 Control Delay (s) 29.8 12.9 Approach Delay (s) 29.8 12.9 Approach LOS D B Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline ~ 98 0.93 105 825 0 747 -0.51 53 1.22 665 133.2 1332 F 85.8 F 90.3% 15 t ! ~ 4 ft Stop Slop 67 72 695 0.93 0.93 0.93 72 77 747 ICU Level of Service E 12/2612013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000210 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE .,,. ~ Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 114 Volume Total (vph) 471 180 Volume Left (vph) 357 105 Volume Right (vph) 114 0 Hadi{s) 0.03 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.7 Degree UfiHzation, x 0.81 0.33 Capacity (veh/h) 571 516 Control Delay (s) 30.7 13.0 Approach Delay (s) 30.7 13.0 Approach LOS D B Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity UHlizaHon Analysis Period (min) Baseline ' 98 0.93 105 828 0 749 -0.51 5.4 1.23 662 137.1 137.1 F 88.1 F 90.8% 15 t + 4' 4' f. Stop S1op 69 73 697 0.93 0.93 0.93 74 78 749 ICU Level of Service E 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 000211 Future With Project 5: North Site Access. & 156th Ave SE ~ ' t Lana Configurations ft Volume (veh/h) 4 1n Sign Control Free Grade 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 190 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Spe9d (IVs) Percent Bloclcage Right turn flare (veh) Meaian type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblock9d vC, conflicting volume 1039 192 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1039 192 1C, single (SJ 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 99 cM capacity (vehAl) 256 855 Volume Total 6 194 840 Volume Left 2 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to Capacity O.o1 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Conrrol 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 lntlllSection Capacity U1llization 56.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline I' \. i 4' 7 n4 Free 0% 0.93 0.93 0.93 3 8 832 None 194 194 4.1 2.2 99 1392 ICU Leval of Service B 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000212 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE 'f ' t Lane Configurations V Tt Vol.ume (vehlh) 1 4 176 Sign Control Stop Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 4 189 Pedestrians Lane Width (tt) Walking Speed (fVs) Parten! Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, confiict"lng volume 1033 191 VC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol VCu, unblocked vol 1033 191 IC, single (s} 6.4 62 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 99 cM capacity {veMl) 258 856 Volume Total 5 192 834 Volume Lelt 1 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 585 1700 t393 Volume to Capacity O.o1 0.1 t 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% Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline ~ '-. ! 4' 3 7 769 Free 0% 0.93 0.93 0.93 3 8 827 None 192 192 4.f 2.2 99 1393 ICU Level of Service 8 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 -Rllpott Page3 000213 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 000214 EXHIBITC 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 pro bl ems. 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 3/1212008 H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\TIA GUllJEL!NES\GUIDELlNES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 000215 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner.;: Applicant/Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 31, 2014 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Jill Ding, Senior Planner Sally Lou Nipert, 14004156th A.venue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA98040 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 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. 1,700SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A 329,129 SF Total Building Area GSF: N/A Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project location Map ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000216 City of Renton Department of Community & <r;Dt1omic DtM!lopment THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 I PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND Fnvironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 2 of 11 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 concu'rrently 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 BJ. 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 vla a new ulooped" public street (Roads A and BJ with two access points off of 156111 Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 1561h 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 Ci 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 ONS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000217 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development THE ENOAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE F.nvironmental Review Committee Report LUAJ.4-D0024l, ECF, PP Report of Error! Reference source not found. Page 3 ofll B. Mitigation Measures c. 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, dat.ed December 27, ~013. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Neighborhood Detail Map Preliminary Plat Plan Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Drainage Control Pian Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February 5, 2014) Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Comment letter from Roger Paulsen {dated March 22, 2014) Construction Mitigation Description 0. 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 14-000141.docx 000218 Gty of Renron Department of Community & o.onomlc Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000Z4l, ECF, PP Page4of ll 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 constructio·n 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. z. 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 000219 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Developme~ THE ENCIAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Environmental Review Committee Report LUAJll-000241, ECF, PP PageS ofll Impacts: The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. (dated February 19, 2014) (Exhibit 9). According to the TIR (Exhibit 9) the upstream areas to the north and east of the project site are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible. The existing runoff from the project site sheet flows across the property towards the southwest comer of the site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the site on the east side of 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 comer 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 oftest pits. overall, it is anticipated there would be no impacts to stormwater as a result of the proposed project, provided the project cqmplies 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-«XJZ41.docx 000220 City of Renton Deportment of Community & r<onomh: Development THE £NCI.AVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000241, Er:F, PP Page 6of 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 Oearing 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 t.rees 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 constrnction 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 156"' 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 000221 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report LUAl44JOOZ4:Z. ECr, PP 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 142"d Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 1S61h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10) that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12) citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 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 C"rty 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 14-1)()()141.docx 000222 Qty of Renton Department of Community & t,onamic Development 11/E ENCIAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 t:.nVironmenta/ Re\4ew Committee Report LUA.14-000241, ECF, PP Pace 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. ccimments 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 -7u. 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 C"Jty 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 sin le family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dweilin s u to ERC Report J4.(}(J(J241.docx 000223 City of Renton Deportment of Community & i ,mic Development THE ENQAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 · ·'OOmentof Review Committee Repott LUA14-00024l, ECF, PP Page9of 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-psl 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 1561h 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 000224 City of Renton Department of Community & ' ,omic Development 11/E ENQA VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 'ironmentol Review Committee Report WAI4-000241, ECF, PP 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: 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 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 1561h 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 000225 City of Renton Department of Community & l >mic Development THE ENCIAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 ·=mental Review Committee Report LUA14-00024:I, ECF, PP Pagellof 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 wlll require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockerles 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 000226 ------.. -EXHIBIT 1 1HE ENO J 1111Rifri /". ,._/-" -, . . I \ ._• '--_ .. _. '>;J. / L__ I-,__ '-~ . '- ~i --c---I= " ~ ~. -· r ;;11 ,__ n~r -,;~IQ -,,_ Th ri nl --- I I I ,11 ) ~ ,-,--- =,!~;j--.,_ I • ,___ ·--1-&-,___ ...... ,,_ 1--1--~I 1--JI 1-----, ~ .. ~~ ,-,__ ,__ ~ 11 -r 1 ,__ ' '-.__ ,__ -- -,__ ,... -~ ,- t--,__ ,_ ~,__ -~ vy~ -I:: --I= --- ~I J w • >--' -LJ ,..___ I ff-=-.-~ I- I-rr I- --r /'\,... -!----. /~ -!--,- ~~ !-t:: ---t--' ~ --I= t::: t---l -I ,_ -"-· I I I I I I / I !I i I II! j!i ;; •~! " I ··1 r ' I • I 11}@ I I 7 ________ .. __ _ I • I I I lb} • I -~ t I! 2::i I~~ J lHE ENCLA 1/E i !I L~!I I ! 't ··· tr .~.IIQ L . iii~ ~f ~ ,~ ij ij 11 ,. j -i°to()o ... u ••. Ill!!!! llf Ii •n 111!!11 ·, ,, ,11 · 1111 ,. 1; ! jll 11 jllll!II 1,111, ;1111 II i i I I . I· I : I I I jl I .• EXHIBIT 2 ' I Iii . j I '-·-· .,· EXHIBIT 3 THE ENCLA',E I • ! j l " JI I I iii l I L ' ! Ii I t'i : I l' I ·I Pl I I 1 '• , • • • . 9 --·--EXHIB1T4 lliE ENCU 0002 O -·-------- I • I /'::. f : 1HE ENClA\'E j ' l \ ', r..' t I -, \ ' ' I • I \ : : • : I : ' i ~ . ' i I : ' 0 IQ~)l! 1 --~ 0 10~© "~ II I I I ~ i i • II I I EXHIBIT 5 110111111 =·ii,• .I U 11 "" ~·' i' I .. ... ....... I I • I ! • 1 Greenforestlncorporateu Consulting Arborist 2/18/2014 Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisltion & Development PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 EXHIBIT 6 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Of RENTON PLAN!,m~G 0/V/SION RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUTIING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from DR Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week-and inspected the trees indicated onthe 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 Js 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 chlorotfc 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 Luelle Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 000232 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I ' ' I PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 #-' Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 Earth Solutions NW, LLC EXHIBIT7 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Of RENTON PLANNiNG DIVISION 1805 -136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 . Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 000233 February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercedsland, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton SWC Job#13-187 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sewal 27641 Covi Calr'glcn.11,><""-"f2 EXHIBIT 8 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF l<ENTON PLANNING DIVISION 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 ofl56th Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity Map 000234 EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156"' Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Dwner!Appficanl PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 35th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by lfikill D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 ?1h Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 C2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF PENTON PLANNING OiVJSION 000235 ./ 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 11:ctffEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St, #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIV,SJQ • N 000236 -·-.... March 21, 2014 JHI Ding. Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 David MichalSlcl 652Sse5"' pl Renton,Wa 980S9 EXHIBIT 11 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SES th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern Is reg.irdlng the traffic go_ing North and South on 156th Ave Se. Since th~ bul"'i.1.18 of the bridge aaoss Cedar _~~"t!!!!:..~~---~ ~- traffic on i.56"' ave se is unbearable. Coming.out of any of the side streets off 156"' awtse-is sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehldes do a quick stop and accelerate ·up the. hill leaving no tlme between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when la,ge trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down , there is a huge backlog of vehides and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development In the future on the West side of 1_56 .... I feel that an·immediate traffic study be Implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more aa:idents than I see. Has anyone thought'about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway fur folks to get unto Cemetary Rdad? Sincerely, -· 'L_ :I:>~rn,ch»~~ David Michalski Emal!: dcmichal@msn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 000237 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via ElecJronic Mail to Avoid Delay@Jding@rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, EXHIBIT 12 Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-00024 I, 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. lraffic 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 5111 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 5111 Place in light of.the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service . associated with A.M. Peale period trips northbound on 156111 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 info1m 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 !56111 and 14:znd 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 156111 north of this intersection. . Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress tum from SE 5111 Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139"' 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 1561h 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, malcing access to I 561h even more difficult 000238 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 si!?Ilificant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5lh 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.i 7. I am also v~ concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 1142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 1561h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the l 561h/ 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any fmal 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 15~/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal orround-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 Sew~r 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 5Ystems of that era. Further, the topo_graphy 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 5lh 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 accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer Hoes being iastal]c;d as part nftbis project.· -While City Engineers are best to identify bow to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000239 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. {See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot ofthis 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 pursuantto WAC 232-12-0ll. 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 24111 deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public bearing. 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 !!Q comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but 2!l!y 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°", 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°" to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the pi:ocedural 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. 000240 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact roe at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent ElectronicaBy Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF ofNotice of Application 000241 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DITTRMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Muter Appfkatlol\ has been nted and KCl!pted ·with the Department of Community & Economic OeYetopment (CEOJ-Plannlng-Division of the City of Renton. The foftowinc brfe.fly describes the appRcation and the n~ry Publlc Appto,l"ls. DATE OF NOTICE OF AFPUCATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: March 10, 2014 LlJA14-000241. ECF, PP The Enclave at ~ Ridge PROJEO DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivfslon of a 8.8 acre project sfte looted within the R-4 (Ruldentlal 4 dwelling units per aaeJ zoning designation. The proposal would ruult tn the creitidon of 31 lots ilnd 2 mets (Tl'Ktl A c1nd 8) and·a new publlc strut The-proposed lots wauld 111nge in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,.566. squ;are fut. Access to the new lats would ~ provided vfa a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A tot Une adjustment (LU.6J.4-CIOD2SO) is proposed between tax parcels t.423059057 and 1423059U2 which wiU result In 30,175 square reet of putel 1423059057 beins removtd from the propa.sed subdMslon. No crttlcat areas are present on tht project site. P/IOJECT LOCATION: 14038 15&~ Ave SE OP"llotW. DEf£l1M1NATION OF NON-sJGNIFICANCE, MmGATED (DNS-M): A5 the 1.ead Agency, the Oty of Renton has cftltermJned tha:t slgntf'icant enviranmentlll Impacts a.re unlUcelV to result rrom tht proposed project. Therefore. ilS permitted under the RCW 43.2lc.Il0, the Oty of Renton bi using thl! Optional ONS-M p,vceu to live noUce tmlt I DNS- M ls Gtely to be issued. Comment periods for the projechnd the proposed DNS-M are lntq:n1ted into a single mmment period. There wlH be nQ r.omment period following the iuuince of the Threshold Determination of Non.-Significanct- Mitlpted (ONS-M). A 14-day appea I period wiU foUow the Issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPUCATION DATE: Febr11aiy 27, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: Marci, 10, 2014 APPUCANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin· La1_eis I PNW Holdlngs, llC ( 9575 ·se 36• Street sufte 10s. Mercer (sbind. WA !8040/ eMt.:: J~n8amerlC111dassichomes.com Envlro~ental (SEPA) Review, ~11,nlnary Plat Review Oilier Permits which may be required:. Requ-Studies: Connructlori, Buffdln~ Flra Drainage Report Geotechnk:al Rep~ T.ndflc Study · location whe~ ap~an may berevlewod: PUB UC HEARING; Department of ~nity & ECDnomk: Denlopment (CEOJ-Pl;umint DMsian,.Shrth AoorftefltDn Oty Hall, 1055 South GradyWa.y, Renton, WA 91057 Pt.lb!k: burln, g: tcntatM!Jv sc.hffufrcl'f Pt Aaril 22 zm1 befpm ths fllown Hnrtng Examiner in Banton Councfl Chalilberfat 10:00 AM on the 7th ftoorof ltenlun CltyHall located at10SS South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of rcc:md to reteM further lnformiHlon on this proposed project. complete this farm ind return to: Oty of Renton, CEO-Planning DiVisiDr\ 105S So. Grady Way, Renton, WA .98057, Name/File Ho.: nie EndiVE at Bridle 1Ud,:~LUA14-000l41, ECF, PP NAM~~~~~--~---~~~~~~-~--~~~~~~- MAILING ADDRm: ______________ 01'//Sllle/Zip:~. ---------- mEPHONE NO.:------------- 000242 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental D001ments that Evaluate ttie Proposed PraJet:.t: Oev~(gpment fterulatJons Us~ For Project MfUption: Prop05ed Mitigation ~easur~, Th@ subjed site is dcsignal!d Rl!Sldentiaf Law Density (COMP·RLOJ on th~ Ory of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning Map •• fnvlronmeoia:l (SEPAJ Checklist The project will be 5Ubject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC. 4~2·110 RuJdential Development and other applicabl~ cndes and regulatlcms as appropriate. The following Mitlg.itio·n Measures wifl likely be imposed on the proposed project. These rec:immended Mitigation Measures address project Impacts not covered by existing todes and regulnions as; cited ab~~ • Project corutruct:irm 5holl b~ required to comply with the submitted geatechr,icc/ ~port. 111 Project construction shall be req1Jlred ta comply wlrh the .submitted traffic study~ Comments on the above application .must be submitted in writini to JUI Ding, Senior Planner, CED-Planning DMston, 1055 South Grady Way, Rento~ WA 98057, by 5:00 PM o" March 24, 1014. Thfs matt.er ls also tent.ltivefy scheduled for a pubfic he:aring on Aprif 22. 2014, at 10:00 AM, Counelt Chambers. Se¥errth Floor, Renton City Hall,. lOSS South Grady Wav, Renton. lf you are fntef'l!sted in attending the hearing, pleilse contact th!! Planning Division to ensure th&t the hearing has not been rescheduled' it (425) 430·6578. It' comments c.nnot be submitted in writing by the drne indicated above, you may ,t:111 appear at the htaring and present your cornmcntt on the proposal before the Hearins Examlner. 1f you hive questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record Md f!Leive addition.ti information by miil, please contact the projecl maiiager. Anyone who submits writteri comments will automatk:ally became a part\' cl record and will be notified of .any decision on this project CONTACT PERSON: Jill Eml: jdtng@rentonwa.gov Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ff you would nu to be made a partv cf reconf to receive furthet lnfomiation on this proposed pt<1je~ comple.re this form and return to: C'it,; of f\entan, CEO -Plannins Division, 10SS So. Gr,1dy Way, Renton. WA 98057. Name/File No.: The Enclave at 8ridle Ridge/lUA.14-000241, EC:F, PP NAME:---------------------------- MAILINGADORESS: ______________ City/State/Zip:, _________ _ Tf.LEPHONE NO.:.-------------- 000243 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) -Pl~nfng Division of the Oty of Renton. The followln1 briefly describes the appJlastiian and tM necessary Public Approv1~. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LANO USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: March 10~ 2014 t'UA14-0l0241, ECF, PP The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdiv[sion of a 8.8 ,acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) toning designation. The proposal would ruutt In tile creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts {Tracts A and 9) and a new public street. The proposed Jots would range in size from 8.,050 square feet ta 12,566 square feet. ActeS$ to the new lots would be pro\fided \ria I new public stn!-et off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot llne adJunment (LUA14-0002SO} is propose-d between tax parcels 1423059057 and 14l30S9l22 which will result in 301175 square feet of parcel 14230S9057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are pre.sent on the projei:t lite. PROJECT LOCATION: 140381561h Ave SE OPTIONAL DE"TERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MmGATEO (DNS·M): As the Lead Asency, 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 cf Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give l'IOtlce that a ONS- M ls ll~ly to be Issued. Comment periods for the projei:t and the proposed DNS-M are Integrated into a single comment pi!rlocl. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Signiflcance- Mitlgated {DNS-M). A 14-clay appeal period will foUow the Issuance or the ONS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 27, 2014 Marth 10. 2014 APPLICANT/ PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lqers / PNW Hoklfngs, LLC/ 9675 SE 36 111 Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 / EML: Ju$.tln(!)amerlcanclasslchomes.com P1'rmfts/Revlew Re:que5ted: Other Permits which may be required: Requested studies; Location where application lllilY be reviewed: PUSUC HEARING: Environmental (SEPAJ Review, Preliminary Plat Review Construction, 8ulldlns,. Fire Dralnace Report, Geotechnlcal Report, Traffic Study Department of Community & Economic Developmem (CEOJ -Planning DMston, Sbd:h Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Pubfic beadog 1$. tentative)V scheduled fpr APrfl µ, ZQ14 before the Renton He,ring Examiner in Renton Caunclt chambeo at 10:00 AM on the 7th tJoorof Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. lf you would like to be made a party of record to receive further infonnatlon on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: Clly of R@nton, CED -Plannin1 Olvi!ion, 10S5 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 980S7. Name/FIie No.: The Endave at Bridle Rldge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME:--------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ City/State/Zip: __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ------------- 000244 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: ZDning/Land U:se: Environmental Documents that Evaluo1te the Proposed PraJect: Development Reculatlons Used for Project Mitigation: Proposed MltJptTon Measures: The subject sl1e ls designated ResidentJ.af Low Density (COMP.RLD) on the Cfty of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and R4 on the City's Zoning M.tp .. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project Will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2~110 Resldentlal Development and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The fullowlng Mitlgatfon Measures will likely be imposed on the propasecl project. Toese recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regufationsas cited abo~. • Projert. constroctfon shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnlcol report. • Project construction shall be rerjulred.to comply w;th the submitted traffic study. Comments an the above a pp II cation must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, CEO -Plannln, Dlvlsion, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, b11 5:00 PM on March 24, ZD14. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Council Chamben;, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hatt 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you iilre Interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planntng Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425} 430·6S'78. If comments cannot be submitted fn 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 thfs 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 Eml: jding@rentonwa.gov Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; ff you would like to be made a party of record to recelve further Information on thls proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of flenton, CEO-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. N,me/Flle No.: The Enclave at Bridle RicJae/LUAl4--00024l, ECF, PP NAME:------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ Citv/State/Zip: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: -------------- 000245 ~Y CITY OF RENTON o"~~ City Oerk Division • ~ + 1055 South Grady Way ~i 0~ Renton, WA 98057 · N'l' 425-430-6510 Receipt N~ 210 9 D Cash IJ Copy Fee 'tfr-heck No.9 YY?z ~ppeal Fee D Notary Service D ______ _ Description: \\~~ ct-S5f~ -llf 0003-:f/ • Funds Received From: Name Lx~ ~ N"-~ S.&O . ' 000246 Applkilnt PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 {206) 588·1147 justin@pnwholdings.com Sally Nipert 14004156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Party of Reeotd Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (206] 909-8505 Piln:r of Rll!card Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines ln Mazama, WA 98333 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA 14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD ·-Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38th Pl, 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 , .. ny cl Record M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (425] 226-6594 P~ofAeaml Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-1589 Pilrty of Record Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-3408 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 P,1rty of Recocd DAVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE 5TH Pl RENTON, WA 98059 (425] 271-7837 P~ofRea,rd Gwendolyn High PO Bo:-: 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands _neighbo rs@hotmaiI.com 000247 P:'lge1of1 / I I i I f 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: LUA~000241, ECF, PP Cross-References: PRE13-001566 AKA's: 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Project Manager: Jill Ding Acceptance Date: March 10, 2014 Applicant: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC Owner: G. Richard Ouimet, Sally Lou Nipert Contact: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PID Number: 1423059023, 1423059122, 1423059057 ERC Det~;1:;if;n:OP{' Oo DNS-~rlo ,ti Date: j' (' J'Y\X r 'Nn '/,., Aooeal Period Ends: March 31, 2014 April 18, 2014 Adminislrative D-ecision: Date: Aooeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: April 22, 2014 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Anneal 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 155th Ave SE Comments: ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; OS -Determination of Significance. 000248 Denis Law c-.-City of --....,;-~M:a:yo:r _____ ........... r ~ 0 -,.,--:f't_ ~ --~, . May 22, 2014 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 ·~Js O )J]J)Jll -Community & Economic Development Department C.E. 'Chip"Vincen~ Administrator SUBJ_ECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear_Ms. Stachowiak: Thank you for your comment letter: Your letter has been included in the official file for consideration by the decision maker. You have been added as a party of record for this project. A hearing has been scheduled for June 24th at 8:00 am, you may wish to attend -and tesitfy. The hearing will be held on the. 7th floor cif City Hall in the ~ouncil Cha.mbers. . . .. Please contact me at (425) 430-6598 or jding@rehtonwa.gov if you h-ave any questions. . . . . Sincerely, Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way -• Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov · 000249 Denis Law , Mayor May 22, 2014 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 Comm unity & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip'Vincent, Administraior -SUBJECT: -Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, PP, ECI' . . Dear Mr. Huniu: This letter is to inform you, as a party of record for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, that the hearing for. the Enclave_ at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat has_ been rescheduled for iune · 24th at 8:00 am. The hearing will be held on the 7'h floor of City Hall in the Council Chambers. Please contact me at (4:25) 430-6598 or jdi ng@ren_tonwa.gov if you have any questions .. Sincerely, ;t::· P-j . . JH; Dirig ' _ Senior Planner Renton City Hall • 10_55 South GradyWay • Renton; Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov _ · 000250 ---De:~~::~,~aw ______ ... jl_r ..... ~ .. /11{!11~ C~t!tl-~ O~:'."'ill•t-J)J_:_· .-f".""'(-1 __ :_® May 22; 2014 · Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl . Renton, WA 98059 ·· Community.& Economic Development Department . C.E. 'Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. WillOughby: . This letter is to inform you, as a party of ;ecord for the Enclave af Bridle Ridge, that the hearing for ttie Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary. Plat has been rescheduled for June · 24th at 8:00 am. The hearing will be held on the fh floor of City Hall in the Council Chambers. Please contact me at (425) 430-6598 orjding@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, &~ Senior Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 ·• rentonwa.gov 000251 OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINAnON AND PUBUC HEAJIING ISSUANCE OF A Cl(TI;~MINATION Of NON-SIG'NIRCANCE-MmGIITm(DNs-M) /'a5Tm ro NOl1Fl' IITTUIUTt:o ,ouoNS Of M !IMROl<MU<TAL 1£'110N .,.oner-, n..-....,-"""° "'<ll«TOIUMN"' W,0-J,ta,~• U>O.TIQJf: >OOJ1tsa--g,-....,w.-~' ,__., .. u_""""" ___ .,.. ... ~--... -,.. .... 1_.,,......___,...,.. __ .. lhl_olllloa- z ....... ~·· ... t1-·-~----.... --.. --l,8511-"'"''" 1.l,.5'1..,..,.. ...... -.... ---................. _,.__ .. .,,,.. __ K.•Jao IMNJu-llW<l""-.!Vlll __ llo ____ .... lOUMtu:1_ ... _ .. ,o,.11] ____ "'~ ..... --............ -........ _ .......,.... __ ..,.,,,..,._._. ____ ...,_,...._k_ .. _ .. ~1mouon,A11.....,...-.,,.,.......... .. w--,...,,..,.lhl---"" .... kol ...................... ..-- TN! CITY Of llt:l!TON B<V!IIOffMll!TAL .!;VIE;W co-mu /[~C] ,t,1.1 D£T'!'!.MINW TIUT TNE ~P05!0 mJ0!1 OOE:i l'fOT ~YE A-SIGNIFIU,111' '-DYW[ IMPACT OH Til! !~MOO . ...-,.a1u. -......,..,;....,,rn,.1,ol""'m""b•!l ... lto-.ooar~S,Dllp.,o..,M•~.111:u, ::_,,---.'u.,,,_lrN r .. wftll, ~ b.oml~.-, 0,,, ., • ...,..._ 1051 Soutl, ~Wr,, bnlllll. IU, HCSl'. Appal,10"'-C..""'"" .... sr,......r bfat,"1•M( l+ll<l_ln __ "".,.."'""' ·--_....., ... __ 11!41 __ .,,.,.ci...-t<',0111<'1,(Ull] OD-'9Ut. • rlJIUt HEAIUNG Will IE HUO ty Tl!! NtNTIJN MWIH<i OW.-NE• AT lfCi ""6lllAII M!£Tl""i !ti THE COllflCll_ O<AM8U15 ON fflE 7111 F1.0011 OI' O"TY Holll, 1!155 50IITM ,AADV WM, Ur.m;.., WIOSHIHGTON. OH IUNI u :Wl-1 r.1 •. OIJ ""' ro CONSIOl'A 'lll! ,"'1JMlf<OJIT ,U,,T. IF Tl!E UNVIO"""U•T•L DUEM4111r.TIOfl IS~P. TIii: .o.m.o.t. Will If HlAIID A5 PMT ornn5 ,UIUC IIE.WN<l FOR FURTlf£1' INFOR,..ATION PLEASE CONTACT Tllf CITYOF ,m1TON. DEl'AATMENT OF (OMMUNITY le ECONOMIC OMLOf>M(NT AT 1•251 oo-noo. DO NOT REMOVt: THIS NOTia WtTHOLJT PROf'tR Al/TllOR/ZATlON PLEASE l""CLUDE TH( PIIOJliCT J'IUMBER WHEN CAI.UNG FDll l'll<JPIR FRE IDEHTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION I, ~fl.fl.. LlJ:.st,12.-11. , hereby certify that :3 copies of the above document .,..,e po~ed ;, 3'_ ,~p;'"""' plac~"' aea,by <he ~.:property"" . Date: s:-zz-(Lj Signed: ~a~ STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that A ~ti r c-.. Lv: cl:5:-1,--.i>l'Y\ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/th; free and voluntary act for the ublic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): lh_~ f. My appointment expires:----JA'"""-'~"'-+. ,-~ 2 -~--'-"~--';"";..sef5a,-:;i...2-Q_t_±_. __ 0_0_0-252 May 22, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE s'h Place Renton, WA 98059 ··Community & Economic Developme_ntDepartment C.E. "Chi p"Vincen( Administrator RE: -Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ L_UA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr.' Paulsen: As part of the .review of your RequestJor Reconsideration, the City conducted an)ndependent study of the 1561 h Avenue SE/St 142"d Place intersection. The study concluded that the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection warr~nts the installation of a traffic signal. The City has _ added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Tra.risport_ation 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 signifTcantly impact the existing traffic situation at-the 156'" Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place· intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committifa (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 wot,1Jd occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later_date as additional funding ._ becomes available. · lfvou have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Proj~ct Manager, at -(425) 430-6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. C:.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Members . Bonnie Walton, Ci_ty·~Jerk Justin lagers 1 Applicant Sally_ Lou Nip.er, Owner , G. Richard Ouimet, Owner Parties of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way .·Renton,Washington 98057 • ·,entonwa.gov 000253 J PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Issue: M E M O R A N o· U IVI May 5, 2014 Chris Ba·rnes; Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations . Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d .Place at 1561h Avenue Southeast Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 155th 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 iilte.rs.ection of Southeast 142"d Place a.nd 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 afso meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Pleasefind 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 beeii 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 155th Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersecfton in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h :\division, s\ tra ns por.tat\o peraoo \ro n \tom\ tom9645 a , doc 000254 Page 438 2009 Edition Standard: ,··-, The need for a traffic control signal sha]J be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the .following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-I exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or· :, . B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-l exist mi';'.: · the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. ·.·;c 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: o, If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns irr Table 4C-J may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Guidance: o, The combination of Conditions A and Bis i111e11dedforapplica1ion at locations where Co11ditio11 A is not satisfied and Condition Bis not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other altematirei rhat could cause less delay and inconve11ie11ce to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. Standard: 01 The need for a traffic control sigrral shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours ofan average day: A, The vehicles per hour given irr both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-l exist on· • the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; ana:( B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition Bin 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, "he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall rrot be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of · the 8 hours. Sect. 4C.01 Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A-Minimum Vehicular Volume Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicres per hour on major street {total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher-volume minor-slreel approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%1 80%11 ]Q%C 56%d 100%· 80%b 7oa;..c 56%d ·.·r l' ' -~tjlj: ,w.o ·i~§~. gjifi, " ~SQ/ 'Ji<!. f"O~r···· 1··"'·. '18? 2 or more 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 :~;orrb.g@ : "'i2\:if .m~~: ·660 · 4.<til. :·.-4~_: : l~~ ·i·}~9.bt _._":f§(-. ;; ,t[O ' ·}12.":· .......... 2 or more 500 400 350 2ao 200 160 140 1\2 Condition B-lnterruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving !raffle on each approach Vehides per hour on major street {total of both approaches) I Ve:hicles p6r hour on higher-volume minor-slreet approach {one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%· 80%1> 70%C 56%d 100%1 BO"kb 70%~ 56%d 'i' ' 1' ~ I~P -§H9. \~~(·.· :~gr !,§_ ""' 10 I -~f .. ·<,: . · ,AI .. 2 or more 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42 ·?iii m?~~: ~---02,QfftiO:re .~91'.l tso ,,:.~6-~·g _: ... \ij" .---~.99-!9. ' ":1cr. ·•"·-,! -~i§f/ . 2 or mare 750 600 525 420 100 ao 70 56 • Basic minimum hourly volume b Used for combination of Conditions A and 8 .itter adequate trial of other remedial measures ,. May be used when the major·slreet speed exceeds 40 mph or ln an isolated community with a. population or less than 10,000 d May be used lor combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the majot•street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolaled communily wilh a populatioo of less than 10,000 0 ' - -' . 5' ; Page 440 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 500 400 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE MINOR STREET 300 I I 1 LANE & 1 LANE HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH-200 VPH 100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) ·Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH- VPH 300 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE I I 200 )----'J'"o.c----P...._::---t--"'..._,-+~~1~LA~N~E~&~1~L~ATN~E~~-t-~~-1 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 S('cl. 4C.04 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. 000 . ---·--·---· ~-· ·-·--·-···-·-- 2oo9 Edi1ion Page 441 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 600 500 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES MINOR 400 STREET HIGHER· VOLUME 300 APPROACH -I VPH 200 100 400 500 600 700 800 900 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. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET 300 HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH -200 VPH 300 400 500 600 700 BOO 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAjQR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-s~eet approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. 00025'1' Signal Prtority 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= {D.97 In (Vm / Vs)} -0.32 Cv = Capacity constant Note: When the 85th pen::entile 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) I (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 I Cp Total Rating " AR + VR + PR Intersection A ::f(R: Vm SW 41 st ST/Oakesdale AV SW 5 1Pa 615 S 4th ST/Williams AV S 0 :::,o·::: 442 NE 44th ST/1-405 NB Ramps 3 >~: 539 SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 '.:120 783 S 7th STfTalbot RDS 0.3 <:it: 990 NE 12th ST/Union AV NE 0 ::,:o::: 449 SE 31 st SVBenson RD S 2 :':40:'. 1221 NE 4th ST/Hoquiam AVNE 2 :':40: 1899 S 55th STfTalbot RDS 3 JlO 898 N 44th ST/1-405 SB Ramps· 3 ,:eir 460 NE 12th ST/Kirkland AV NE 6 :J2ll 542 SE 142nd PU156th AV SE 0 0 976 S Eaole Ridoe DR/Benson RD S 3 ::il/J : 1148 N Landina LN/Garden AV N 0 ,:::o, 504 NE Sunset BL/Hoauaim AV NE 2 AO: 838 S Carr RD/Mill AV S 1 : :20 1887 NE 4th ST/Bremerton AV NE 2 AO 2035 SW 34th ST/Lind AV Sw 2 ::.io 1161 NE 21st ST/Duvall AV NE 1 ::20 1310 NE 12th ST/Duvall AV NE 1 :::20: 994 S 26th ST /Benson RD S 0 :':'0."-:'. 1008 NE 6th ST /Duvall AV NE 0 :'':O:: 949 NE 10th ST/Duvall AV NE 0 :·o> 458 NE 4th ST/Queen AV NE 0 :-:0:-: 1641 Vs :,:,:,x::·:: Cv :::::'.:\TR:::::::: Pm 407 ::':P-PB: : 900 :34_58:;1:0_: 0 357 :\o:n 1000 :1398)1? 12 476 -.::0:20: 900 -1429)!2 0.5 306 >:il.'59' :: 1200 : 3.~7.:6'(;: 0.5 315 ::::o.79 : 900 _43iUiL 9 220 ::::0.:37· 750 :.-354.:ci:ev 6.25 270 -:: 1;14: 1100 ,:-2~:w·:: 0.33 153 -::2J2:: 588 :<?32:74:: 0 174 ?Vi!:F: 750 : : : 113'3::BO:: 0.37 179 ,:o;eo 1000 ::: 1,3_11-.:25 :: 0.17 120 ·:;t;,i:4 : 900 \Q3;2/;;::: 5 167 ::::f,3!f:: 750 :C:1$6'.1).f:' 0 93 'i!:tt: 539 ::,:93,S/f:: 0 158 : :OJl'i:\ 750 :::isr,aY 16 69.5 : :2:10 368 · 7.5 65 . :.;.:. : ,-: 1 44.5 :-::3:~1,: 441 ,:::i;7:44:::: 1 20 ::.:,l::'16:: 441 .:::2;2·.Ji;l:.:: 4 49 :-::2.1s·: 1200 ,:,::;,:-.i,v, 0 37 :;icg .· 441 :;::31;;·.00-:: 0.5 37 <:2,!l7 :: 441 C:::2S.Q4::: 7 27 : :3,H'C 368 :{23:Jt:': 15 38 ::::tao -441 ::>i!t19:: 2 48 _::f:87, 441 ::::zff.69::: 6.38 16 -AF 441 -J4.27, 0.16 ( Wm :::l"fL 56 C:O,QOC: 43 ::2,\12:: 40 ::O,:t4:: 51 ::0:26:: 74 <:8:45:: 45 '::l:6i!:: 51 ::()::Zf_l': 62 :o-.Pa-: 36 ::p:;15:: 56 :C:Q:l!(t 38 :,:t:n:: 39 ::itoo:, 39 ':ttOo:: 41 :'424:' 37 :'0:.40:' 49 ::1;:ti1:: 56 :":!i,6>1':' 58 ::o,oo:: 53 :'OAl:l: 51 ::4,55:: 47 ::9:1:'iC: 58 ·104.1: 58 2.17, 66 0:~2: :J:iJlal: :,35/:i!! :13913 '.j~$9 :){SS: A:53: :::356. -:,:302: ::,21'!: ::':?;!.<!:: :::ma- \18:5:.: ::JM:: i:15:4 :,:J31, ·-:J1fk_ :'.:':7.!F :/f,l~::"_ ,::.sr:- ::::ss::: :':,54::: :::C-3;(:: '.;"3;1<: : :-:;ig:: :_: ~4.> DaiieJ done done done done done done 000258 TOM9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142nd Place/1561h Avenue Southeast WARRANTl WARRANT 2 WARRANT3 WARRANT4 WARRANTS WARRANT6 WARRANT7 WARRANTS WARRANT9 ~N: TOMl620W Meets warrant -volumes meet Condition B for eight hours. Meets warrant-four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-1 for seven hours. Does not meet-this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. Does not meet -the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. Does not meet -this is not a school crossing. Does not meet -there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. Does not meet -there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. Does not meet -We classify 1561h Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142nd Place as a residential street. Does not meet -This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. 000259 Sheet1 TOM / 9645W( 156th AV SE SE 142ND PL I / NB SB NB+SB WB i. EB .. EB+WB ~TOTAL HOUR i END ' 0 ! 100 7 ·:-·-13 20 28 26 1 54 74 100 '. 2QQ , 6 8 14 14 17 I 31 45 200 i 300 ; 4 2 6 8 13 21 27 300 400 12 3 15 8 13 21 36 400 500 38 3 41 12 30 42 83 500 600 89 18 107 50 168 218 325 600 700 I 1 145 82 227 128 , 630 758 985 .. ··--· --' ___ ., -··· '' ----·····-,---.... __ ,, •.... 700 8QQ I 228 137 365 259 ' 692 ' 951 1316 800 ·, ·goo , . 165 67 --232 2a2-665 · 947 1179 900 [1006 ;·136 85 221 217 442 _6~9 .: 880 10()0 ! 1100 i ' 132 92 224 208 310 518 I 742 f100 l 1200··: · 124 96 220 ,. 248. 293 541 761 1200 I 1300 1 .. · 113 I 110 223 , 265 269 534 757 1300 I 1400 r · 108 i 135 243 .... , ···-· 308 288 596 839 -----I •.• --------· .. -··--·- 1400 I 1500 , 186 147 I 333 453 316 , r 769 1102 ! ··-·------ 1500 1600 • 167 176 ' 343 I 606 454 ! ' 1060 1403 1600 1700 ·: f55 175 33·0 ., ... , 725 441 -: ff51f··-1 1496 ..... ···-·····. ····-···· --·-··· I········-················ I 1700 1 1800 · 161 192 353 723 465 : , 1188 • 1541 1800 .,,-1900 , 130 165 295 578 389 -~ g·57 1262 1906 : 2000 99 . 119 218 343 266 609 827 ::2006 : 2100 . 70 108 178 231 223 i 454 632 2100 1 2206 ·47 77 124 170 151 -·321-·· 445 2200···,-·2300·· 21 . : 45 66 ... 102 104 -206-'; 272 2300 ! 2400 13 36 49 56 64 ; 120 169 g 1 · ,, .... , .,. 2356 2091 .... 4447 ,. -6022 6;~9 ' 12751 ' - C) N 0, C) Page 1 May 22, 2014 . Community & Economic Development Departmenf C.FChip"Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section · PG Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA}THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination Memo of Reconsideration for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 19, 2014: . SEPA DETERMINATION: ·Determinati~n of ~on-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: PROJECT .NUMBER: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, ECF, pp ' ' . Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or. before 5:00 p.m. ciri 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) 430-6510: .· ·· · . ' Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Det~rmination for complete . details. If you have questions, please calf me at (425) 430-6598. For t'1e Environmental Review Committee, .---:-7 ' . · /)· !'-;k' I· ··. ~.· ' //,,CY~ ·c:7 .. v Jill Ding Assistant Planner En~losUre cc: . King Cou.nty Wastewater Treatrrient Oi\liSion 86yd Powers, Department cif Natural Re.sources . · Karen Walter, Fisherie's, Muckle.shoot Indian Tribe Meljssa Cal~ert, Muckleshciot C~ltural ResOu~ces Program ,. Gretchen Kaehler, Office of ArC_haeology & Historjc Preservation Raimin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • .Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 000261 Denis Law ,-~-City of - ----~M:a:yo:r _____ ......... ., r '.:(~ May 22, 2014 Justin lagers . PNWHoldings, LLC . 9675 36th St , _Ste. 105. Mercer' Island, WA 98040 l!\~]JJL.ID1-ti~l Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vini'ent, Administrator · . . . ' . SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION The Enclave at Bridle Rid&e, 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 ~he request for reconsideration and have ·retained the existing threshold D~termination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with·· Mit_igation Measure. Please refer to the enclose_d ERC memo,'for detail ofthe Mitigation . . -. Measure. Appe~ls 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 (jrady W<1y, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are . governed by RMC 4~8-110 and information regarding the appeal process ~ay be .obtained from the City Cle;k's Office, (425) 430:6510. · If the Enviro~mental Determination is appe~lea, a public hearing date will be· set and all parties notified. Also, .a pubHc hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Exa_miner iri the Council Chambers.on the seventh fioor of City Hall ori June 24, 2014·at 8:00am to consider the Preliminary Pfat. The applicant or representative(s) of the_ applic<Jnt 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 ofthis 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 ; Renion,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov · 000262 Justin Lag~rs PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 36th St, Ste. 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Page2of2 (','lay 22, 2014 0/ .. F I ,' . Jill Ding . Senior Planner· ·Enc!osu·re cc: Richard Oimet, Sally Nipert / Owner(s). . M.A. Huniu, D. J':,lichalski, W. Willoughby, Roger Paulsen, Jason Paulson, Eloise Stachowi_ak / Party(ies) of Record - . ERG Determination DNSM R~nsideration 14-000241 000263 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 156tti 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 301175 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 61 2014, together with the required fee wlth: 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. 000264 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMJ;NT-PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SER.VICE BY MAILING· . On the 22 day of May, 2014, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA reconsideration /determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Applicant Sally Lou Nipert Owner G. Richard Ouimet Owner See attached Parties of Record See attached Agencies (Signature of Sender): ' I . "''''""11111 , "" PO ,,, STATE OF WASHINGTON ~'v."f 11,,,~ ",, ) ss ffJ)~,IJ'I \ COUNTY OF KING ) ! ({ ~~_.. \ \ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante ~ \, "'<-11..'\ l : signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act forl'l,Jl,~e211n~~~oses -~. ll\l\\\\\\" ~ mentioned in the instrument. Ot, l/11' c'-'' Dated: 'h:1,"j 22 JOI'-/ j Notary (Print): ___ J.J/f'-""-"llvl.>\,-~P-'o"-1..,.,, '-"/,'W'-"-','-------------- My appointment expires: A cJ f---. c, -, I 1 ";j c;;.s o< ·1 I o<. 0 ·1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, PP, ECF 000265 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 LUA 14 .,QQ241 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE , .. .JGE OWNER/APPLICANT/PARTIES OF RECORD DAVID MICHALSKI Wade Willoughby 6525 SE 5TH Pl 6512 SE 5th Pl RENTON, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Roger Paulson Richard Ouimet 6617 SE 5th Pl 2923 Maltby Rd Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 SE 5th Pl Mazama, WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 000266 Dept. of Ecology'* Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region• Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO 8ox47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 35030 SE Douglas St. #210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC·TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETIER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW. Larry Fisher• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. "' 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -172 00 Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamlsh Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program• 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation• Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box48343 201 s. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-OSO Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Jack Pace Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle1 WA 98056 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City ofTukwila Kathy Johnson, Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 355 110" Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Mailstop EST llW Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98004 *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. uoepartment of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunlt@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 000267 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNlY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 20 day of May, 2014, I depo,<;ited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containingSEPA'\ i:r·· ,•,' i ' . • --··· ,_.. ·,,. :·~,.,-· reconsideration /determination documents. This information was sent to: ,.,,, ' ;: ' Justin Lagers Sally Lou Nipert G. Richard Ouimet Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Dated: Name ' ' ' -'\ ) ) ss ) Applicant Owner Owner See attached ' -I Representing Notary (Print): ____ Yi'-'-"'-o\,..,ru,.,..~-1'_...o~\C,poVu.(,,_r,,,~,__ _________ _ My appointment expires: A , ;~ , -~ v-h~ aq J ao\1 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241,PP,ECF 000268 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Renton, IA·; 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sallv Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 DAVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE 5TH Pl RENTON, WA 98059 ,~RPJ!er Paulson ;'.(;617 SE 5th Pl Renton. WA 98059 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Mazama, WA 98333 Wade Willoughbv 6512 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell. WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl Renton. WA 98059 ,: ... 000269 Denis law c· f - ---~Ma:yor~------~-r· Ity O /t May 19, 2014 .. Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 r. :'~:-'It~ r c:\'~t1 ,__. ~~,_;;~~- Community & Econo'mic DevelopmentDepartment · C.E."Chip''Vincent, Administrator · Subject: · . RESPONSE 'fO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION E~clave 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 ofthe dtcision of your Request far Reconsideration signed. by the members of the ERC including one new SEPA mitigation measure. If you have any questions, please contact the.project manager,Jill Ding, at (425) 430-6598 or via email at jding@lrentonwa.gov . . Sincerely, -P>,er;.J,mmBf/?/ ~ Gregg Zimmerman . Environmental Review Committee, Chair . Attachments cc: ·aohnie WaltOn, City.Clerk . Jus'tin Lagers"/ Applicant · Sa·uy Lou Nipert / Owner G. Richard O_ui~et/ Owner- Parties of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 96057 , rentonwa.gov . . 000270 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: FROM: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). The DN~M was publ1shed on April 4; 2014 with an appeal period that ended on Aptil-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 1561h Avenue SE/SE s'h 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 recorrunendation memo.dot.docx 000271 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 1561 h 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 1561h 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 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 ofthe final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 1561h ·~·~c --'ii.venue 51:/SE 142"d 0Street i~tersection; it d'fd n~t include a LOS ami(,;tJfs for the .... 1561h 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 1561h Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Therefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.dotdocx 000272 Environmental Review Com· c Page 3 of 4 May 19, 2014 156'h 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 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the -. . . . . --~ - existing DSN~M with on·e 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 S, 2014). 2. Due to the existing level of Service {LOS) designation of Fat the 1S6'h 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 hourtrips/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:\ccd\planning\current planning\projects\14-000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation memo.doLdocx 000273 Environmental Review Com e Page 4 of 4 May 19, 2014 Date of decision: May 19, 2014 Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Date signatures: Fire & Emergen y Services " C.E. "Chip"'vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\14·000241.jill\erc reconsideration recommendation.memo.dotdocx Date 000274 i TraTl'fff%r April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th 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: NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241h St. #590 Kirkland. WA 98(\3,\; Phom,: 425.522.4118 Fait: 425.522.431 l 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 14038156th 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 analisis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 Pl/1561h Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. ~ -~· .. ~ ·.--.: The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142"d Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/156th Ave SE and 142"d Pl. 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 intersection.s for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 000275 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 1.ssue: M E M O R A N D U M May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportatio.n Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Transportati.on Operations Proµosed Signa.1, Southeast 142..,i Place at 156"' Avenue Southeast Should we irista!I a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156"' Avenue ·southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne ofcmbayne@g.mail.com?. .. Recommendation: We should. place this intersection ninth in ?Ur µriority list of locations ta consider for a 11ew signal. _,·~-.·-·~·<· .. ,: .. , ,:-'-___ .....,..._;.-.•. -=~;. . __ ..,_. Background; We hav.e .analyzed the inters·ectian of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Sciu.theast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, lnterrupti9n of Contin.uous lraffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy oithe traffic volum~s, Table 4C-1 fr~ni the Manual of Vnifor'm Traffic Control Devices, Figur~s 4C-1 through 4C'4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic· Control Devices and .a copy of the Sign a.I Warrant Analysis. Th.is intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since. 2009, there have . . ·m .. been five recorded accidents ,;,n 156 Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hittjng a d~er. Of these, only one ·accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156m Avenue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please fin·d attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents .. h:\divisi9n.s\transpor.tat\oper.,ti9\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc 000276 i I ···-,.._ , I : _+c> ------1 -" PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: lssue: M E M O R A N D U rill May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Tram;portation Operations Proposed Signal, Southeast 142nd Place at 156"' Avenue Southeast Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 156"' 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 South<;'ast 142"d Place and 156th Avenue Sciu.theast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This pr.oposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volu.mes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 froni the Manual of Uni/or~ Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C:C4from 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 . . th . . 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 142nd Place and lSG'h Ave,nue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection iri question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h:\division.s\ tra ns por .tat\o peratl o\ron\to m\ tom9645a.d oc 000277 i ' I I DATE: TO: FROM: COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT April 18, 2014 MEMORANDUM Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager 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 grovvth 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 bv 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: 000278 Transportation Concurrency Test -Tl April 18, 2014 ;lave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat 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 111les 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 Xl-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 000279 -.Ji .... PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ·issue: May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Transportation Operations Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d .Place at 156th Avenue Southeast 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 142"a Place and 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Contra/ Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, lnterruptipn 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 Uni/arm Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C-4 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices ,md a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, t.here 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 leasttwo 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 \ro n \tom \tom9645a .doc 000280 DATE: TO: FROM: COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT April 18, 2014 MEMORANDUM Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager 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.D, which is listed for reference: 000281 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: ff 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 Xl-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 af site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 000282 . ' : .. , ', d !i. : . ; . ' . f t THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by C!i!lfEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 ·"." I • "' •• -, . 000283 Traf~ April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th 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: NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St #590 Kirkland. WA 98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analisis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 Pl/1561h Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142°d Pl. SE/SE 155th 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 Pl/156u, Ave SE and 142nd Pl. SE/SE 155th 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 000284 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH@x queues were observed to back up from the 142nd Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5'" Pl/ 1561h Ave SE WB (C 15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB(C16.1) 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"" Pl/ Overall (F 53.7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72 .5) 1561h Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE 5'" Pl./156'" Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142"'/156'" Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 2 000285 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraHm'J:r PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/1561h Ave SE and 142nd Pl. SE/SE 156u, 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 155th intersection to SE 51h Pl. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5t11 Pl. were blocked for a total cumulative lime of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5t11 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 INTERSECT/ON 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5m Pl/ 1561h 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 142na Pl/ Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) 1561h Ave SE (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 3 000286 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH@x 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 1561 h 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/1561h Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page4 000287 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traff@:£ SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA T/ONS 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 larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000288 ' ~. 11:il[!Ex ' Qi I SE 5th Pl } -. ii; ·~· TRAFFIC £XPE:RTS ... ii'. ~, .. ' )I,;"~ ~··· l , ... Proje~t ~; -stui,1i>1 , i:: 0 Site ,, l f ' )1 . ~,~~llt © at4z.idst ' . . 1,tt16 ?.I i ,·~,~,.; < 4-\ .. _, Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic Project o/o with Project of Total N m M 00 0 m g 0 N N N N 0 V 0 0 N 0 I '-.'I.. 4 0 ' I,.'-4 0 I I,,'-0 16 0 I I..'-4 (Do CD o CD o 1091 CD o 0 0 0 0 0 t /'' 1 0 , r r 1 0 I r -r Q 1147%j 0 t r" ... 1 0 " -0 00 -o NO 0 0 ~ N fe "' .... " SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave M 0 N re o ?lo N N g N @',o I ' Q 0·~6 19 I ' 6 ®' 1088 ®' t r r 0 t I"'.,-0 t rr 2 1175% I t /'. 2 "' 0 mo <D -"' -~ fe .... .... N Access/ 156th ave N N:;,ces'll 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N kcess/ 156th ave M 0 N re o ?lo N N gN I ' Q @',o @',6 15 ci)',6 @' 1084 t r"" 0 t r r 0 t r r 3 1138%1 t rr 3 "' 0 mo --0 -~ <D i::: .... S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave M <D g: M -.... N - "' <D N ,--MN N ,--620 .J I 658,© 1,© 7 659,© '© 1223 40~, 1 42~, t 0""""1 I jos1%j 42-,. "I. I :;; gi M <D 0 -M ,-- 0 -0 ------ 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Figure AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 000289 l... C!ii!!Ex • ~'···· I SE 5th Pl I c.. en . '•;,. -~·· .········,, . . TRAFFIC E'XPERrs .& •' ! (D . p . /t ·~ ~.,.· , ., roJec Sf"UttlPI .. !:' Gt Site· jJ t ' ·~ Sia 142n<ISt © ··1,~S1 . ' \ i.'l."6 ?'I . .;; i:~,, ... . . Pl. q.. . ~. -· Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic Project% with Project ofTotal M 0, 22 M "' 0, ;!: ;;; t--t--t--.... t--0 cb',3 cb'<J I < Q 1214 I ' 3 CD, 11.81%1 CD , t r ,-2 t r ,-2 t r r 0 t r ,-2 "" -0 -"" 0 "' -~ "" "' M '"' SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156th Ave SE 5th/ 156thAve "' "" "' g 0 g t--t--0 .... t--@',o @',o cb',4 27 cb',4 1209 I ,..r 0 I r r 0 I /' ,-2 12.23% ! I r'" 2 a, 0 -0 st M ,o M ~ "" g;i M N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156th ave N Access/ 156t h ave "' M ~o alo N t--g t--@',o @',o I C 4 20 I < 4 ©' 1202 ©' t , .... 0 1 r ,-0 t r r 1 f 1.66'/~ t r',-1 a, 0 -0 MM st M ~ g;i g;i S Access/ 156thAve S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Access/ 156th Ave ~ "' " ~M N N "' <O t--.... N -.... t-- 279 .J I 296 ,; I 4 ,; I 9 300.,© ., © ., © "© 1390 11f', I 118', I o""'.. , f065%f 118', I <O "' ;;; 0 0 N -N t--<O "' "" "' 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl 156th Ave/ SE142 Pl The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2 000290 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000291 • TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 7:00 AM -9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:15AM TO 8:15AM HV SB 5.6% NB 4.8% WB 0.0% INTRS. 5.0% HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor COUNTED BY: CN REDUCED BY: CN PHF 0.77 0.95 0.63 0.96 REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22/14 Peds = 0 I 284 728 w Cl) a, Lu-Tums :, C: --~ 0 <( .c -282 2 , ' <.D "' ~ SE 5th Place ~ 4 5 ' , 1 0 r U-Turnsl 8 , , ' .; 724 1 w Cl) a, 0 :, INTERSECTION C: a, ---~ U-Tums PEAK HOUR VOLUME .c 283 725 lo IN 1,014 "' ~ Peds = 0 OUT 1,014 156th Avenue SE@SE 5th Place Renton, WA DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/22/14 TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM -9:00 AM WEATHER: Rainy 0 II "' "O a, a. 000292 LOCATION: 1 Mith Avenue SE @SE 5th Place Renlo WA TNE FROM NORTH ON INTERVAL 156th Avenue SE ENDING AT ..... HV UTu"' Loft ThN Rlt1ht 05:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:4QAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 H:OOAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:3llAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00AM 0 I 0 0 0 • 0 Q7;15AM 0 5 0 0 37 0 07:30 AM 0 5 0 0 " 0 07:45AM 0 ' 0 2 61 0 08:00 AM 0 5 0 0 73 0 08:15AM I 0 3 0 0 56 0 08:30AM 0 2 0 0 " 0 OB:"5AM 0 3 0 0 57 0 09:00 A.M •• • 0 0 50 0 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 " 0 2 ,., 0 ALLMO\ll:MENTS "' %HY 5.6% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.77 PHF • Peak Hour factor REDUCED BY; FROM NORTH ON 156th A'ffnue SE TIME INTERVAL Pads I H'I luTuml LIIN I Thru • e."'ht 5:00 AM -6:00 AM o I o I o I o I o I o • TRAFFIC DATA GATHERINO INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET DATE OF COUNT: _T~u,~.~-!!li~,~·------ TIME Of COUNT: 7:00AM-9:00AM FROM SOUTH ON FROM EASTON 156th Avenua SE SE 5th PSac& .... HV UTum L,ft ThN Rl"'hl .... HV UTum Loft ThN 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 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 0 0 0 ,:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 • 0 0 162 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 •· 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 "' 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 167 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 176 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 " 0 0 m 1 0 • 0 1 • 725 ' U% 0.0% .., 0.63 RLnht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 • 7:00 AM• 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR:l~--'7",1"5°'AM=--~T"0'--'8",1"5"AM=--' ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM SCMJTif ON FROM EASTON 156th Av~1nue SE SE.5th Plac.• ~ff I HV lUTu-1 Left I Thru i -· ht ..... 1 HV I UT um I ufl: I Thru I Rklht o I o I 0 I o I o I 0 0 I o I o I o I o I o COUNTED BY: CN WEATHER: Rainy FROM WESTON INTERVAL TOTALS .... HV UTum IA1t """ Rf"hl 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I. ·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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,., 0 0 0 0 0 0 256 ti 0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 227 • 0 0 • • 0 INTERSECTION 0 101-4 ... A 5.0% #NIA D.96 DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/221:2014 FROM WESTON INTERVAL TOTALS .... , HV I UTuml L•fl -r Thru I Rlaht o I o I o I o I o I 0 • 000293 a II "' u " a. tll@ TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 7:00 AM · 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:15 AM TO 8:15 AM Peds = 0 w 280 729 Cl) " ::, LI-Tums C " > ~ 0 .r:. (0 "' 213 67 SE 142nd Place G U-Tums 0 620 G 40 w 97 109 Cl) " INTERSECTION ::, 0 C " PEAK HOUR VOLUME ~ £ IN 1,146 "' 107 206 "' ~ OUT 1,146 Peds = 0 156th Avenue SE@ SE 142nd Place Renton, WA HV SB 6.1% NB 1.9% EB 5.3% INTRS. 4.9% HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor COUNTED BY: SN DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/22/14 PHF 0.96 0.59 0.92 0.92 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 7:00 AM· 9:00 AM REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22/14 WEATHER: Rainy 000294 LOCATION: 156th AvenueSE@SE 142nd Place RentOfl WA TIME FROM NORTH ON INTERVAL 156th Avenue SE ENDING tel@ TRAFFIC DATA GATHERH«/1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET DATE OF COUNT: 0T~,~··~~~2,,Zlu1~•------ TIME Of COUNT: 7:00 AM • St:00 AM FROM SOUTH ON FROM EASTON 156th Avenue SE COUNTED BY: SN WEATHER: Rainy FROM WESTON SE 142nd Place INTERVAL TOTALS AT .... HV UTum Left -Rl..t.t Pod• HV UTurn Loft Thru Rlnht .... HV UTum loft Thru Rlaht , ... HV UTurn Loft Thru RI ht 05:15AM 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:JOAM 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 06:00 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 06:15AM 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 o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ei:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00AM 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 07:15 AM 0 5 0 0 25 " 0 . 2 0 " 23 0 0 0 0 D D D D ' 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 0 7 0 "' 0 ,, 277 07:45AM 0 2 . 0 0 ,, s, 0 1 0 20 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 144 0 10 311 08:00 AM 0 5 0 0 " 59 0 1 0 ,, 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 171 0 ' "' 08:15AM 0 ' 0 0 10 " 0 ·, 0 23 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 169 0 • 282 08:30 AM 0 1 . 0 0 10 44 0 1 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 165 0 10 259 08:45AM 0 3 . 0 0 • " 0 0 0 " 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 0 171 0 ' "' 09:00 AM 0 ' 0 0 ' 39 0 3 0 26 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 0 "' 0 6 241 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 1T 0 0 " 213 • • 0 " 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • " 0 '" 0 " INTERSECTION All MOVEMENTS , .. 206 0 660 ,, .. %HV 6.1% 1'% ...,. 5.3% 0% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.96 0.59 #NIA ,., 0.92 PHF • PHk Hour Factor 7:00 AM ~ 9:00 AM PEAK HOUR: LI __ 7~c~15~AM=---T~O~B~c~15~AM=-~ REDUCED BY: DATE OF REDUCTION: 4122/2014 ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTit ON FROM EASTON FROM WESTON 156th Avenue :SE 156th Avvnu1 SE se 142nd Place INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL P•d• I HV IUTuml L.n I Thru I Rl"ht Ptlds I HV IUTuml Lift I Thru I °"'ht Peds I KV J UT um I Left I Thru I Rlahl Ped• I HV hrruml Left I Thn.i I Rl<1ht 5:00 Na • fi:00 AM o I o I o I o I o I o o I o I o I o I o I 0 o I o I 0 I o I 0 I 0 o I o I o r o I o I 0 ' 000295 • TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM HV SB 2.1% NB 1.7% WB 0.0% INTRS. 2.0% HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor COUNTED BY: CN REDUCED BY: CN PHF 0.96 0.91 0.63 0.94 REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22/14 Peds = 0 760 361 UJ (/) (I) Lu-Tums :, C (I) > 0 <( £ 753 7 ' ' <D "' ~ SE 5th Place '--3 5 I ' 2 0 , r U-Tumsl 8 , , ' " 358 1 UJ (/) (I) 0 :, INTERSECTION C (I) U-Tums ~ .c PEAK HOUR VOLUME 755 359 1o "' ~ IN 1,124 Peds = O OUT 1,124 156th Avenue SE@ SE 5th Place Renton, WA DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/22/14 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM -6:00 PM WEATHER: Rainy 0 II <I) "O (I) a. 000296 LOCATION: 156th Avenue SE@ SE 5th Plitce Renton WA TIME FROM NORTH ON INTERVAL 1561h Aven1111 SE l;NDING AT .... HV UTum Loft """ Rlahl 02:15 PM 0 " 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:.t5 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:30PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 0 ' 0 0 '81 0 04:30 PM 0 3 0 0 198 0 04:45 PM 0 4 0 2 191 0 05:00 PM 0 1 0 5 182 0 OS:15PM 0 • 0 0 182 0 05;30PM 0 2 0 1 17J 0 os·.tSPM 0 4 0 1 192 0 06:00 PM 0 1 0 1 154 0 PEAK HOUR y--ALS 0 " 0 7 753 0 ALL MOVEMENTS 760 %HY 2.1% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.9& PHF = Peak Hour f•ctor REDUCED BY: FROM NORTli ON 156th Annu11 SE TIME INTERVAL .... 1 HV luTuml Left I Thru I Rlaht 2:00 PM. 3:00 PM o I o I o I o I o I 0 ttl@ TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET DATE OF COUNT: _T~"~'~· <12!'<!21~1~4 _____ _ TIMEOFCOUNT: 4:00PM-6:00PM FROM SOUTH ON FROM EASTON 156th Aven\N SE SE 5th Placa , ... HV UTum Loft Thru Rinht ..... HV UT11m Left Tftru 0 a 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9B ' 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8J 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 358 1 • 0 0 2 0 359 5 1.7% 0.0% 0.91 0.63 RIAhl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 , 4:00 PM -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR:.,! __ :c4,"15e.:;P:,M ___ T,:De,_,c5c"15,ccP:,M _ _, ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM SOUTH ON FROM EASTON 15'1ttl A.venu11 SE SE 5th Ph1cto Ped, I HV luTum! Lllft I Thn.J I D"'ht .... , HV luruml Lllrtl Thru I R'-ht o I o I o I o I o I 0 o I o I 0 I o I o I 0 COUNTEOBY: CN WEATHER: Rainy FROM WESTON INTERVAL TOTALS .... HV UT"m Left Thru Rit1ht 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 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 271 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 o·' 0 0 0 0 0 282 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 271 0 0 0 0 0 0 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" • 0 0 0 • 0 INTERSECTION 0 1124 . .,. 2.0% ..,. 0.94 DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/22/2014 FROM WESTON INTERVAL TOTALS p..:a.f HV IUTvml l.4ft I Thru I Rlaht o I o I o I o I o I 0 0 000297 0 II UJ cl a, ll. • TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM Peds = 0 w 750 364 (/) a, ::, C ., > <( 0 £ <D 1t) 682 68 ~ SE 142nd Place G U·Tums 0 279 G 111 w 76 85 ff) a, INTERSECTION ::, 0 C " > PEAK HOUR VOLUME <( IN 1,301 £ <D 179 161 1t) OUT 1,301 Peds = O 156th Avenue SE@ SE 142nd Place Renton, WA HY SB 2.8% NB 5.0% EB 1.0% INTRS. 2.5% HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor COUNTED BY: VT DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4122/14 PHF 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.93 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM -6:00 PM REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 4/22/14 WEATHER: Rainy 000298 LOCATION: 156thAva111H1 SE@SE 142nd Place Renton WA TIME FROM NORTli ON INTERVAL 156th Avenue SE ENDING AT .... HV UT"m Loft -'-·-.. 02:15 PM 0 • 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 b 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15PM 0 0 0 D 0 D 03:30 PM 0 0 0 • 0 0 03:45 PM • 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 D 0 0 0 04:15 PM 0 ,. 0 0 " 155 04:30 PM 0 5 0 0 27 166 04:45 PM 0 ' 4 0 0 14 "' 05:00 PM ·o :i", 0 0 10 167 05:15 PM 0 10 0 0 17 166 05:30 PM 0 3 0 0 7 171 05:45PM 0 3 0 0 14 176 08:00PM 0 0 0 0 15 "' PEAK HOUR ' -· I ' TOTALS 0 21 0 0 .. '" AU. MOVEMENTS 750 %HV 2.8% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.95 PHF • PHk Hour Faclor REDUCED BY: FROM NORTH ON 156thAvenueSE TIME INTERVAL P9Chl I HY IUTuml Left I Thru I Rt,.ht 2:00 PM -3:00 PM D I O I o I o I o I D • TRAFF7C DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET DATE OF COUNT: _JT~~~-~<12e,,211~4'------- TJME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM -6:00 PM FROM SOUTH ON FROM EASTON 1!56th Avenue SE COUNTED BY; WEATHER: FROM WESTON SE 1.(2nd Place VT Rainy INTERVAL TOTALS .... HV UTum Loff Thn, Rioht .... HV UT"m "'" '"" Rlaht , ... HV U'Turn L,n Tin '···ht 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 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 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 0 D D 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 • 0 0 • D 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 " 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 29 '" 0 • 0 19 25 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7B 0 " 348 0 0 0 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 72 0 20 327 0 • 0 24 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 24 301 0 0 0 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 73 0 34 m 0 3 0 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 • 0 73 0 19 "' 0 1 0 19 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 80 0 36 35$ 0 2 D 15 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 84 0 19 303 0 • 0 76 .. 0 ' 0 ' • ' ' • • • 279 0 111 INTERSECTION 161 0 390 1301 5.0% .... 1.0% 2.5% 0.&1 #NIA , .. 0.93 4:00 PM -6:DO PM PEAK HOUR: '~--·~:1~5~PM=--~T~0~5~:1~5~P~M~~ DATE OF REDUCTION: 4/2212014 ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM SOUTH ON FROM EASTON FROM WESTON 1S4i1'1 Avenue SE SE 142nd Pla1.11 INTERVAL TOTALS pm I HV luruml Left I Thru I Rlcht P•ds I HY I llTum I L.aft I Thru I Rlcihl Pedl: I HV IUTuml Left I Thru I Rlaht o I o I o I o I o I o o I o I 0 I o I 0 I 0 o I o I o I D I o I 0 ' 000299 AM EXISTING PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percerrt Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) !F (s) pO queue free% cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline ., V 1 Stop 0% 0.95 1 1064 1064 6.4 3.5 100 248 5 1 4 361 0.01 1 15. 1 C 15. 1 C ' 4 0.95 4 763 763 6.2 3.3 99 408 763 0 1 1700 0.45 0 0.0 0.0 t f. 724 Free 0% 0.95 762 None 299 2 0 859 0.00 0 0.1 A 0.1 0.1 48.2% 15 I' \.. + .r 2 282 Free 0% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 2 297 None 763 763 4.1 2.2 100 859 ICU Level of Service A 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000300 AM EXISTING PROJECT 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline .,> "), V Stop 620 40 0.96 0.96 646 42 688 215 646 101 42 0 0.23 0.11 5.7 6.5 1.08 0.39 625 546 83.1 13.5 83.1 13.5 F B ~ 97 0.96 101 292 0 222 ·0.38 5.9 0.48 602 14.1 14.1 B 53.7 F 74.5% 15 t ! 4' f. Stop Stop 109 67 213 0.96 0.96 0.96 114 70 222 ICU Level of Service D 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 000301 AM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow ra1e (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (vehlh) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline (" V 1 Stop 0% 0.95 1 1128 1128 6.4 3.5 100 227 5 1 4 337 0.02 1 15.8 C 15.8 C ' 4 0.95 4 809 809 6.2 3.3 99 384 809 0 1 1700 0.48 0 0.0 0.0 t f. 768 Free 0% 0.95 808 None 317 2 0 825 0.00 0 0.1 A 0.1 0.1 50.5% 15 !' \. ! +t 2 299 Free 0% 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 315 None 809 809 4.1 2.2 100 825 ICU Level of Service A 4126/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000302 AM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline .,,. ") '\ 42 103 0.96 0.96 44 107 729 228 309 685 107 0 44 0 235 0.23 0.11 -0.38 5.8 6.5 5.9 1.17 0.41 0.51 618 543 599 113.4 14.0 14.8 113.4 14.0 14.8 F B 8 71.4 F 78.5% 15 t ! 4' f. Stop Stop 116 71 226 0.96 0.96 0.96 121 74 235 ICU Level of Service D 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 000303 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE 4/26/2014 t / " • -; • ' F O ",: </ ••' -· • '~ <c :. • .• • •, • • • ,' Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hou~y flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (It) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked val tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Righ1 cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay ln1ersee1ion Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline V 1 Stop 0% 0.95 1 1145 1145 6.4 3.5 100 222 5 1 4 331 0.02 1 16.1 C 16.1 C 4 0.95 4 822 822 6.2 3.3 99 3n 822 0 1 1700 0.48 0 0.0 0.0 f. 780 Free 0% 0.95 821 None 321 2 0 816 0.00 0 0.1 A 0.1 0.1 51.1% 15 4' 2 303 Free 0% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 2 319 None 822 822 4.1 2.2 100 816 ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 -Report Page4 000304 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline ., 1138 1138 6.4 3.5 99 224 8 2 6 324 0.03 2 16.4 C 16.4 C ' 6 0.95 6 816 816 6.2 3.3 98 380 817 0 1 1700 0.48 0 0.0 0.0 t f. 775 Free 0% 0.95 816 None 320 2 0 820 0.00 0 0.1 A 0.1 0.1 50.9% 15 I" ,.,. ! 4" 2 302 Free 0% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 2 318 None 817 817 4.1 2.2 100 820 ICU Level of Service A 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000305 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations V f> 4' Volume (veh/h) 3 6 770 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 (IVs) 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 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 1133 811 812 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 99 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 226 383 824 Volume Total 9 812 320 Volume Lett 3 0 2 Volume Righi 6 1 O 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 M J~fitWR:~»41~ii41l Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level al Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page 3 000306 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline V Stop 659 42 0.96 0.96 686 44 730 229 686 107 44 0 0.23 o. t t 5.8 6.5 1.17 0.41 617 542 115.6 14.0 115.6 14.0 F B 103 0.96 107 315 0 239 -0.38 5.9 0.52 599 15.0 15.0 C 72.5 F 78.9% 15 4 fo Stop Stop 117 73 229 0.96 096 0.96 122 76 239 ICU Level of Service D 4126/2014 Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 000307 EXISTING PM PEAK 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free% cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Lelt Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline • V 2 Stop 0% 0.96 2 1206 1206 6.4 3.5 99 203 5 2 3 350 0.01 1 15.4 C 15.4 C ' 3 0.96 3 373 373 6.2 3.3 100 677 374 0 1 1700 0.22 0 0.0 0.0 t t+ 358 Free 0% 0.96 373 None 826 7 0 1185 0.01 0 0.2 A 0.2 0.2 55.2% 15 I" \. ! .r 7 753 Free 0% 0.96 0.96 0.92 1 7 818 None 374 374 4.1 2.2 99 1185 ICU Level of Service B 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000308 EXISTING PM PEAK 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline .,> • V Stop 279 111 0.95 0.95 294 117 411 169 294 80 117 0 -0.02 0.14 6.1 6.5 0.70 0.30 574 536 22.1 12.2 22.1 12.2 C B ~ 76 0.95 80 805 0 733 -0.50 5.1 1.14 695 100.4 100.4 F 66.4 F 86.6% 15 t ! 4 T> Slop Stop 85 68 662 0.95 0.95 0.93 89 72 733 ICU Level of Service E 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000309 PM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (It's) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay ¥ ft 2 3 380 Stop Free 0% 0% 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 2 3396 1 None 1279 396 1279 396 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 99 100 184 657 5 397 876 2 0 7 3 1 0 324 1700 1162 0.02 0.23 0.01 1 0 0 16.3 0.0 0.2 C A 16.3 0.0 0.2 C 4' 7 799 Free 0% 0.96 0.92 7 868 None 397 397 4.1 2.2 99 1162 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.2 57.6% 15 ICU Level of Service Baseline B 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000310 PM FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE t i . . ' 4/26/2014 -, -' . ,.. .. -,' . ,..,_ -. Lana Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Lelt (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline V Stop 296 118 0.95 0.95 312 124 436 180 312 85 124 0 -0.02 0.14 6.2 6.6 0.75 0.33 573 528 25.0 12.7 25.0 12.7 C B 4 f. Stop Stop 81 90 72 724 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 85 95 76 778 854 0 778 ·0.50 5.2 1.24 680 139.3 139.3 F 89.9 F 91.3% 15 ICU Level of Service F Synchro 7 · Report Page 1 000311 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 10: SE 5TH PL & 156TH AVE SE Lane Configura1ions Volume (veh/h) Sign Con1rol Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (tt) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (tt) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conl vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) po queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Lett Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay t V t+ 2 3 388 Stop Free 0% 0% 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 2 3 404 1 None 1303 405 1303 405 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 99 100 178 650 5 405 891 2 0 7 3 1 0 315 1700 1154 0.02 0.24 0.01 1 0 0 16.6 0.0 0.2 C A 16.6 0.0 0.2 C 4' 7 813 Free 0% 0.96 0.92 7 884 None 405 405 4.1 2.2 99 1154 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.2 58.4% 15 ICU Level of Service Baseline B 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page4 000312 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 4126/2014 .. ' t I" '-. + Lane Configurations V f. 4" Volume (veh/h) 2 4 385 3 7 808 Sign Con1rol 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 (It) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (It) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1259 403 404 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1259 403 404 IC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 189 652 1165 Volume Total 6 404 849 Volume Lett 2 0 7 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 359 1700 1165 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.24 0.01 Queue Length 95th (It) 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 W 1YIAiiif~ .. '!t~"ll\\%'.iif,:("Sft~~~W\!#M:'i#&@kMifoii.t.:W§! Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 • Report Page 2 000313 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS t V f. 1 4 384 3 Stop Free 0% 0% 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1 4 400 3 None 1253 402 1253 402 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 99 99 191 653 5 403 844 1 0 7 4 3 0 440 1700 1167 0.01 0.24 0.01 1 0 0 13.3 0.0 0.2 B A 13.3 0.0 0.2 B ,t 7 803 Free 0% 0.96 0.96 7 836 None 403 403 4.1 2.2 99 1167 57.8% 15 ICU level ol Service Baseline B 4/26/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page3 000314 PM FUTURE WITH PROJECT 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline ~ '). V Stop 300 118 0.95 0.95 316 124 440 182 316 85 124 0 -0.01 0.14 6.2 6.6 0.75 0.33 572 526 25.6 12.8 25.6 12.8 D B "' 81 0.95 85 857 0 781 -0.50 5.3 1.25 677 143.5 143.5 F 92.3 F 91.8% 15 t ! <f f,. Stop Stop 92 73 726 0.95 0.95 0.93 97 77 781 ICU Level of Service F 4/2612014 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000315 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Bonnie Walton Thursday, April 17, 2014 11 :26 AM Jill Ding; Vanessa Dolbee; Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning; Larry Warren Request for Reconsideration of Environmental Determination Req for Recon-Enclave pp.pelf 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 000316 CITY OF RENTON c,J,A- APR 16 2014 ~ ID'·'-' I April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.11 O(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) 1breshold 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 5th Place/ 156th A VE 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 000317 requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the rime 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 (fIA) 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: "ItJe 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''. By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself ,.,,;.th the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 000318 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City of Renton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the 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~ Avenue SE/ SE 14Z'd Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156"' / 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"' 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 Gust 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17'h ), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156"' at SE S"' 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 restn'ctions 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 000319 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156"' / SE 5"' PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156"' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156"', the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that were identified by the study. In their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: ''It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact (sic) the City of Rmton'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 arc 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 "cumntly assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) ... ''. This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15"') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 000320 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: s.nt: To: Cc: Sullject: Attachmtnts: Stevelee Tuesday. Aplil 15, 201411:14 AM City(lerlc Rerords Jan Illian; Jm Ding; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. Henning: Rohioi Nair RE: New Pubfic Records Request· PRR-14·085 (Paulsen) TranspoConcPolicyl40415.pdl See attached files that are related documentation on the City proa>ss for i:olleuttency, standard, and pror,•ss relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. I believe this is the information Mr. Paulsen is seeking·. · The information, as extracted from the approved CitV Comprehensi\fe Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4~&-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combin21tion of lmprovements: or strategies in place at the time of buildine permit issuance. or within a reasonable amount of time after bu•ding issuance, per 4·6-070 A.1, or a financial commitment is placed. A financial commitment cam be the traffic mltigatioo fees paid for the new development and is generally ,,.ed by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division i< the tectinical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ond. 5675, 12·3·20121. The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial rrsponse with the statement, "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemeterv Road) ma~es 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, CESQ City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 slee@rentonwa.gov 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 (SEP A) 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 000321 until April 22"", the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application ... '') As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22"d, 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 156th 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 SEP A 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, f);f~ 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 000322 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -SEPA Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B -Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C -Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D -Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E -Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 000323 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT A SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay@Jding@,entonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #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 l 42"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. I 000324 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 !561h/ 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 1561h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the I 56th/ 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 l 561h/ 142"d intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 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 I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 000325 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 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 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. 3 000326 EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 000327 IEXHIBITB I 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 C!itlfEx TRAFFIC £XPE'RTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 000328 Traflm December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdin~s, 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: NORTHWEST 'TRAF'F7C ExF'ERTS 11410 NE 1241h SI. #590 Ki1m1. WA.98034 Phone; 425.522.4118 fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 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 to1561h 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 000329 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBunON The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering 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 20 11 31 63% 37% 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 characlerlstics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDmONS Street Facilities The streets In the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156t11 Ave. SE SE 142nd Pl. Page2 Minor Arterial Residential Access 000330 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tra~ 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 strai~ht and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142" Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156th Ave. SE/SE 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 CONDfflONS 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 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: Page3 000331 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TYPE OF A B C D E INTERSECTION < >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and Signalized 10. !:20.0 !:35.0 §5.0 !:80.0 0 Stop Sign Control !:10 >10and!:15 >15and~5 >25 and !;35 >35 and !:50 .0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDmONS 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 analysls since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS wrrH 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 142"d Pl. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Desjgn 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 Page4 F >80. 0 >50 000332 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH@% approximately 250 ft north of the 1561h Ave. SE/SE 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 155th 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 larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000333 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISnNG 2015 WITHOUT 2015WITH INTERSECnON 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) 156u, Ave SE/ EB {D 25.6) EB {D29.8) EB {D 30.7) SE 142nd Pl. NB {B 12.4) NB {B 12.9) NB (8 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 Page6 000334 ,,, , '· l:!{!f!Ex TRAFFIC FXPE'RTS .., .. ..._,rut r -"" J7I; bt: .. ma~1 "l 'SE 2nd Pl .. ·SE 136th SC st;.13tilh t.n . · f \ : . 1 j > SEt371fiSt . g.' l> ! <• . fD': •'tn: m. -' . . . _gi , ,, -:.!l a ···> , < .. " "' )! . . -<:se 3rd pJ / . S_E 142nd St" l \ SE:lr~ Pl,,, :;*·, ,r .. - S£1441hPI. SE 139thPI Project Site .. SE 143rd St ·· The Enclave at Bridle Ridge· City of Renton Vicinity Map SE 14lstPl ,· .SEl42ngSl -SE 144th st "' m ;;, g.SE1:«,_. .. g. ' . "?cf Pt t "' "' Figure 1 000335 11:it[fEx TRAl'"FIC EXPERTS --.-_T___________ -,------"156THC: AVESE . _-_____ ~ ---. -------~---------,---------->+ --' ' ' ' ------ The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Site Plan ' N -+ Figure 2 000336 • I 7fl. 'q'._ t C!i!!!Ex o~ I r--! ·.,, l "I TRAFFIC EXPERTS 'i i" "" ·-"' .... ! ~" SE 13.,h Pl -::r : t "' (i) .., il. > "l:l ProJ ect • "~ "' ~· . . Site "' ... (D SE14JstP! • !I; ?fl. "'. t ~ .. g i "' r<l SE142nd St ~,. @ SE141ndSt,/ 'l! ..... ii', E SET~ ........ ~.6. ;;; s, Pl ~ / "' ~ " .· r,, *~:rt SE 143rd SI i~ "' 0 ""' .., ..-"' "' ; I . ---C"C' ~ 4,JlaL, ..... - ,_ ,_ d)',4 I fr 2 ..,. M N Aa:essf 1$1h ave N ,-. cb',4 t , ,...1 MM S Ao:BSs/ 156th Ave N - 4 , ' PM Peak H01Jr Traffic Volume J© Legend 0 9\ ii I Enler 20 0 N 15% Percentage of Project Traffic Exit 11 156thAvel SE142 Pl Total 31 ...-3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume The Enclave at Bridle Ridge. City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution 3 000337 *"':t t,t;it[fEx 0,-: 1'-p co : TRAFFIC £XPE:RTB ' I i -· _, ~ "' "' ' S£1391h.PI .;; s;· N Cl) : ·• ls. 1 "' ' "'Project . ' "' Site "' ~ (]) SEHlstPf. i ~ '#. '" : :t .. g L '° ' .. "' SE142od St . ~\· {D S£ 142nd SI ' ...... 'l. ' . -" . ''. . ' .. ,i: t>\ -:11JSE1~ .. ' ' ll,'IJ\ . -. Pl <Jr-' b. ..... "' :::s;_-. . '' *r~ SEH3rdSt ·· ?l ' ,. .. , ' ' o·_ ~ "' '·,:: ! ~' gr,, m ,, ' ' -·-~·. ' r~, .. A•L.,r,e Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project M r-... N /e 0 i::: ,-. r-0 r-r- I < Q . ' d)'L4 . ' 4 CD L CD LO CD L I ,, .. Q ' I r ,-2 t ,r 2 , r 0 ~o ~a ..,. M ,-. "' r---- N A=ss/ 1ffith ave N Access/ 1561h ave N Aa,,ss/ 1561h ave N A=sSI 156111 ave ~ .... a, "' :e .... r-0 .... 0 N r-. • ' 0 cb'Lo cb'L4 I ' 4 ®L ®L t ,.r 0 t r,.. 0 t r r 1 I r r 1 ;o ~ 0 MM <C M -t:: S A<X:8Ss/ 1561h Ave S Access/ 1561h Ave S Access/ 156th Ave S Ar=ss/ 156th Ave "' "' .... l8 18 Cl> N "' -lll ~ <C ... 309 , 1 328J® 4 , • 332J..J I J® J® 106"'~ 100~, 1 106~ a I o ....... t NM (0 ... ON ~ ffi 0, <C m <O 156th Ave/ SE 142 Pl 156thAve/ SE142 Pl 156thAve/ <>c142 Pl 1561hAve/ SE1421 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 000338 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000339 - ! -, Traffex !'rt'J'llf'W £v: Traffic Count Con sultan ts, Inc. Phi:nt (253) 926.600& l'"AX; {~S3} 922-7211 E-Mel!: T«m@TC2loo.com WBE<'DBE tltsHCtlan: IS6thA,'t SE& SE 142cd rt D•oteoum: T-12117,'2013 IL.ac•lon: Remian, Wubinpon ""'"""By' -,-_ Frc Nottll on (GB) rrom aou.m an (NB) ffomEatan(WB) f,om W•t on (EB) ~,.v .. ...... Ufidl AvtSE l$6tbA,-cSE • SE 14ledf'I T ... I ·--.. T ,_ s • T L s • T L • • T L s • '4:15P ' • ,. 126 D " II 0 0 ' 0 D • 70 0 " 2U 4.:JOP ' 0 ll "' I " 12 0 • 0 0 0 • 70 0 17 "' •:45 r l 0 " "' 0 " 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 " ).(~ 5:00 p 0 0 II 119 ' " 19 D 0 0 ' 0 0 70 0 ,. J2H 5:15 I' I 0 " ... I " 17 0 ' 0 D 0 0 70 0 " 306 5:30 P I ' ,0 '" 0 " IO 0 0 0 0 0 0 7' 0 " "' 5:4H 0 • " 151 ' " " 0 ' ' 0 0 0 " 0 " "' 6:00P 0 • ,, '" ' 18 14 • ' 0 0 0 I " 0 17 291 6:IH 0 0 0 0 • 0 D • 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 6:301' • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 • D • 0 • 6:4~ P • • 0 ' 0 D 0 ' • 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 7:00 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 • • • • 0 Tobi •=-12 0 157 IUI • 179 117 0 0 0 • 0 I "' 0 J0'1 H97 rcd..llour: .t:l.'iPM ,, 5:1' PM To111l ' o I 68 I 6,, '°' l 92 I " I • o I 0 • • 013091 & I 100 '"' A-··h "' "' 0 "' 12117 %HY , .... ,.,, •• ... ,.,. PHF 0.93 l 156th Ave SE . :n Gi::J 1 _~:'._~ 0 ,HiJ.:c SE 142nd Pl fiH I " r-;·-J,"' CiLI '"'!:TI B~~ l1u6[i \;; <I: 15 Pf.t w ~:l.il'M .. , r;;;-..,,,. N s E w "''~ " I I [i;J 1.0 rllf P""klloor ~ ·-" "'" I 0 Bikr:l._.9 __ J PHf ,-.uv ""' --• •• .,, ''"' ·---1 -0 ~ c:;;;=i Chttk ••• .,. ''"' • In: 12~1 , .. 2.6~ -"'" ---·· ' 0 I ll3 Out: 1117 58 1.1% ,.,,. ~OPJ:;DS • --156th Ave SE Thn 0.9j I.~ jsH2!s!a I "'" .. --0 9*1NA'ara: " I • I • I -..... I < . 0 ""' __ --, I 0 ,_, ..... 0 "'" I • "' .,, -0 "'" I ' "' "'11 ' . .! 0 "'" ---I 0 '" ••rn -r· I 0 ""'' -I 0 1-10 -"' '" • "''" ___ .NO-HIHS : 0 8-10 S-·ia1Notc11 "'" I 0 .. ,. Rollitlg qucvc ac:aOllG SS • ai fflOSI the~ "'" ···---- ' ' 0 ,_, WC!n: 5-8 .. "hiclrs ~~lly lloJ'llell. ... .. ---· ! 0 -15+ sipifics rallin; quc111: a$ Pr llli I n>uld-. ''"" --I . 0 ""11 0 ""12 .. • 0 ,, ol •• 0 0 0 • TRA13184M 01! 000340 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE .,> ~ Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) 100 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 108 Volume Total (vph) 440 167 Volume Left (vph) 332 99 Volume Right (vph) 108 0 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.75 0.30 Capacity (veh/h) 572 526 Control Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 Approach Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 Approach LOS D B Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection capacity Utilization Analysis Pertod (min) Baseline '\ 92 0.93 99 m 0 704 -0.51 5.2 1.12 679 94.8 94.8 F 62.9 F 85.7% 15 t l -ti <t lo Stop Slop 63 68 655 0.93 0.93 0.93 68 73 704 ICU Level of Service E 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 000341 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE .,> .. Lane Configurations V Sign Control Stop Volume (vph) 328 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 Hourly ffow rate (vph) 353 114 Volume Total (vph) 467 177 Volume Left (vph) 353 105 Volume Right (vph) 114 0 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.7 Degree Uttlization, x 0.80 0.33 Capacity (vehlh) 571 518 Corttrol Delay (s) 29.8 12.9 Approach Delay (s) 2s.a 12.9 Approach LOS D B Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Basef111e 4\ 98 0.93 105 825 0 747 -0.51 5.3 1.22 665 133.2 133.2 F 85.8 F 90.3% 15 t ! ./ .f f. Stop Stop 67 72 695 0.93 0.93 0.93 72 77 747 ICU Level of Service E 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000342 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE 12126/2013 Lana Configurations V ,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 . ,-' ' ,., ._ -• --:: ~ ~ >-__ ,_~, • ~ C -• • -~~--=----•-• .,; '•_ Volume Total (vph) 471 Volume Left (vph) 357 Volume Right (vph) 114 Hadj{s) 0.03 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.81 Capacity (vehih) 571 Conlrol Delay (s) 30.7 Approach Delay (s) 30.7 Approach LO$ D Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline 180 105 0 0.12 6.7 0.33 516 13.0 13.0 B 828 0 749 -0.51 5.4 1.23 662 137.1 137.1 F 88.1 F 90.8% 15 ICU Level of Service E Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 000343 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE • ' t Lane Configurations V J. Volume (vehlh) 2 4 1n Sign Control Stop Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 4 190 Pedestrlans J..ane Wldth(ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percant Blockage Right tum fiare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream s!gnal (ft) pX, plaloon unblocked vC, conlflcting volume 1039 192 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 1039 192 IC, single (s) 6.4 62 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 pO queue free% 99 99 cM c;ipacity (veMt) 256 855 Volume Total 6 194 840 Volume Left 2 0 8 Volume Right 4 3 0 cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to Capacity O.o1 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 UtiDzation 56.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Basefine I" \. ! 4' 3 7 n4 Free 0% 0.93 0.93 0.93 3 8 832 Nona 194 194 4.1 2.2 99 1392 ICU Level of Service B 12'2612013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 2 000344 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Volume (veMl) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hout1y flow ralB (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft} Walking Speed (ft's) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream sl gnal (11) pX, platoon unblocked vC, confficling volume vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2. stage 2 con! vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) IC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO qUetJe free % cM capacity (vehill} Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s} Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay lntersecfion Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Basefme ., ¥ 1 Stop 0% 0.93 1 1033 1033 6.4 3.5 100 258 5 1 4 585 0.01 1 11.2 B 11.2 B ' 4 0.93 4 191 191 62 3.3 99 856 0.0 t f, 176 Free 0% 0.93 189 None 834 8 0 1393 0.01 0 0.1 A 0.1 02 56.1% 15 ~ '. ! 4' 3 7 769 Free 0% 0.93 0.93 0.93 3 8 827 None 192 192 4.1 2.2 99 1393 ICU Level of Service 8 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 • Repon Page3 000345 EXHIBITC POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMP ACT 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 000346 EXHIBIT C Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi-phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site-generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mi ti gating 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/!212008 H:\Division.s\Oevelop.ser\Plan.rev\TIA GUIDELINES\GUIDEUNES FOR TRAFflC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 000347 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT !EXHIBIT DI --~ Cityof _ _ -==-------~-k(tp'tl' r (1.{ I ~ --~ ---':.:J -·-~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owners: Applicant/Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 31, 2014 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Jill Ding, Senior Planner Sally Lou Nipert, 14004 156'h Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA98040 14038156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 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 BJ and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-00D250) 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. 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): NI A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A 329,129 SF Total Building Area GSF: N/ A Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated {DNS-M). Project Location Map ERC Report 14-00024.1.docx 000348 City of Renton Department of Community & Eo.Dnomic Development THE ENCIAVE ATBRIDIE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 I PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND t:.uvironmental Review Committee Report LUJU4-00lll41. ECF, PP Page 2 of 11 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 concu'rrently 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 8.8ci 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 comer of the project site for stonnwater 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, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials, which identified 303 existing significant trees. Of the 303 existing significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees. There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained; however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention. Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. I PART lWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In. compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report 14.(}()(}241.docx 000349 City of Renton Department of Cammunity & Economic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Environmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000Z4J., ECF, PP Report of Error! Reference source not found. Page3 ofll B. Mitigation Measures C. 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, ~013. 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. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Neighborhood Detail Map Preliminary Plat Plan Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Drainage Control Plan Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated February 18, 2014) GeotechnicaJ Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated February 5, 2014) Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. (dated February 3, 2014} Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers {dated February 19, 2014} Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Comment letter from David Michalski {dated March 21, 2014) Comment letter from Roger Paulsen {dated March 22, 2014) 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 fol/awing 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 000350 City of Renton Department of Community & ~conomlc Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 tnllfronmenta/ Review Committee Report LUA11UXJaZ41., ECF, PP Page4of ll 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 S, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red-osier dogwood); however no Indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present. The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000351 Oty of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Tf/E ENaA VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Env,..ronmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 5 of 11 Impacts: The applicant submitted a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. (dated February 19, 2014) (Exhibit 9). According to the TIR (Exhibit 9) the upstream areas to the north and east of the project site are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible. The existing runoff from the project site sheet flows across the property towards the southwest comer of the site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the site on the east side of 156th Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SE 144"' Street. Runoff continues west across 1S4th Place SE and discharges to Stewart Creek, a Class 3 stream. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage re.view 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 156"' 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 S) 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 S) 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 1~241.docx 000352 City of Renton DepaTtment of Community & tconomic Development TIIEENOAVEATBRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 tnvironmenta/ Review Committee Report WA14-000241. ECF, PP 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 aearing 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 Oty 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 Oty 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 rnc Repon 14-000241.doac 000353 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development THE £Na.AVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report WA14--00024:I, ECF, PP 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 1561h 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 142°d Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of 94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10} anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place Intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report concludes (Exhibit 10) that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12) citing concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 1561h 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.d«x 000354 Oty of Renton Department of Community & E.onamic Develcpment TlfE ENCIAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of Marth 31, 2014 1.,1vironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-D00241. ECF, PP 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 Fife 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 derk's Office, Renton City Hall -7'h 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 nat 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 £RC Report 14-000241.docx 000355 City of Renton Department of Community & r >mic Development THE ENa.AVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 ·ronmental ReWew Committee Report WA14-00024l. ECF, PP 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-psl 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: L Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-lnch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156tll 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 156 1h 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 156tll 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: L 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 facilitv is sized to match the pre-developed rates ERC Report 14-000241.docx 000356 City af Renton Department of Community & ' •omic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 ,,;ronmental Re11iew Committee Report WAl4-o00241, ECF, PP Page lOofll 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: 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 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. ERCReport 14.()()()241.docx 000357 City of Renton Departmi,nt of Community & ' •omic Development 711E ENClA VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 ,;,anmentaf Review Committee Report LUAl4-000241, ECF, PP Page llof 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. Rockerles 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 000358 Iii I Ii s I • I J -------EXHIBIT 1 lHE ENCi ~/~:r-mf ~ I!! 1 RVtf ~ ~ II ,-,-. I I \ L_JO I --_ ... _. ~ /~, i:= § ~i --I w_~ rr -· • /~.~ ~ -i;H =r=nrn· nr ii dt; "1 ---- J -I -r-;::J,-r-j~ ; ~ -• ~ 'jr-i-~ '-t- ' ,--r:::l ,-r-,,..._ 11--'-r-II ---.)J~d r--I-~ 1n· ·r 1 V """ ~ i----r-,- l ,- -..:::== r-r----t-~ ,---...... ~ -,-t----,-1\ --~ --:J I u Biz '"i. i t-- ---r-~ ........... r- r-,-.- I= 'I ri-f i--~vi 1\ I -· . " -... t-r-,--• -... t-r-~ -... E -'= r-' ~ t= ;:: --r---... -I ~ -.. -. I I 11 1 ./ I I ;1 I m I!! I -~! ,~ Ir ' I i 10 I i !~@ I 9 I I I , ______ ......... • I • I j I l~! • I * , I II! Lil! I !m,•n ' ! ~ ~ II I! II " r~ ! ' I I A~ d -'2::i J ~~ " 3 I l• J ~ II •I ' lliE ENCLAVE -~ ·-- 11 - ~ ~f ~ -- -· ~r ~ - I- l ' ' i EXHIBIT 2 . j I , ___ _ 1 I ! 11 1 '11 1 r ! k I'. I . ;'i Ii .z • I ! ,, I 11~, ·I ! I J $ ;m ,1,1~ ff llj , 11 , I !~'!~~ ' !-1W • I EXHIBIT3 ll<E ENCLAVE " ,i 11 li ' I 'I • 11 II I, ' !I u I! i::~ ii ! ll I 11 • II ,1 I' ·! Pj ! 1! I 1 ------·--EXHIBIT4 ll1E ENW J I • I I 0003 2 ' I • • I _____ ._ ..... I ; , .. /- i I ./ I:! EXHIBIT 5 :THE ENa..A\'E I . . ! : f ~ i ~ : ' 1101• -, I "'"' 0 10,)IE ~ Ii D I ,~ 0 1b'i® I ij. ~~ ~!!P~1 a 11 I I I ~ i i • I ,,-,qi I I I ~ • ~ --;-"' -__ ._. . ) :,:-,/·, '· .-. 2/18/2014 Greenforest lncorporateu Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 EXHIBIT 6 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Of RENTON P!ANNING DIVISION 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. fTax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUITING ANO 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 armiliaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhlzomorphs, 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 Luelle Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 000364 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 (J-' Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 EXHIBIT7 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Of RENTON PIANNiNG DIVISION Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -13611, Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 . Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 000365 February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton SWC Job#13-187 1.0 INTRODUCTION EXHIBITS RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNii,G D1Vi510N 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''). Vicinity Map 000366 EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156,. Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 361h Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by il!litB) D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 20/4 CITY OF RENTON . PLANNING DIVISION 000367 ./ \ ' 'i.~."-.. ___ ' 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 l:!i!!fEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124111 St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 Z014 C,ry OF RENTON Pl.ANN;~G DIVISION 000368 March 21. 2014 Jttl Ding, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 David Michalsld 6525se5"' pl Renton, Wa 98059 EXHIBIT 11 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SES th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is reprdlng the traffic go.Ing North and South on 156"' Ave Se. Since th~ build.ir:ig of the bridge across Cedar Rivet!!l.it..-•---- traffic on i55tb ave se is unbearable. Coming.out of any of the side streets off 156"' ave··s~-~-;~etimes Impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 Wif'f stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate ·11p the hill leaving no time between cars to allow aa:ess going both North and South. Freq11entfy when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down , there ls a huge bacldog of vehicles and this causes temole traffic congestion. I see signs for addftfonal 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 addftfonal access off of Maple Valley Highway fur folks to get unto Cemetary Rdad? Slncerely, -· ~ :D~rY\L~~~ David Michalski Email: dcmichal@msn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 000369 I I March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CE]'.) -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @Jding@[entonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, EXHIBIT 12 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 ofthe accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service . associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156111 Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the l 42"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 156111 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 156111 north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress tum 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 156111 even more difficult. 000370 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 15611> from SE 5lh 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 ve:;r, concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / I 42nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand tum (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 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 15611>/ 14211d intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City ofRenton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design Toe City of Renton Sanitary Sew11r 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 topo_graphy 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 ljoes bciog iosta!led as part afrbis 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 Jots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000371 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper 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 bearing. 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 pi:ocedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 000372 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without S~nature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000373 %! ·· ·+ Cityof/ -,....._----~-~-J r<_rs{\·r··1'1.t(DJfn·1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNS-M) A Muter Appftaltlon has been flied and a«epted with the 0t,partment of Community & Economic: Development (CEOJ-Plannlnr olvlslan of the City of Renton. The fodowine briefly describes the: application and the mn:essary PublkApp ...... ls. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LANO USE NUMBER: PROJEa NAME: March 10, 2014 LUA14-ll00241, ECF, pp The Enclave .it arld1e Rid re PAOJ(CT 0.ESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivlslon of 21 8.8 acre project slte located within the R-4 (Ruldentla.l 4 dweflin& unJts per 1creJ ioninc designation. The prol)DsaJ would rE.Sull In the ueatk>n of 31 lots and 2 was (Tnicts A and 8) and·, new public street The ptaposed lots vrould range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 · square feet. Aa:us to the new lots wouh:f be provided via I new pubtic street off of 156th Aver11.1e SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-0J0250) is propo~d between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059U2 which will result in 30,175 square: feet of parcel 1423059057 being mnoved from the proposed subtfwislon. No critical areas are present on the project site. P/IOJECT LOCATION: 14038 156*" Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMfNATION OF NON·stGNfflCANCE, MmGATED fDNS-M): A!. \he lead Agency, tho City of Renton has detortnlned th1t 51J;nifiant en'flronmental Impacts ar1 unlikely to result froril the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under th! HCW 43.llC.110, the City of Rene on is usin1 the OpUonal DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS. M is likely to be iuuecl. Comrnent periods for the p,ojecUnd the proposed DNS-M are intqrated into a slnste comment period. There wUI be no comment period foU~n1 the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nt1n-SJ&nifianc.e- Mftlgated {CN5-M). A 14·dar appeal period will foffoW the lssuara of the ONS-M. PERMrT APPLICATION CATI:: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: February 27, 2014 Marth 10, 2014 APPUCANT /PROJECT CONTACT PERSON, Justin· Lai.i!n / PNW f,lotdJnP, u.c / 9675 SE 36* S~ Suite lOS, Metter (iland, WA 98040 / EMt.: Justfn@tamerica,:idusi:chomes.com Peirmits/Revlew Request~: Other Permits which may be. required:, Requ~ Studies: l.oaitlan wffl!re appll?tfan may ~ .-.viewed: PUBUC HEARING: EOYlto-nt.1 (SEPA)Revfew, Preflmlnary Plat Review Orainap Report, Geotechnlcal Report, Trafflc: Study · Depirtment of ~nlty & EtonomJC Development (aDJ-PlaMlnt Division.-SJldh Raor.Renti:m City Hallt i.055 South Glildy Way, Renton, WA 91057 PubDcbcarln1 is tcntatN!'YschfduJcd"isicAerfl 22 2014 before the Rrntnn Hearfnc Examiner in RentoaCouncD Oiafflbe,j"'atl~AM DP the 7th floor of Aentan Oty Hall locartd at toss South Grady wav. If yov would fike to be made a party of remrd to r~ runher lnrormatfon on this proposed proJect co111plete this form iillnd retum to: CJty or Renmn. CEO-Plamlnc Divisian, 105S So. Grady Way. Rentora, WA 98057. Name/File No.: The EndlYe at Bridle Rldte/LUA14-00024J, £CF, PP NAM~--------~~-----~~-~~~~~~~~- MAIUNG ADDRESS: ______________ Clty/Stile/Zip:. ~--------'-- TELEPHONE NO.,------------- 000374 ~ r)-~ll'll'}""".Y. -of=,..,.~.-_---- -,:--_.....-.,s::=s;:li·""""._.~ · r :~~I J : f: .QJ I J CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW!: .ZOninc/Land Use: fnV'iranmental Oocumerits th.it Evaluate the Prapased Project: Development Re~latlons Us:~d For Pro]ect Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation f'_,1eiS\.lres; . Thi! subject sit! is designated Jl:esidentfaf low Density (COMP.fft.O) on the Ci:Y of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map an~ R4 on the City's Zoning Map .. E1Mrot1mental (SEPA) Cht?dlisl The projett wilt be ":JbJ!ct to the City's SEPA ordlnarn:e, Rl'Ylc 4-2-110 Ruldential Development and other applicable codes a.nd regulations as appropriate. T~ following MitlgatiOn Measures will likefy be Fmpoud on the proposed project. These reo:immended Mitigation Measures address project impacts: not covered by exfsLing c:odes .!.nd rtgutatians il'S cited above. • Project construction sholl &t reqWred ta comply with tht! submftted geotechnlccf report. • Prajtt:t construdlon shall be requfred to a,mply wlrh the submftted traffit. rtudy. Comments: on the above applic:ation must be submi~d in writinc to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, CEO-Planning Divis:ion, 105"5 South Grady Way1 Renton, WA 98fJS7, by 5:00 PM on March 24, 2014.. This matter Es also tentativefy scheduled for a public hearing on April 22., 2014, at 10;00 AM. Councl1 Chambers. Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 105S South Grady Way, Renton. 1(you are Interested in ettendl11C the hearing, p1eaise contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled Jt j~2.S) 43o-6S78. If comments unnot be submitted ln writin1 by the date indicated above, y!'.)u may still appear at the huring and present your comments on th~ proposal before the Hearing Examiner. 1r you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be m;1de a party or record and f'!!'ceive additioml information by mail, plea~ ctmtact the project manager. Anyone: who submits written comm~nts wm automatically becam~ a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Eml: iding@rentonwa.gov Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER Fil£ IDENTIFICATION If you would Ilk! to be made ; pil,J'ty of rf!cord 10 receive fUrthe.r Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: dty of Renton, CED-Planning OMsion, 1055 Sc. Grady Way, P.rnton. WA 98057. N1me/File No.: The Enclave at l\ridle Rld"ge/LUA.14-000241, EO, PF NAME: ________ _:_ __________________ _ MAILINGADORESS: ______________ City/Stm/lip:. _________ _ Tf.LEPHONE NO.!-------------- 000375 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 fo!Jowtne briefly describes the application and the neceS5iary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE Of APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: March 10, 2014 Ll.JA14-000241. ECF, PP The Enclave at Brldle Ridge PROJECTOESCRJPTION: Proposed subdiv!Sion of a 8.8 4'cre project site located within the R-4 {R:esidential 4 dwelling units per acfe) zoning designation. The p1oposaJ would rnsult In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts {Tracts A .and B) and ·a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,S66 square feet. Access to the new lats would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-0002SO) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,17S square feet of partel 1423059057 being remo11ed from the proposed subdivl!'iion. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 1561h Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): t,, the lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that signifiomt 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 notJce that a DNS- M ls likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed ONS-M are integrated Into a single comment period. Th@re will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non•Signiflcance-- Mitigated (ONS-M). A 14-day appeal perlad wUJ follow tile Issuance oftlie ONS·M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 27, 2014 March 10, W14 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lacers / PNW Holdings, UC/ 9675 SE 35dl Street Suite 105~ Mercer Island, WA 9B040/ £ML: Justln@amerleanclasslchomes.com Permits/Review Requ1!$ted: Other Permit:5 which may be requfffi:f: Requested Studies; location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental (SEPA) Review. Preliminary Plat Review Conrtruttlon, B11llding1 Fire Dralnace Report, Geotechnlcal Report, Traffic StudV Department of Community & Econo111lc Development (CEOJ -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Ho1II, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9BD57 public hearing Js tentariye)y Scheduled for April 22, ZQ14 before the Renton Hearing Ell:aminer in Ri:nton Cgunclf Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Rentan City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way, lf you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: Oty of Renton, CEO-PlaMing Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/FIie No.; Toe Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAM£:--------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ City/State/Zfp: ---------- TELEPHONE NO.:-------------- 006-376 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/L,md Use: Envtronmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used for Project Mltlgatfon: PropttSed Mitigation Measu~s: The subject site is designated Residential low Oenslty{COMP~RLOJ on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map arid R4 on the City's Zoning Map .. Environmentill (SEPAJ Checklist The project wlll be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance. RMC 4-2~110 Resldentlal Development and other applicable codes and regulation.s as approprlate. The following Mitigation Measures wiU lfkely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited abo11e. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the submitted geotechnlca/ report. • Project construction shall be requfred to comply with thr: submitted traffic study. Comments an the above apptlcatlon must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, ao -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady way. Menton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on March 24, 2014. This matter is alsa tentatrvefy scheduled for a publlc hearing on April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Council Chamben, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall 10S5 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested In attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Oivlsioo to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at [425) 430-6578. If comment$ ec1nnot be submitted in writing by the, date indicated above, you may still appeal' at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Heartog Examiner. If you ha'w'e questions 1bciut ,hi, pl'Opo~I. or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional inforrnatlon by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submit:; written comments will autamatkally become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: J fll Eml: jdfng@rentonwa.gov Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: {42S) 430-6598; PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ff 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, 105S So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 9S057. Name/File No.: The Endave at Bridl@ Ridse/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME:--------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ City/State/Zip:---------- TELEPHONE NO.: -------------- 000377 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on April 4, 2014, The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $126.00. ,.--.._/. /'' /. ./·/ ~>t /, / ./ //;·, .,_ I·• f. • • _jv ,, l-;l,inda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 4th day of April, 2014. 0 [;"' o~---t' f t. lu. , '--(' c__ !LC z ,;c £. • ,_ athleen C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Glesiding in Buckley, Washington .. ,, .... '''"'';,:,'!~,.-,·1 ::--.....,., ··-~.... Ir .:..~~'":,::..;:;~ t.:,. :::s,t..,'f";,':, ''!1 !S:"l;2j~{O'N'1)J: ;/;>1-:·\1 -----··-· •;.:.)lj.~ 'l ::: 1 .... z,:S.·' r,"\ Aly .,;_-.:r, ~ ~ ;: "~ ,?/ ~-;· )-l(.\~-t.-~ ::: x:: =:·o (J)::. ..... :::; :-;.u ..... -:;::: :.;.. ~ ~ ,.. {; -~-:;.§ ~ 1 ,...u~1..' ::: ..,_ - 'l. ·" ''1 o . r. .= o E 1 vi, I/ A \\Q .;;..-;..::., - "I', r '11 '~ -19~ .:2" (" ---= ·{, -1 ')., 111 • .. ....... -~-' .::.: 'IJ , ~ L\\\\\._,,,..._--. \\..,_ 2° ,,,,, Q•:: ·1,,,,..5'<' .... -~ 11· t • , r, ...., .... 11; \\\\\\\\.,,,,,, ... NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASIIINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determi- nation of Non Significance Miti• gated (DNS M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14 000241 Location: 14038 156th Ave SE. Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre proJect site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designa- tion. The proposal would result in the creation of JI 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 betv.een tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30.175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the pro- posed subdivision. No critical ar- eas are present on the project site_ Appeals of lhe DNS M must bt filed in wriling on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4 8 110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425 430 6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in lhe CouncU Chambers, City Hall, on April 22, 2014 at 10:00 am to consider the submitted applica- tion. If the DNS M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing Published in Renton Reporter on April 4,2014. #1019794 PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com O'Wner Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-1589 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA 14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD 1;~~1~.~:1,;r11r.~1:Itie~~}~ ~9~2fiiif~~1='I1:,?:~;Jt~~St:~T; Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38th Pl, 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 ~~~i~~~Iiit~~J~t~;;1~I ~-~~-"'""' MA Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-6594 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Mazama, WA 98333 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 DAVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE 5TH Pl RENTON, WA 98059 (425) 271-7837 000379 Page 1 of 1 Dept. of Ecology • • Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv.1 MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers* Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers ••• Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC·TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program • 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 . City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNSN, the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. ••oepartment 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 000380 OF ENVIRONMENTAL DITTRMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE. MITIGATED (ONS·M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERBTED PERSONS OF AN ENVl~ONMENTAl ACTION PROJECT NAME: Endave III Bridle Rid1• P1'9llmlnuy Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUAl.4-000241, ECF, PP LOCATIOH: 14038 156,. Aff SE DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdlYWon of .,.. 8..1 ~ pro)1ct sltt 10(;,lltcl within th1 1!:-4 [Resld1ntb1t 4 fl!Nllhn1 units per aa.) zonln1 d,ui(nlltlon. Tt,1 propOllal would ,..,11lt In tha rnt1tlon 111 U lotl and 2 ~ {Trieu A and I) and 1 ,..w p11blkstnet. Thol propoHd !<rt, would llln(l! In sin from &,050 squa"' l11t to 12,566 M;Wllrl! fnt. Al:cau lD dw -loq -uld bt! pnr.rkled v~ I MW public ~II off llf 156th Avenue SE. A lat n,.., 1dJ1.11tm1nt {LU"14-00a250) l, proposed b1tw111n WI parub 14UOS90S7 ind 142305'112 wt.i,h wUI !"fWlt In 30,175 1quu,• fut o! pwul 1<1123059057 bel!'I( temoved from tt,, prapasad subdlYLllan. ni. •lte l, ..umntly de,...loped with two •Incle Pi.mlly rei.idell(U ;md I drt.lc.hlld prqe. An •d:stini rcsldentl! Is prop0$ed to remain on pucel l.42.305!1057. AH Dthlf ftl\lCtlll'l's are proposed to b1 removed throt.lch ~ 1ubdMsion procn1. Na crltii::al • .. q .... p111Hn1: Qfl th, Pf>1)«t Ila. . THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE [ERC) .HAS OETERMINED THAT" "tHE PROPOSED ACTION OOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appn!s of the envlronmental dirt,rmln,th~n must be fllfi! In wrft111c on or before S:00 p.m. on April 11, 2014, tosirthl!r with the requlrad fn with: H,rarlnt: Eltlilmlner, Oty of Renton, 105S South Gn.dy w,y, Renton, WA 911057. Appe;als to the Eumlnet •re 10\lerned by City of RMC: 4-8-110 and Information Nr,irciJnc th111 a pp HI ptOC4$$ may be obtained from thlf Rlfnton Oty clerk's Offke, (425) 430-iSlO. A PUBLIC HEARING WIU BE HEW ey THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAf\ MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF cm HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRAOY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 22, 2014 AT 10:00 AM TO CON SIDEii THE ·coNOITIONAL USE PERMIT, SHORT PLAT, ETC.~. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WIU BE HEARD AS PMT OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION~ PLEASE CONTACT THE Cm' OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & tCONOMIC: DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEAS~ INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAWNG FOR PROPER FtLE IDENTIFICATION • ....... , ...... I, A¥(P. (,J, 't/c5fflt,ltiereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were p sted in___;;;__ conspicuous places or nearby the~ property on Date: 1-Zi-/lj Signed: L¥,t.A -?-~C-, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have s;itisfactory evidence that , A~.etl, tV([!-'S i'n)1Y\ 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: '" 111 '!;,!', .'IJ' \ 1c in and for the State of Washington 2 Notary (Print): H 0 ![., %wet5 "11!':':: '\ -P ---...I..L-'-'-'-u'-'+---1-'-''"'"''""' ..... '-------- , -""'YJfppo int me nt exp ires: __ ~&,,"-· -tJ.,_..,, ,s"'-f.,_______,,,;J"'-..L~---;;=O'--'li._g'g_g.,,3.:N18;.:a1 -. - e . . . OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGATED (DNS·M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION, Enclave (§1 Bridle Rldge Preliminary Plat LUA14-000241, ECF, PP 14038 156th 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 wourd result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and BJ and a new public street. The proposed lou 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 ta>I' 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 ls proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical area$ are present on the project $ite. 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, Cty 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, lOSS 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. April 2, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi 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 advis.e 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 S: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 ofthe 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, 4» 1(. ;J2· tJioing_ ~ Senior Planner V Enclosure cc: Sally Lou Nipert, G. Richard Ouimet/ Owner(s) Party(ies) of Record 000383 April 3, 2014 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL {SEPA} THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 31, 2014: SEPA DETERMINATION: PROJECT NAME: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) 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, Cj)J 1{ ;a- doing U Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSOOT1 NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Ouwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers 000384 Renton City Hall • lOSS South Grady Way • Renton, Wa;hington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 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: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 14038 1561h Ave SE The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 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 ore not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise appro,,ed by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 000385 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 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 1561h Ave SE near the intersection with SE 1441 h Street and ext6ending the sewer main into the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 1S61h Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 1561h Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 1561h 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 Y.-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 009386 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 Jot 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 Jot. 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 Jot 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 155th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8-foot ERC Mitigation Measure.sand Advisory Notes 000387 planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 5. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes 008388 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 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: LEAD AGENCY: 14038 156'" Ave SE 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 4-9-0700 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: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department April 4, 2014 March 31, 2014 --:,A,)4- Date ::i. -3.. / -11 Date () ) 1~, (1y Fire & Emergency Services Date c. t,._ )'{" --:':>· ~\ I~ C.E. "Chip" Vincent, dministrator Department of Comm nity & Date Economic Development 000389 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUl\11 fY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE REPORT £RC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owners: Applicant/Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 31, 2014 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Jill Ding, Senior Planner Sally Lou Nipert, 14004 1561h Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 9675 SE 361h Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA98040 14038 1561h Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 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. 1,700 SF 329,129 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): Total Building Area GSF: N/A N/A N/A Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Mop ERC ReportQQQ3Qlil.cx City of Renton Department of Community & L .. ..1nomic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND .:.·nvironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 2 of 11 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 BJ. 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 BJ with two access points off of 156'h 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. I 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 000391 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Enviro1,.i1ental Review Committee Report WA14-000Z41, ECF, PP Report of Error! Reference source not found. Page 3 of 11 B. Mitigation Measures C. D. 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. 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 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 durinro~n ERC Report 14-000241.docx , ' \ City of Renton Department of Community & L,.,,;,1nomic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report LUAI4-000241, ECF, PP 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 000393 ERC Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community & t,.,..,nomic Developmen! mE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Nexus:N/A b. Storm Water 1::_.nvironmenta/ Review Committee Report LUA14-00024l, ECF, PP Page 5 of 11 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 156'h Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west at the intersection of 1S61h Avenue SE and SE 1441h Street. Runoff continues west across 1541h 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 1561h 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 oftest pits. Overall, it is anticipated there would be no impacts to storm water 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 (identwa~ajB°i{s fl!C Report 14-000241.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community & c.,..momic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA14,.()(}(JZ4l, ECF, PP 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 ofthe 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 oftrees 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 1561 h 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 000395 City of Renton Department of Community & h.,.,,tJomic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 .;nvironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000241, ECF, PP 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 1561h 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 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 133.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 1561h 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 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the City of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus: N/A 7-Fire & Police ERC Report 14--000241.docx 000396 City of Renton Department of Community & t._..,nomic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE c.nvironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000Z41, 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 980S7, 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 -7'h 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 os 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 000397 City of Renton Department of Community & · 1omic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BR/Dl.E RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 -:nvironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000241, ECF, PP 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 1561h Ave SE near the intersection with SE 1441 h Street and ext6ending the sewer main into. the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 1561h Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 1561 h Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 1561h 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 000398 City of Renton Department of Comfnunity & ~ l'JOmic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 -:nvironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000Z41, ECF, PP 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 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 ofthe 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 000399 City of Renton Department of Community & ,... '1Dmic Development THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 '7m!ironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-000241, ECF, PP 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-{)(}()241.docx 000400 'I'"! I- I-( ca 1-( :r:: >< w I I (j z w w iE EE • ;¢;:;I ~~=--'I Clill~--.... ~ -~L--_____ .Jll.CM'.-~ D.R. """"" CDNSUl.11NOENGINE!IUI ----;:=..~:.-I to:i. THE lllcav1=itf BRIDLE kfoGE >-a I I I ~41Hl'!Aa _.. -irilMn:lll'f'ft ~· ~ ~ lj 11 1i~I~ t---:= TI I I I i=n',:: I ~--®---I U!!:I CITY OF ~ RENTON ~ -"'""'*Iii.._.,._ -llo,I. -~ 0 '1:1' 0 0 0 N01F:: ,s,.._-.. ...-· .... ----"1·---... - @ NORTH 11-IE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT NEDiBOfHXD DErAL MAI' ORS Pllo.£CT tf;J. 1,~117 IAl-1 I ! • I •f I pH ii I I i i ' ! I 1·~ • :, i I @~ j ;ti "'° l rtl:::j z-< Ibo z~ ! ' i !jl ji!! I! _, Ir I :11., r :1:1ill 1 111 11 11 II ,. ~ f '1·111• ! . ' ! i , ·1 • I !l,1ii II j' j i: a ,: 1l ·l I •1 ' EXHIBIT 2 THE ENCLAVE .. ~ /Y ~ ~ !! i:.:i:~~ 2::i~~::in~e::i~ illPj ii'Wl!l'I! "-'--L 1-1 : -•·•·· , ......... ' ' I " ' I I ' I ' ·--·-·-1111 llll:ll:1111 11111111111111,;;11 11,11, 11 i '[ I , ..:::-..__ -...._ • • ,. .. ,.,.,. :Hi~~~lii.; lil(il 1111111 11/i -1111111 m1n'1r · i, i ; I I ii I i 11 I Ii I -~'11!1 . ll! !' U!j!: 'IW 1 ! ' 1!11 • 1--! • nm 111,1 11 r 'i r ·1r .. "II , t·3 -' ij 1!1 ii !'ji1 ,,,i, 1,lj! j"! ' i 1--jl ,:11 I I! .. 1'il" . 1--1 ,in il1jlhjli1 ;lj 1 -;; ~ k II p I ~ ' ' ' M t; co 1-1 ::c ~ I I i ~ 5 u 1" w F' ..... ____ ..._,.. --..!!ll----~ I ./1~'"-"'' ~c~s~ C ----- '!.r~:' ~ ---,--,---i ~~R:Sfil':~ ___ o-.-.o:=.:..- .. ~ l'l'l~lEj--- ,· ' :·--~ ·:-~~,'t'f:. ['-,-;.,;;;:;;:--. \' "\iii:,_"a .,_,_ \\ \-: ~ \ j I r-,U\T--, ® CITY OF --~ RENTON I£:;_-;_ t ~-·- 0 'Iii' 0 0 0 PRfl MW.BY SUE YQWUE CAI Ail A.UQNS ".:,.~ ~'=' ~":!1 .~ ·------"'----------.... - Wf!!Al ~l#t, ~'!{= ....,.,, __ .. ,v:p...,, .............. _.. ..... _,.,,,,.,. ___ _ I='~-=~=~.,.===--- @ NORTH --L.!W ? lHE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRELIMINARY Pl.AT CONCa'TUAI.. ROAO AND GRAOINQ Pl.AH DRS PRO..ECT NO. lll17 lt;oj•JIHT. l I i ~ .... 1-1 ca 1-1 :::c )( w ~ u ~ "" i" ii C I fJ./&4 ffvcLA·VEAr sm6lE khGE 1,;,,:,,,_. \ ' ·--~n· .. /''1t--,....,•1 ·-·' ~~t':~ """""°"Of~~ n""1! com,:-·.,.:, 'UI<( 'O""tr 'I_:.. ··,._.;;,.r:!;I _ .. O: ""I: ~,' n.< ~ • '.~.'· ' ~--' ' \ /'x., ·A :/ ;, ,"' ,5 ~ . .. ~~._!1 22 I trir·--, ,, ,-'2~-----..l,-__ i.., __ ... ::.=rr=r~ ..... ~.:h]lr°f';i,l,-fy, iti"F" ... ~ . """" ~ ~7 "IJ· ·v .-r(•C( .. ~ m)'=,'¥!..~RS ------·--,~-~- -,. ~ "'IDA-Ttl-1-,.., M- I .::: .. I _.-.:.:. ® CITY OF ~ RENTON l"ioMM&l'~-Do,I. @ 0 ~ 0 0 0 NORTH -~ L..:' .. ~_ • -•IIIOl•.(lrf. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREUlr,HNARY PL.AT """""'""""'-""' DRS PROLCT NO. 13117 II') 1- 1-f cc 1-f :c ~ ! ! I l I l i ~ <( tJ ti w i!: I f;./f (Ncv:vEAT BRiDLE RllJGE 1------~ ... ·--~ • .?.!,. I 22 ID ---2~ ---' ,,. ' ....... ' I I f- I }--.. -------- ' " " ~ ,,, -v<:-·;_;,¢1D T •f-J£ . ,_. -· ' ~-- ~ w]E) oumc.m Qoll ......... --,;._, ID ~ ocwsu. TWGENOINEER8 --.!11-------'.li'l· -~~:,-l lj[). I -® --... I£,,;_-;, I "IDl,TI:IAPPR !1!n CITY OF ~ RENTON --- ma 11tnw110N CAl.a4A 'flOHS --.. ·~ .,., =-.... 111--.. .. -............ .. ====~: ~--:::::::==:.. l:'"KO>l • .. -----_,_ ... _...,,,_r __ --- ~c J.EGtND ltl.:=.i:~:=-... )I( ® ...... - ('--. /.-.. \,0'\0'-'"·"" ... _/ -',I 0 0 :=-==;..~-- 0 'It 0 0 0 @ NORTH --· i........J THE ENCL.AVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRELIMINARY Pl.AT TREE CtJmlGANO LAND CUMIHl ~ DRS PIICl..(CT NO, IJl17 I_Al-1 ·--...... Greenforestlncorporateu \ j ' / Consulting ,£\rborist 2/18/2014 Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 EXHIBIT 6 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY or-RENTON PLA.M,JiNG D!\//S!ON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from DR 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 000406 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' -~------------------ PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 EXHIBIT 7 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON PlANNiNG 0/\,''S O Earth Solutions NW, LLC ' 1 ri 1805 -1361h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 000407 February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton swc Job#l3-187 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sewal EXHIBIT 8 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Or-l{t:•,","'N s...1;. ........ , PLP,NIIJiilJG D!V/SJ01\' 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 1561h Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity Map 000408 EXHIBIT 9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156th Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 9675 SE 35th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by cirv OF RENTON LANNiNG DIVISION lbkt#Jl D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 ?'h Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 000409 / EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by C!i!!fEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 C,ry OF RENro PLAN, .. ,~ N '~': \:7 0:VJS/Otv 000410 March 21, 2014 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 David Michalski 6525 se s"' pl Renton, Wa 98059 EXHIBIT 11 This memo is rega rtf1ng my concerns over the Enclave at Br'1dle 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 buildi.ng of the bridge across Cedar River the···'"""--~-- traffic on i56th ave se is unbearable. Coming out of any of the side streets off 156"' aves~· i~-;~~;i~es 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 animmediate 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, -·· I\__ :J:>~/'Y\l~s;\~ David Michalski Email: dcmichal@msn.com Ph#425-271-7837 000411 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, EXHIBIT 12 Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-000241, 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 ofthe accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on I 56th 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 l 56'h and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156thnorth of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress tum 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. 000412 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 adeguate 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 vei concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / ! 42"d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand tum (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 I 56th/ 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 l 56th/ 142°d intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 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 ne~Se\,!er ]jnes being installed as part oftbis 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 I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000413 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 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 zznd, 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. 000414 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000415 City of Rentc Jepartment of Community & Economic Deve,. . ,ent ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:~mih1 ~ .'.J COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2014 ' , APPLICATION NO: LUA14-000241 J DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 20, 2014 APPLICANT: PNW Holdings, LL( PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding PROJECT TITLE: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge PROJECT REVIEWER: Rohini Nair SITE AREA: 328129 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): n/a LOCATION: 14038156'" 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 Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinn Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnnrtation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14 000 Feet -;?a/J 1t.1 0 r;,,pad-~ ~ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we ha or areas where dditional information is n d to properly assess this proposal. expertise and have identified areas of probable impact 000416 I ~ ! ' - I-i ' I 0 @~1: i :zz w 0 ~ C LL.J 9 ,, ~ ~.c:f '.~) ~·, > c:.' 2 '..2 ~~ " '''-' :; :u m~ -t-·~1 ~ LL ~:.-; ;ii :--:, i (J -, er:, .\ C il~ LLJ ,~ ~ i..1.J LJ... >-w ~ " !i Q" ,_ :[ ~ u )()(XX-XXX 3:JOJ~ 31Gl~8 lV 3t\VlJN3 3H.1. -··-, __ ----ao1J..-11 PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS (L \ 14-000241) --~ PLAN ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION: 1403B 156TH SE AVE RENTON, WA 95059-7419 APPLICATION DATE: 02127/2014 Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site localed within the R-4 {Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. ihe proposal would result In the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts {Tracts A and B) and a new public streel The proposed lots would range In size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lols 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 w!II 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 Leslle Betlach Ph; 42~30-6619 email: LBetlach@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Parks Impact Fees per Ordinance 5670 applies. Engineering Review Rohini Nair Ph: 425-430-7298 email: mair@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: I have revlewed the application ror The Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038-156th Ave SE and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER SEWER STORM Water service will be provided Water District 90, Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There Is an 8•inch sewer main There is a 12·inch storm p\pe in 156th Ave SE to the north. STREETS There are no frontage improvements In the area. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. A water availabUity 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 In 156th Ave SE. 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 plal 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 atleast 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 wlll require pavement restoration at a minimum of overlay for at least %, the streel 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 dean out at the end of the sewer stub. 2. System development charge (SOC) fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter U,at will serve each new lot The current fee per lot based on %.jnch or 1-lnch water is $2,033.00. This fee is paid prior to is~uance of the construction permil 3. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 ls $438.16 per new lot Interest accrues at a dally rate of $0.05111 until the fee Is paid. 4. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Slde 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 lo Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chaptera 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in lhe 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 lo areas maintained by King County. King County w!II 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 oonditions. 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 comer of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per U,e 2009 King County SWOM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWOM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. 2. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be requlfed to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review will be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required.3. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by ~rth Solutions NW, LLC. The report Identifies lhe sot;D018.__.. __ ..,,,. ... April 16, 201• Page1 of4 Fire Review~ Bulldlng April 16, 2014 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 lndude 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 szoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the Jot 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 thal 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 Assf!ssor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Do not make references to density and zoning lnform.£1tion on the final plat drawing. lf there is a Resbictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on U,e plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number U,ereof. 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 wncurrently 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 wilf require that the City be the owner of Tract ·A· If not and if there ls to be a Homeowners' Association (HOA) created for this plat. the following language concerning ownership of "Tract A" (the detentlonhvet 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 fecllity. 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 obUgations, as evidenced by non-paym8flt of property taxes for a period of eighteen {18) month&, then each lot in this plat shall assume and ha..,.e an equal and undivided ownership interest In the Tract prevlously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financJal and maintenance responslbllities. 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 foregolng statements are to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on lhe Tract serving Ule plat or reference lo a separate recording Instrument detalllng the same. Similar language Is required for Tract '8'. Please discuss with the Stormwater lJtjJity any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, al the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, indude a current title report noting the vested property owner. Corey Thomas Ph: 425-430-7024 email: cthomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: En'o'ironmental 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 bull ding permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a &ingle famUy home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basemenls). If U'Je dweUlng 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 end two hydrants if the tire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code induding S..inch storz fittings. A waler availability certificate is required from King County Water Disbict 90. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, wi1ti 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roac:tways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehlcle with 322-psi point loading. Access ls required within 150..feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sae turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for Clead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. 000419 Page 3 of 4 Police Review April 16, 2014 Recommendations: Minimal impact on police services. Estimated CFS Annually: 29 Cyndie Parks Ph: 425-430-75~ nail: cparks@rentonwa.gov 000420 Paga 4 ore Technical Sarvfc11s As,rll 16, 2014 glacial till. These soils will not support infiltratlon. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geoi -ecommends site grading be limited to the summer montt 4. The current surface\ . .Jr system development charge (SDC)fee ls $1,228.00 per n~ lot Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 5. A Construction Stonnwater General Pennlt from Department of Ecology wlll be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stomiwater 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 st the time of building pennit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building pennlt 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdMsion would generate 297 average weekday vehlcle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehides 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 detennina 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 a1 a LOS F with the new development, whlle the project generated traffic a1 this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the in18f!i9ction. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. 3. A looped roadway wtth stub ending is a temporary cukle-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 resldenUal access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new Internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, witt, 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 feel Jf in future tllere are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the lntemal publJc 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 lndude 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 trus street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. 4. Paving and trench restoraUon wfU 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 "Mll be included with the ci\111 plan submittal. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Separate permits and fees for, water melers, side sewer connection and slam, connection will be required. 2. All construction utility pennits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals, All .utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civll 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. Spacial 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. Bob MacOnie Ph: 425-430-7369 email: bmaconie@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA 14-000241 and LN0-10-0511, respectively, on the final plat submtttal. 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 Ues to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the Ues have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, parWAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAC 332-130-150. Provide lot closure cafculatlons. lndic.ate 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 wUI be provided at the tlme 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 facllitles, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not 000421 Page2 of-4 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A MasterApp!Tcad.on bu.been flied and aece.pted wlth the Oep:irtme-t'lt of Community & Econortiic Development (CEO) -plomnfng olvisfon of the Clty of Renton. The followlng ~rlefly describes the applkation and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE. NUMSER: PROJECT NAME: March 10, 2014 Li.rAl4-000241, ECF, PP' The Enclave at 5rldle Ridge PROJECT DESCRJPTJON: P,opased Stlbclivis!OO of B 8.8 acre project site. located within the R.·4 {Residential 4 dwelling uniU per acr:et zordi:ig des1&:m1lion, The pl'oposal-would ·result In the creation -of 31 lots and 2 tr.icts (Tracts A and B) and ·a n~ public street. The proposed lots. would range in slze from 8,050 square feet to 1.2,566 ,square feet'. Access to the new lot$-would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avl!nue: SE. A lot fine adJustml!nt {lUAJ4-C)()0250) is proposed between @11 parcels 142.3059057 and 1423059122 which will result In 30,175 squarl! fl!l!t of parcel 1423059057 belng removed. from the proposed subdivfslon. No critlca.1 areas are present Oil the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 1.561h Ave SE OPTIONAL DITTRMINATION ciF NON·SIGNJFICANCE, MlTfGA.TED (DNS-MJ: As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that .significant environmental impacts ijre 1.mllkely to result frtim the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.11a,· the Oty of Renton is using the Optional DNs-M process to give notice that a DNS- M l.s likely to be l:aued. Commentperiod.s For the project ilfid the propased DrilS-M are.Integrated Into a siogle comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Sfgniffcance- Mit\gated (DNS.M). A H·day appeal period wUI foUowthe lssuance-t1r the DNS-M. PeRM[T AP~LICATIO~ DATE: NOTICE Of COMPLETE APPLJCA TION: February 27, 2014 Mard'1 lO, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: J~.stln lag:'e'n: / PNWHoldings 1 l.LC /'9~75 S.E 3611, Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 9S040 / EML!.Justrn@ame.rleancla:ssichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: 0th.er Permits which may be requlred: location where applfcatlon may be revlawecf: PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental {SEPA) Review, Pte:Umlnary Plat Revrew Cun5tructlon, Bulldln11 Fire Depc1.rtment of CommunJt;y & Economrc Development (CEOJ-Plimnlng Olvlslo~ Sixt~ ·Rcor Renton Clty Hall, 1055 South Grady Way., Renton, WA 92057 Public hearing is tentatiyely SChfdUled for APrfl 22 2014 before th .. Renton Hearln(Examiner In Benton councJI chambeoauo:oo AM on the 7th floor of Renton City H~lr loc;ited at 105S South Grady Way •. Jf you would liJ,:e to b_e m.1de a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form a·nd return to: CJty Qr Renton, CEO-Prannli,g Division, 1055 So. Gr~dy W,ay, Rentoni WA-98057. Name/File No.: The E11j:lavcfat Bridle Ridge/LUA.14-000241, £CF. PP NAME, ·WADE[ w\ w..ovGHC>Y MAIUNGADDJ1Ess,0s12. s:e S':bb eWi~ City/state/Zip, RE"N~"" ,vv'A. qg-o..-<t TELEPHON£NO.: 1..0 (.. , <H q -8 <;;° 0 '> Jill Din From: Sent To: Subject: Jill Ding Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:32 AM jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com 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°• 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 jding@rentonwa.gov 1 000423 Jill Din From: Sent: To: Subject: Jill Ding Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:20 AM 'highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com'; 'Roger Paulsen'; 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' 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 jding@rentonwa.gov 1 000424 Denis Law Mayor April _17, 2014 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE s'h Place Renton; WA98059 Department of Community and Economic Development CE. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator· . . . . · 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 e h.ea ing originally scheduled for April 22 at'· 10:00 am has · been can.celled to all th City. time. to review the · reconsideration/appeal and prep~re · a response. be informed· when a new hearing date has been scheduled, . Please contact me at (425)"430-6598 or jding@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, . . . . ·~p_ . . . Jill D;n~ · ·. ~ ·Senior Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 '. renionwa.gov 000425 I l,U~ IL\ -OODolf.{ Q}yloLu (lidi 000426 000427 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 156'h 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. Enclosure 000428 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay@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 l 42"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 l 42"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. 000429 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. l 7. I am also ve:?, concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / ! 42"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 I 56'h; 142nd intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City ofRenton'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 Jines 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 I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 000430 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. 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. 000431 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 000432 Lisa Marie McElrea From: Sent: To: Jill Ding Monday, March 24, 2014 6:09 AM 'Roger Paulsen' Cc: Subject: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair, jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com 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"' 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@cs.com> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Lisa Marie McElrea <LMcElrea@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. 1 000433 I primarily work remotely. I do go into u1e office once a week on Thursdays from luam-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@cs.com> To: VDolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <jding@renton.wa.gov>; jasonmpaulsen <jasonmpaulsen@gmail.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@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:28 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 2 000434 Roger, Yes you are correct, as long as you are the property owner. The City uses the King Co. assessors data to mail out to the 300 ft. surrounding neighbors, so whatever address the assessor have for tax purposes is where the City will mail the notice. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:33 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa. Thanks for the update!! My wife and I will be away from home for the next 6 weeks, so I won't be able to watch for the pink notice posters. Based on my conversation with Chris on Monday, I understand that we'll also receive a letter in the mail because we are within 300 feet of the development. Is that correct?? Our property actually abuts the development. We're having our mail forwarded, so I should receive the notice in time to become a party of record, and submit comments on the project. I'm assuming my question about access to the Renton Sewer system will need to wait until the City has actually accepted the application. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger ----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <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. J 000435 Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen fmailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com) 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 000436 From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapa •. ~en@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 SO-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 000437 Lisa Marie McElrea From: Sent: To: Subject: Lisa, Jill Ding Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:39 AM Lisa Marie McElrea FW: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP 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 1561 h Avenue SE and SE 142'• 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:danichal@msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding -------·----- Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lual4-000241/ECF/PP 1 ----··-----· 000438 Lisa Marie McElrea From: Sent: To: Subject: Lisa, Jill Ding Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:39 AM Lisa Marie McElrea FW: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lual4-000241/ECF/PP 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 1561 h 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 applrcant 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@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 000439 March 21, 2014 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 David Michalski 6525 se 5'" pl Renton, Wa 98059 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 Riyer t~e_ ... traffic on i56'" 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? Sincerely, __ ·'\._ :D~t'Y\.~.J~ David Michalski Email: dcmichal@msn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 000440 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) AMutar Appllclllion ha b.-n mu and 11ci;•pt,rd with tM O.p'1V!lllllt c,f Com1r11111lty fl Ecariomlc De'llllapment (aD!-Plannlfll OlvWon DfttM Oty ,;if R,nton. n., toUowlna briafty dtualbel ?Ml 1ppflgfll1f'I ,nd tM na~ Pliblh: Afprovlls. Oilo'ff Of NOTICE OF AP PU CATION: Man:h 10, 201' I.AND USE NUMll!R: tUA14-000241, ECf, P-P- PIUl.l!CT DESOUl'TION: Proposed subdMslon of 1 8.11 1cr1 F)roJect site loCll1'd 'Mll>in tho! R.-l. {Rnkl,intlal 4 dwl!llln1 ijnlts p,1r 1Cll!] zonl,. du!JN,tlon. The proposal would result In the e!llation of 31 !ols and 2 tracts (Tract, A ,md B) and I new ?',lblk s1reeL The propoMd lots wuuld ,_n11 In slZI! from 8,050 $(1111111! fttt tO 12,5&6 squire Ifft.. Accell tll th1 new kits wovkl be P,ovkled vlto , nn, publlc :rtrftt off of 156th Avtllll! SE. A lot !lne 1djustm1nt (~UA14-00Cll50) II propo:Hd bl!twftn ~x p.a,uls U2305!IOS7 Ind 14230Y.lll2 whkh wlll ruult In 30,175 squenl! feet of '1!1~114230S!l057 1Nilna; re-d from ttte ptopoMd subdlvlslon. No ertttca! 1reu = P"=Wf'!I on tht pruJectslte. PROJECT tOCATION: 14038 156'" Ave SI:. OPT10NAl DfflRMINATICIM OF NON..stGNIFICANC!, MIJlGATEO [ONS-M): As th!! Lnd .\l;e"(Y, the aty of ll1nton hu de1errnlried that ~lanlflant etMl'llnmeMII IITlpacts ire urllll<•ty ta ruult !tom tM proposed pro,lfrt, Thet'll!k!~ ;u; permitted ut>dtr tM ~ -13.21C.110, the aty of Renton ts u~rra TM Optl<mal DNS-M procus to r,oe notlCI! that I DNS-- M II llkely to be l»ued. comm,rrt perlodt ro, the project ,nd the proposed ONS-M ar. lntqntl!d Into I slncte =ment period. There WII be no oomment p,tflod folk7wln& the luuana o! the Thn!Shold Oetennlnatlon of Noo-S11ntf1Cilln= Mttlaated [DN'S-M).. A 14-dir, appeal P9flod will follow ~.is,uutU oftlM! ONS-M. PEJIMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE Of' COMPI.E'T! M'PUCATION: FebrulfY 27, 201-' March 10, 201' APPUCANT /PROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Ju$tln t..11111/ PNW Hllldlnp. U.C / 967! 5E 36• Street Suite 105, M1n;.r lslarld, WA H040 / EML:.Jwtln.amtrk•ndusichomes.c,gm Permttl/Revlew ~uotnld: Req11fftld Studla; l.Qcltlon whiff i'PPllcatlon may INniv!.w.d: JIUIIUC l-l(AIUHG: CallStnlction, llulldln&, Fire D111tn1p Ila port. GeotRdlnlcal Raport, Trafflc:l-tudy O.p,,rim.nt of Community & Econamlc 0.1111klpmant (CEO)-Pllnnln1 Division, Sbfth FI001' R111t1111 City Hall, 1DSS Sovth Grady\Ya~, R1nton, WA "'" Pubftc hculn1 Is trnllllulv sb;d11lrd fp, McD 22, 2014 btfpn; 1~, Renton Htarins FYrnlo,r In Rentnn t'.puncn CIJ1mbm •t 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of RenW'I Oty Hall loeated at 10SS South Gt1dyW1y. If you would '"" to bl made 1 ~ oP l'l!«lrd to re~eNI! further information on lhts propoMd projl!ct,. tornpl11e thi5 form 1nd ratum to: Oty or Renton, Cf:0-Pl1r,nlng DM'iiofl. l(ISS So. Gr1dy W1y, Ren.ton, WA 9'CS7. N1mtt/Rle "ID.: Thi Encl1v,e It &,idle Rld@e/lUA14-000241'. ECF, PP NAME:----------------------------- MAILING AOOREs.5: _______________ Clty/Sb,~p: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.:------------- Ernrlrvmnent:11 Oooun•nts that Ev.afuna th1 P~ Prolnt; 0.W,[OplMnt Rt!1'1latl111U Uwd For P,roj,lct Mltlptlon: ~ Mltlptlon Maasuru: Emrironmenbll [SEPA) Chedcllst Thi! project will be 111bjl!ct to th11 Oty's SEPA orolnance, IIMC 4,.z.1J RiUld.ntlal Dwf!lo$!ff,ent and other 1pplltilble ,:od1.1 and rei;Wtlons 1 appt0prnlt11. The followlrc Mttlptton Musi,ru wtll llkety be Imposed on the pn;,pose 11rojsct. ~ l'l!Cl)mrnendl!d Mlllptioli M11,AA'ft add~ pro;.,:t lmpicti ,,. CO\ll!ffil by nisllr,g codu and ~,ulitlons 1s ~ .~. • Pro/tct a,nstructlon shalt ff rrqufrrd tO' comply with rhe Nllmftted geotffhnkal n!pOrt. • Pto}Kt ccmstrvctlon JM/t H r.4ulred to comply with tk. sul,,riltud traffk study. CONTACT PERSON: JIii Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430--659f Pl.EASE INaUOETHE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAWNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION !I '!')11 would Hke lo bf: mfdt! I party of n!cord to ~iv!! further int,;,,m,oon on thl1 proposed project. ,:omplett ~ ft,m, and n!Nm to: Qty of R11nlon, CEO -Pl1Mlrl1 OM$1on, 10SS So. GracfyW1y, RentDn, WA 98057. N1m,e/Fllot No.: The Enclavi: at Bridle Rldge/lUA14-000I41, ECF, pp NAME:------------------------- MAIUNt;AOORESS: ______________ Oty/Sllte/Zip· ________ _ TElEPHOHE NO.:------------- CERTIFICATION /Vig , '1 , hereby certify that S copies of the above document • were posted in __3__ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Signed: ~M..(aj r ( STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) 55 ) Notary (Print): On the 10th day of March, 2014, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance and Notice of Application documents. This information was sent to: ~-·-r'.'T-··-=~-··-··=---·------,.--~~ :, , ' ~ ' -• ' "' ,1.; ;; ' - !,(.',!<,~ ~-~~.ci;i,.. ~ Agencies Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC Richard Ouimet, Sally Lou Nipert See attached (Signature of Sender): ~ vr6? ) STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ss ) See Attached Applicant, Contact Owners 300' surrounding property owners 0fJJ' Dated: 1/fltu,rj. / o :2 0/'f J Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ___ _.:.;,if,,._o.,_,/k..w,.....__,£_.o"-u"'-'-'1(.1.Q,.;,.....----------- My appointment expires: A-,.~ . ,.0 v-st ;2\ do, -=r The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge LUA14·000241, ECF,PP 000442 template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology•• Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region• Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers"'** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box4701S Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY {DOE) LEITER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office • Mucldeshoot Cultural Resources Program• 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa caJvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172'" Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division• Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box48343 201 s. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 •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 u•oepartment 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 000443 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 15HII KAY+WILKINSON DAVID COYLE ROBERT W+KLUG MICHA M OBERENDER DALE (+MONICA I 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 5004TH AVE 15616 SE 143RD ST 12216 164TH AVE SE SEATILE, WA 98104 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1463400078 1423059091 1423059013 FORSELL KA THY L LEX TIM+GINA MARGITH SUMPTER DONALD J 15451 SE 142ND PL 13116 158TH AVE SE 1215 182ND AVE E RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98059 SUMNER, WA 98390 5336700030 1423059113 1423059030 BAGGED BRIAN L+KELLY C YOU EVERED ROBERT P lll+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 14041156TH AVE SE 14040 154TH AVE SE 6715 SE 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1463400069 1463400067 1463400064 HARSCH PATIi J c/o HARSCH FAMILY DENADEL GARY L+BRENDA D FRANKFURTH ANTHONY D TRUST 14013 156TH AVE SE 14009 156TH AVE SE PO BOX2344 RENTON, WA 98056 RENTON,WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1423059037 1423059050 1463400068 PENARANDA JOSEPH ANDERSON ROGER R+SHIRLEY A DUNNING ROBERTW+DONNAJ 6714 SE 7TH ST 15813 SE 141ST ST 16445 SE 16TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 BELLEVUE, WA 98008 1423059028 14230590$7 1463400062 MAHONEY JAMES P NI PERT SALLY LOU OVERA ROGER+LINDA J 14011160TH AVE SE 14004 156TH AVE SE 14010 154TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 9425200012 9425200080 9425200060 BECK SHAWN M+ERIC A PAULSEN ROGER A MURAYAMA PEGGY H 13928 156TH AVE SE 6617 SE 5TH PL 15649 SE 139TH PL RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 000444 9425200059 9425200050 9425200040 FERENC JOZEF MICHALSKI DAVID C HEMNES VALERIE K 15643 SE 139TH PL 6525 SE 5TH PL 6519 SE 5TH Pl RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 9425200030 1423059104 6084200160 HENRICKS SYDNIE M BRYANT VIRGINIA LI PU+QI CHENG 6513 SE 5TH PL 6705 SE 5TH PL 15919 SE 139TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 1423059088 1423059090 1423059044 STACHOWIAK CR 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 scan MAITHEW 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 TONGJEFFJ 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 WILLEIT CAROL+DAVID MACEY TONY LEE+SHIRLEY D 15446 SE 142ND Pl 13922 156TH AVE SE 15440 SE 142ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 5336700015 6084200170 1397500060 LINS JOSE ROBERIO S VUE YER+VANG LA MAY RONALD G 10516 172ND CT SE 1S925 SE 139TH ST 15802 SE 143RD ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98056 1423059023 OUIMET G RICHARD 2923 MALTBY RD BOTHELL, WA 98012 000445 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 th• appllcation and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: M,:1rch 10, 2014 LUA14-00024l, ECF, PP The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250} is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156° Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (ONS·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 35th Street Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 / EML: justin@amerlcanclassichomes.com Permits/Review ReqYested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental {SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review Construction, Building, Fire Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 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.: -------------- 000446 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Reculations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Me11sures: 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 (SEPA} Checklist 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. 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 ta comply with the submitted geatechnical report. • Project construction shall be requ/ff!d to comply with the submitted traffic study. Commenu on the above application must be submitted in wrrting to Jill oi'ng, Senior Planner, CED-Planning Division, 105S South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on M11rch 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, IOSS South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested ln attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled ;;1t (425) 430-6578. ff comments cannot be submitted in wrrting 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 rei:ord 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 Eml: jding@rentonwa.gov Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; 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 Rtdge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME:---------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: ________________ City/State/Zip: __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: -------------- OQ04_47 Denis Law f--- _ _:Mayo:..r -----~ r :f ~' Department of Community and Economic Development · · CE."Chip"Vincerit,Administrator March 10, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC_ 9675 SE361h Street . Suite 105 · · .· Mercer Island, WA 98040 . .. . -· Subject: Notice ofComplete Application . The Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. lagers:- I ,., The Planning Division of the City of Renton has det~rmined that the subject application. is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively ·scheduled for consideration by the Envi.roninental Review Coinmitt~e 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 is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on April 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Rento~ City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, - Re_nton: The applicant or representative(s) of.the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing._ Please contact me at (425) 430:6598 if yo uh ave any questions. Jill Ding. Senior .Planner. cc: -G. ~·ichard Oull'l1et, Sally Lou Nipert /-Owner(s} · Renton City Hall • · 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov . . -000448 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER.(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: G. Richard Ouimet -as to Parcel B PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ADDRESS 2923 Maltby Road PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 14038 156th Ave SE CITY: Bothell ZIP: 98012 Renton, WA 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 481-5862 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 1423059122-Parcel A APPLICANT (if other than owner) 1423059023 -Parcel B 1423059057 -Parcel C NAME: PNW Holdings, LLC EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE{S): Single Family Residential ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RDL -Residential Low Density c1TY: Mercer Island WA ZIP: 98040 ' PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) N/ A TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-114 7 EXISTING ZONING: R4 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R4 NAME: Justin Lagers SITE AREA {in square feet): l~tCEIVE[ 328,129 sq.ft. Crn n COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYlsT(j ee'.U 14 DEDICATED: 79,419 Sq.ft. CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street Suite 105 ' SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS"r!~'saillEIIITa: NIA c1TY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET 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 Handouts\Planning\rnasterapp.doc -1 -000449 °3111 PROJECTINFORMAT~IO_N_~(c~o_n_ti_n_ue_d~I)~~~~~~~~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 1-$3,000,000.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2800-3300 sq.ft. IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable}: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 11,()()Sf•(. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): None~ D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): None D FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): None D GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if D HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): None D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A D WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION --14..._, TOWNSHIP -23.M, RANGE --5.E_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) G. Richard Ouimet , declare under penalty of pe~ury under.the Jaws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one} L the current owner of the property involved in this application or~ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization} and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory eviden~t ,/{. ~9',,;,rd Du, 02.1.i:- signed this instrument and acknowledge it to b~er/their free and voluntary act for 'the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. Date 000450 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER($) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Sally Lou Nipert -as to Parcel A/Parcel C The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ADDRESS: 14004 156th Avenue SE PROJECTIADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 14038 156th Ave SE CITY: Renton ZIP: 98059 Renton, WA 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 271-5581 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 1423059122 -Parcel A 1423059023 -Parcel B APPLICANT (if other than owner) 1423059057 -Parcel C NAME: PNW Holdings, LLC EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential ADDRESS 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RDL -Residential Low Density c1TY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) N/ A EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-1147 R4 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R4 ·n ..... -..... NAME: Justin Lagers SITE AREA (in square feet): "L\....-1_:1 V t:L 328,129 sq.ft. FEB 2 7 211'4 COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC RO~WAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 79 ,4 19 sq.ft. ITY OF RENTON PLANN/Nr::; r,, I~ ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: N/A c1TY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4.4 5 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\Fonns-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc • I -000451 °3111 PROJECT INFORMA T~IO_N _ _,_ (cc......o_n---ti ___ n_ue_d_J.I) _______ _ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 1. $3,000,000.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2800 _ 3300 sq. ft. IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (ii applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 1,1000'• BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): None-lt/e, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL -_,, D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): None NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): None NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A D FLOOD HAZARD AREA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD D HABITATCONSERVATION D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES D WETLANDS ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ 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 2,1N, RANGE~. IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Sally Lou Nipert . deciare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) L 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. ~~ Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that .._:;;q,L,(.. Lo"'-Jl/rP.e;e, signed this instrument and acknowl~dQe it \o b~ hi e eir free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the"instrument. "'''\\\\\~1,, '7~ L, .... ~D9 -,,,, .,,~~~---+--'S'°.,._-~~~:\""'~ .· L'\. ,,,. 6ated : ~->~':llAIS . 111 ~, "'c) \ : c,-= <.i 110~ ~\ H ~ Date -"":i .. .,. i.t O ~ /7 ,,.,_,. ~ ~ > ~ ... '· -< Ji~ :i,, ~ L.;r-r,<{)L L. oZL'/+ '/ -; -1 ~6 ~ ' ,. § ~ ~ Notary (Print) --------~-~-~'-'~·___,.L. ____ _ ~ tn ~<5' •t,c Gt:: · -l ~ o;:,,,,;,;-,14 ,i" ff / / 7 /.,_/ \1 If, 1''"""'""'"'o~ ~ My appointment expires: __ __,,(,R"'----· ---'-----~1-----------1,, ~.S/'f1"'G-<; ,~ ,,, ~.. ~~' 1111,~''""'" · H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc -2 -03/11 000452 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ,J!i.lLL .. ~PJ~=®=~~:~iti'~j!':,:::•·1:j''.· ··::·w~%®u1· JM~:.lietiji. r:·::·1·1·:: i: 1mn·:·e~MMimW=~fr::1·:,1 ;,:·:: 1··: . Plat Name Reservalion 4 . . . . R@ike!r.itw.1\W#*i~ *i.\tri!@tY-( mmm:u:::::m:::.:.:m:: ·::,· :·::.·1·.·.·:::·,j·. ··~::.·::J:1:· ':.·.:·.·. ·: :::1:.·,·1·:·: :· .. ·. 1 :-·,·:·.·:::::;: '·,·:·:·:·-•:·,!·):·-·_ 1·1·1·-·.·.· :·.· Public Works Approval Letter, · ~f!lf#/!!~'-'*lf'l1*-i.~':. u :. TJ ... ~:r:.u u u uu.:.:::::.::u:uE:1 ·r:·,·1 · :ru· '· -1m:·: : rm::·,·u:x r: ·1: ·: ·: ,~ ·, ·-·: \: ·:·.·.·:·:;:·:·: ;::·:·.::·:·: ·~ ·1·11·1· 1·: ·1:.1:·:·,· ·:; · :.· .:.;··;;· Screen Ing Detail 4 •~,•~:r¥1>,dJ'.:,.· . .: m-r,::.:: :·1.::::H.:1.·J,.:.uu:::·.m .:.:1H:NnH·::·i :.:: :::.u·,·-·.·w·.·:mt:: :·m :w·:::.·,,:-:·:1::··1··1::·:;······1··;· ·;·,·: :··· ····· ;······,: ·1 · :·1 : 13 • · · Stream or Lake Study, Standard 4 · .· _ · /,1,,() irl({1l1J1f/ 1 lVll o c,: J' = ,'. , ; nJ.. Jaj,./ /', r,u_, ~rWai11:'"™~~~tmr~~1tuu::tUYUU: :~·' ;,i' ,,·:, ru ,: iiffI LL ::·rn1'i · :···w--m H:1,: : ·. •· ,·:· ',·.·.> -·;' ,:;,·, -· · \\·,: Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 *1¥~M~#f ir~~k.l~.: :.:.uL::u.u:-.:::::-tu:mmm::::~m::::.m:.::: :mrnm:1:rmmmu: m:mm1·mm: m ·:·,; :· : :·1·: ::· ,:·:·: :·::: ·: 1: rn:-:.· :·, -: :·:· • :·::·:·: : i··: :· :::·: ::· :. : ·: :·. ·: Trtle Report or Plat Certificate , tAAAAi@xMin .. u:u,J ... ::~:.:::mu::::m:w:.::HuYu '::.·:.·::.:::·.·.J· .:.urn:: +;+1ff ( .. :-;·.: ,·;\1·:· : ;:·.···:: ::::n ::,:·n ff::::::)!:!: ::, Traffic Study 2 TIJi~ (,~~1~i(l!\.~r)9,)€l:r~~rw.Prmix;.:,; }! u· u.u:::·· :u,;: :: ) m.muL : : .Lt':.·.:::·:,·, . ) .• ,·;·, .. ( L ':: ;,:··rm: ··,:::::: ··: ;:· ·,r:,;· Urban Design Regulations Analysis 4 LU() Uillii(is:f:Wmf@iifii:~11i@r¥.UH::}:.!Ji·.·11.d:: 'LU/U :; Ht !!:/Hf Hi:: :·. ;):+:Hf :'ii!, ; HH! .. :::::::;.,,::ii::::·:::,;·:;(:,··,:·:: [(ii: :: Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 ¥V:¥.1~.m:M.,ffl.%M.f.~~,n~t.t1Hm:mn:rn:L.·li:m :u:::·:u:;: :·m ": . :::. 'H:· :nm::m{·; =: ;:·:·· ··:, ·:· • :;1· .·1·<: .·:··:,: ·: :·: :·1· ·· :· ··: · :·,·: :·: ··:: :,· ·.·.· · ,· ,. Wetlands Report/Delineation4 lLD f(Y)i/Utfrnh« lbtl,,/ 111 !nf.t,r/nj,. lN@tap,t.ii,U }::;,.;:;::;u·;:·uu(·.·.·.i:.·.·.:·u··:.1:·'L u·:;·;:;((;f; !(;(··.··.:·,·,,·: ·,::·.:,·. ')::·::·(:• :·······:·1·{,·(, 'i··; Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2AN0, Map of View Area 2 AND , · .. . . Photosimu/ations >ANOS This requirement may be waived by: 1 .. Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning !l'STJQ L 17 I :g r:: r rr : •21 dr • 'fY) . ?P PROJECTNAME: f6fo . 1/sJ(Mh~ .. · · DATE: I/ /z& /13 FEB 2 7 · CITY OF RENTON p f I 'i ! 000-JSJ PLANNING OIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS· FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS·· ·: :···· ·:··~~~;::re.:m:MttrAm::: :,···:·:· :·:·":'fir::· :·~:fil~a, .. ·····:····· ;. :::¢€iMMSJX$~ . ·:·:•··:·,: ...•.•.. Calculations 1 ¢oliiir¢Mi!ips!J¢0l)ipl#y/;:;,.::(: ;;;.::ii,::,:,:,, '.;s·:u . :.: ,::.::::.: :;:.:::.:.: i!-11. ,::.;.: i !(: ,:;·;\;::;:; :·:: ,·.·.\:· ;···mn;:)·.·::··:,)·: ;·';·:·/:;.:.:· .. ·.,· Construction Mttigatlon Description 2 AND• . n.~~~.9tB1®!!#1W~~ffi~nH rn:m:::; ::; ·. ··:: ::.wmiwn: : ; ::::: u::u:::mrn .u::ts . ..: :u ;: ' : i:Jiin: ~-·. ·, : ·. ·. : ··:: · ·. ·::::::._;: :: ·: ' :::w::::< ·::: :;: :: ·, ·::,- . Density Worksheet , · . ti~fw.ei%9n!Wlf'lla~.~;:: :):::: .. ·.·;::; iUL ,· ::,,·.'.,XW:.i . .!!· .. ·:L:m: ; -:::.::•• :x::.·.· .. i[;;::t ' :., '1\:; :···. ;;·.· ~· ::·: ;(;(;; ::::· :: Drainage Report 2. . .... · ....... ,.. . _ .. _ _ ........ , . e@Sii@~;)jmdi]iat~ANn~:,~~~-~*'··:.~.~~--w~:~~~·:·:~:: ~*-~:,!~~~~~~ j)]l1_,,_~~:w~: :'•i~~,;~·~·.'''.dtrltiiM~-~7·=·::•:"~~,:.:::~ :~-~ Environmental Checklist 4 · · · · · · J I ei1Wii$;¢#.\leti®l~:11Mot.if®W><h:::::::m::mw:m:::: ::::::::m::m:mm:.::: ::m::n:.m:::m:::::m::: .:+::::;:::nH::::nn::·::::·::::·::m:::::~·:::rr:-:\:i:m::::·:::·;: Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 . ~Ji~@@:@¥.{·.·J::u:.:u::::::;;::-::-u·:: t:W'!Y: JAA?,Hm·:u:: m:mm.:muu.·::u y·;·;·:····::< , · :::::uw:·:·:·:·:··.::.rH:u::!J;,·::·: :::·:·: · Floor Plans 3AND4 U,fJ I 11a11~tfl ( v,-/i) VI ,(vf 1111.1 l)?Yl4; )f- • (;;eafen~olr;e,!'W>4di¥/ijiu (.'.;fff(, :!::·.·· .. .::·. ':' ... ·::[:(: ,:,:_'( ··.·.·::··::::· . '(,\·.·;;:· ' "';::(ii! :: ;'()ti' ;::,:ff.:· . Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 ' sf./aiiw.M:lliM~@il:(:mm:,:::m.:::mrn:::wrn::m::::: ;::w:ru·: ::rnmm:::::,u.::: ::: : ,:::mwm::::, !:t1: :::::··,·, ,:1·:·: :::·,···: ::·:··::···:·,···,·:·:·: :·:·:; ·, :::::::·:·:·:· ·: :·(·:··· , HabitatDataReport 4 · . tlh ;Mf\Aorf,n/a(t' · '.fnfhfo/,,-1,r;, tmpw®l/Pe¥W.:{ -;:::;:,::: ::w::::; ::::::,!::::::·::::::::1:wrn1::: ;,::::::,,:::::::: :.,::1::u 1:u:::;:::;; ::.::···: ·,·, :; ·,· ·. · :nm:m · ·,: ·: ···:·: : ·; :·: ·, ·::;· ··;·: ·:··:: ·:·: ·:·;,;·; ·:; ·n: ·m ,·, : · Irrigation Plan i ~iw®i#WMsws.«.:.:~11J~mng;s11$.(iHU''!i! ::uu:m:m:u::: :.:.uu1mt 1:n·. ::::· :· ::::····•·:;;::;· :·:::··. ;,:n·.:··•···,::::n\· · landscape Plan, Conceptual, La@scii&, ®!Peiiiiteil: .. u: :.U l: · ' i: ( ·. ·. ·. ff: : : i: i: · .. , .:: di : ·.: L ::: i UU!i : :;!;:; :!: ::::: +:: ·. iii· .. ::: 1 ·, ·, ·. ·. ::: : :': , : i >::u;m:m :;;;:;,::;;::m:. : ,;: . Legal Des·cription 4 Maj>iilfi!i1ii:fiit1llg\Stte,C0Ml®<isA;iiii/:,··i·H+'·i ii UH i!' Ui!ie i!iit!i!!:WH+ ;:,::: · i; !ii/:H:.·.·.· ··;•,:·:·,·:·····:{·:···:·-·.·.;,··::·:·: ·:·:··:::·:·: :·;;:··:. ;::·:: ·:·(:;: ;·.· .. Master Application Form, ¥1wiffl.®.@.(~tl~R\1F~i?®m~Wbi.iYU.JtU.'X :l.'.LUUU. , !Ji: ·n:.UU.L ... L.'.·. :t:.:. :\.:.::,,u:•u .. :.:.:.:.:.: ..... :.:ff· ::u :.:.·:·1:u.:.;·1:· . \, . · Neighborhood Detail Map• _ eWiM$.xm1co~gil/&:tia®¥#!rwMar>*~:.J:,: :.:.:nH:1:\::::m.m1i~H :::::i,-mmmm:::·:::;:· .:u:::·.·:·.::·:::,·:·1·:····:··:··::·:~J:tPl .. t!fl\/f.R · ~ PlanReductlons(PMTs)4 ·err, o.., ,.-.·.· ~~jQffi:08M~i2··:,:~.t·:~.tu~.Lum .. :?i.fl~Ui~~~1m·.·;·.mr("tn1.i.1-irm-tu.i.·.m ~-H.·.-.1.n·~·1:1·i·;·.·1·~-!-:·J·:·-·1·(1·;·{~-~-1-mrn~mmrn~mmm!·m·1·1·m·!W!1.'=-:;~1·'~~1,···· This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services - 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NAME: 1cy;'ft1 ti'/ SSflll/'io}J!;vfp DATE:·(/ /z& lls · . . J I -aee «id PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR 156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat 14038 156th Avenue SE PRE 13-001566 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division November 26, 2013 Contact Information: Planner: Vanessa Dolbee, 425.430.7314 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Rohini Nair, 425.430.7298 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430.7024 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430. 7290 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 and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers {e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). 000455 Fire & Emergency Services Department DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM 11/18/2013 12:00:00AM Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Corey Thomas, Plan Review/Inspector (156th Assemblage Preliminary Plat) PREB-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 certifi.cate is required from King County Water District 90. It appears only a dead end 6-inch main is available in this area currently. 2. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over SOO~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. 008:&6'8>f1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M November 22, 2013 Vanessa Dolbee, Sr. Planner Rohini Nair, Plan Review 156"' Assemblage Preliminary plat Preapp 14038 156"' Ave SE PREU-001566 NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. . I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced proposal. The following comments are based on the pre-~pplication submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. WATER The proposed development is within the Water District 90's water service area. Water availability certificate from the Water District 90 must be provided to the City during the land use application. Approved water plans from the Water District 90 must be provided during the utlllty 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 144"' 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 sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the new home on each lot. The sewer fee for a %-inch or 1-inch meter install is $1,812.00 (2013 rate) or $2033.00 (2014 rate). 5. The Central Plateau Interceptor Special Assessment District fee (SAD) fee will be applicable on the project. The SAD fee rate when it was established in 2009 was $351.95 plus interest per lot. As of 000457 156"' Assemblage Preliminary Plat PreapJ>-PRE13-001566 Page 2 of3 November 22, 2013 11/22/2013, the SAD fee rate per lot is $431.93 plus additional interest per day of $0.05111. 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 sitefalls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Site Conditions). The project is required to use the Flow Control Duration Standard (forested conditions) as the existing pre-developed condition. Refer to Figure 1.1.2.A-Flow chart, for determining the type of drainage review required in the City of Renton 2009 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 (SOC) fee is $1,120.00 (2013 rate) for each lot. The SDC fee for stormwater will be.come $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 l, 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 156"' 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 planter.;, 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 156"' Ave SE. The half street frontage improvements will be required to be built on the 156"' 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 rs offset from the existing public street south of the site. A street that wlll 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 000458 156"' Assemblage Preliminary Plat Preapp-PRE13-001566 Page 3 of3 November 22, 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 of20 feet in the 26-feet wide private access easement. 6. Street lighting is required to be provided on 156th Ave SE and on the internal public streets. 7. A traffic study is required. The study must include the analysis of the stop sign controlled intersection to the immediate south of the project, the proposed new roadway intersection on 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. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require s,eparate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When utifity plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, the permit appllcation, an Itemized cost of construction estimate, and the application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. H:\ CED\Plannlng\Current Planning\PREAPPS\ 13-001566Vanessa\Plan Review Comments PRE13-001566.doc 000459 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM November 26, 2013 Pre-application File No. 13-001566 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1S61h Assemblage Preliminary Plat General: We have completed a preliminary review ofthe pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The followlng 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 ail 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 on line at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property (APN 1423059023 and 1423059122) is located on the east side of 156'h 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 planning\preapps\13-001566.vanessa\pre013-001566, assemblage pp, 27-lots, r-4.doc 000460 156"' Assemblage Preliminary Plat, PREB--001566 Page 2 of 4 November 26, 2013 and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the "net" site area prior to calculating density. The application materials identified a net site area of 298,821 SF (6.86 acres). Using the net square footage provided, the proposal for 27 lots arrives at a net density of approximately 3.94 du/ac (27 lots/ 6.86 acres= 3.94 du/ac), which is within the density range permitted in the R-4 zone. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-llOA, "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 duster 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 foot setback. The setbacks for the new residences would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Residential Design and Open Space Standards: The Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115 would be applicable to any new residential structures. A handout indicating the applicable guidelines and standards is enclosed. Access/Parking: The applicant has indicated access to Proposed Lots would be via new public roadway extending from 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 dear 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 000461 156"' 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 Jot. 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 000462 156"' Assemblage Preliminary Plat, PREB-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/or 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 ,md payable prior to building permit issuance. The fees for 2013 are as follows: • Transportation Impact Fee -$717.75 per new single-family house; • Park Impact Fee -$530.76 per new single-family house; • Fire Impact Fee -$479.28 per new single-family house; and • Renton Schools Impact Fee -$6,395.00 per new single-family house. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Please note that all impact fees will increase in 2014. Note: When formal application materials are complete, the applicant must make an appointment with the project manager, Vanessa Dolbee, to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor public counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Ms. Dolbee may be contacted at (425) 430-7314 or vdalbee@rentonwa.gov. Expiration; Upon approval, preliminary plats are valid for seven years. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\13--001566.vanessa\pre013-001566, assemblage pp. 27-lots, r- 4.doc 000463 None 1: 4,794 00 D 200 400 Feet s_ 19~ _ Web _Mercator_ A :ixillary _ Sphere Cltyof Rettton e Finance & IT Divbion Zoning Map Legend City and County Labels City and County Boundary [} 0:n6~ (j City of Rerton Q Parcels Zoning • RC Reool..lTE Ccri~ori \.-·;_, R-1 Re11,"deJ11iai 1 dtlll!I:; 'Ii R..4 Rl»iderillal 'I tb(ac R-B Ral'lklentlal a du/ac lnro~t/on Technofogy . GIS RentonMepSupport@Rerrtonwa.gov 11/25/2013 ~ RM-F Rasit:lentlW Mu'tr...famlly If R/.1-T Rtiside~ Multi--FamilyTradrtronal ~\ RIA-U R&lliderwai MJ~1-Fam11y lxban C!ir'ttlr II cv Center VIiiage • CD Ctlliter Ootmto.vn • UC-N1 U,tan earner -Nortt, 1 U~ Urba.1 Cerit1:1r-Nartt,2 • COR ComiTi&rui.l OfflaitResi®llliel ~ CA Cornmertial Arlei1at D CO Commercial om::e Thi$ map l.s a (JS6r generated stanc Olrtp.J\ fro.'!l a~ Internet mspflng gtte, ~d 's for mfeteni;e orvy. Data layfITT! that ~aar on thll> 1'11.11p may or may not be a::ctrata =rert, or otheJWlse refiable l'HIS MAP IS NOTTO BE US N None 0 1: 4,794 00 0 200 400 F~ot WGS_ 1984_ Web_Mertator_Auxmary_ Sphere City of R.:etl{Qfl 8 Flnmce & IT Division Vicinity Map Legend City and County labels City and County Boundary f""r Ot!lfll" -··-' CJ Cttyo!R_, Q Parcels Information Teehnology. GrS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gm,, 11/25/2013 Th.s map ~ a, us&r generat&d static output from an lnt«t1t1 maPP<f"9 s·Qe and 1.s for rafcrnnoo only. Data layer5 that appear on UilS m-'P ml!}' or may rot be ac..-.m1ls, eurrenl, or 01.herwi.&11 rellabl& ON February 25, 2014 Project No. 13117 CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NARRATIVE PRELlMINJ(RY PLAT OFTHE ENCLAVE AT BRlDLE RTDGE -. 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 1561 h 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: Engineer/Surveyor: Land Use Permits Required: -Preliminary Plat Approval -Final Plat Approval -Environmental Review Zoning and Density: PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36 1h Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 588-1147 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Maher A. Joudi, P.E. -Grading Permit -Building Permit RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON '·-'! ,, '·'J'-1 ', --.-., , • ./;I-J,..__ .• .01\11$/01\J 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. 000466 Page 2 ofJ Special Site features: None Soil Type and Drainage Conditions: Per the King County Soil Survey, onsite soil consists of AgC, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with slopes ranging from 6-15%. Site runoff travels to the southwest and discharges into existing conveyance systems. --· ---· Proposed Use of Property: The Project is the subdivision of two existing parcels (post LLA) zoned R4 (8.8 ac. total) into 31 single-family residential lots, per the City of Renton's subdivision process. This will result in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. Lot square footages range from 8,050 to 12,566 s.f., with no lot sizes below the minimum 8,000 s.f. threshold set by the City. Access, Traffic, and Circulation: The Project will locate its access road as depicted on the attached plan. Access to the subdivision will be from 1561h Avenue SE at two locations. Proposed Site Improvements: Half street improvements on 1561h 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 1561h Avenue SE as per City requirements; this will require a 5.5-foot right of way dedication. An existing water main in 1561h will be tapped to serve the proposed development. Sanitary Sewer will be extended from the south from an existing sanitary sewer manhole at 1561h Avenue SE and SE 1441h Street. One detention/water quality pond is proposed within Tract "A" to serve the subdivision. The Project will meet the drainage requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual), as adopted by the City. The project will locate a job shack on the site as prescribed by the contractor during construction. Model homes will be built, however, the lots on which these homes will be built has not been determined at this time. Cut Materials: Approximately 4,495 c.y. of cut and 36,888 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net fill volume is approximately 32,393 c.y. Tree Inventory: Thirty-five of the existing 303 significant trees on site will be retained onsite. There was an opportunity to retain an additional 15 trees located along the site's eastern boundary; however the project arborist has deemed them as either diseased or dangerous. These trees would eventually die and have the potential of being blown over during a storm if they are not removed during construction. Additional trees will be planted to meet the City's tree retention requirements. See tree retention spreadsheet. 000467 Page J ofJ Estimated Construction Cost & Proposed Market Value: The approximate construction cost is typical of a subdivision of this size and nature totaling approximately $3,000,000.00. The estimated fair market value of the proposed project is approximately $6,975,000.00. 000468 February 20, 2014 Project No. 13117 CITY OF RENTON CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION REPORT PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE The following is a report of expected construction dates and times, as well as proposed hauling/transportation routes, ESC measures and traffic control plan. Proposed Construction Dates: Hours and Days of Operation: forth by City ordinance Clearing, Grading, Utilities and Roads September 2014 -February 2015 Home Construction: April 2015 -April 2016 Monday -Friday, Hours to meet guidelines set Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes: South on 1561h Avenue SE to SE 142"d Place, West on SE 142"ct 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 RECEJ\IED FEB 2 7 zo;4 CITY G;: ;,;:1,1•0 r:;Lf!. . .f,J.~ ·:. -" _,;. •• " .-·f-J • " --, __ ) : j ,-:,.\ 000469 City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in ~J.~meter1 on projec! 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 O trees Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers O trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 3. 103 trees 200 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4 , 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 proposing 5 to retain 4: 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (lf line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 5. 35treeT<ECEIVED 6. 25 trees FEB 2 7 2014 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: C!TY c;: tf:NTON 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 trees 6: (if remainder PS .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1· Measured at chest height. 9. per tree ---"15"-'0=--__ 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). •-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 retentio·n of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a e. 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\Reporu\Preliminary\TreeRetention Worksheetl3 I l 7.doc 0004 70 !2/0S DENSITY WORKSHEET -·City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430·7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 383,126 square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets** Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 79,419 0 0 2. 79,419 square feet square feet square feet square feet 3. 303,707 square feet 4. 6.97 acres 5. 31 units/lots 6. 4.45 = dwellinRm°iGJcJMED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY c,•: ,._,.,,.,nN *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be nw~,~,~~ff(q( 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 \13 l l 7\3\Documents\Reports\Preliminary\densityl3 l l 7.doc OOd471 03108 DRS Project No. 13117 CITY OF RENTON ----------ENVIRONMENl"AL-CHEGKLIST- PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE Rl~~CEIV . ED FEB 2 7 2014 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: CITY OF RENTON PlAN~iiNC DIVISION 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 ii 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. Sonie 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. SEPA Checklist Page 1 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rento0~2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ---2. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Nams of applicant;- PNW Holdings LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Justin Lagers 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 (206) 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. SEPA Checklist Page 2 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Ren1°000ilf1'3 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. Geoteclmical Report; Earth Solutions NW, LlG · 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 SEPA Determination Preliminary Subdivision Approval Grading Permit Final Subdivision Approval Building Permit Other Customary Construction Related Permits General Construction Stormwater Permit 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 1561h Avenue SE at two locations. City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton Department of Ecology © 2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 3 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Ren!~~ 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 occui -0veL-a-range of area, provide the--- range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Project is located in the SE '!. of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The Site is located at 14038 155th Avenue SE and 14004 156th Avenue SE. © 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. $EPA Checklist Page 4 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rento0904?5 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. moun a, ous er. In general, the majority of the property has slopes that range between 4 to 8%. Generally, the land slopes from the northeast corner of the site to the southwest. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The northeast corner of the Site has slopes that range between 9 to 15%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils on the Site are mapped in the Soil Survey of King County, Washington, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and has classified the Site as Alderwood Series, slopes 6-15% (AgC), gravelly sandy loam. Additionally, see attached Geotechnical Report dated d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None to our knowledge. © 2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checl(list Page 5 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat c·,ty of Rent<OfK>476 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_ t0--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. SEPA Checklist Page 6 of 22 The Encrave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rento090i4l?1V 2. AIR in accordance with requirements of the City of Renton. a. What types of em1ss1ons to the air ~---would--result from-the Proposal (i.e., -- dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, gen- erally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short-term emissions will be those associated with construction and site development activities. These will include dust and emissions from construction equipment. Long-term impacts will result from increased vehicle traffic. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your Proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emissions or odors are those that are typical of residential neighborhoods. These will include automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The Washington Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust. Construction impacts will not be significant and could be controlled by measures such as washing truck wheels before exiting the site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. In addition, dirt-driving surfaces will be watered during extended dry periods to control dust. © 2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 7 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rento09841f!8 3. WATER a. Surface. i. Is there any surface water body on or-in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None to our knowledge. ii. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not to our knowledge. iii. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from sur- face water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None iv. Will the Proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. v. Does the Proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not to our knowledge. © 2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 8 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rent<C)004JJ19 vi. Does the Proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, a public sanitary sewer --system will-be installed -to-- serve the residential units. There will be no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground. i. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general de- scription, purpose, and ap- proximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. Public water mains will be installed to serve the development. No water will be discharged to the groundwater. 11. 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. SEPA Checklist Page 9 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of RentcG8948() c. Water Runoff (including storm water). i. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quanti- ties, if known) .... Where-will this ... water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See attached Level One Downstream Analysis Report. ii. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed stormwater system will be designed to minimize or eliminate entry of waste materials or pollutants to ground water resources and/or surface waters. Oils, grease, and other pollutants from the addition of paved areas could potentially enter the groundwater or downstream surface water runoff. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. A City approved storm drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from storm water runoff. Temporary and permanent drainage facilities will be used to control quality and quantity of surface runoff during construction and after development. © 2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 10 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rentc808481 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ---1L deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, vine-maple;--black cottonwood -otherc-------- (bitter cherry, pacific dogwood) ---1L evergreen tree: fir, cedar, spruce, pine, other: ---1L shrubs ---1L grass (orchard grass) ---1L pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: ---1L 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. SEPA Checklist Page 11 of 22 The Enclave at Bndle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rent~'2 birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: crows mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, small rodents, raccoon, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish other: None to our knowledge. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Western King County as well as the rest of Western Washington, is in the migration path of a wide variety of non-tropical songbirds, and waterfowl, including many species of geese. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None proposed. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/or natural gas will serve as the primary energy source for residential heating and cooking within the development. Any wood stoves incorporated into the new residential units will comply with all local and State regulations. © 2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 12 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Ctty of Ren1"98f)483 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation -features-are included in the plans of this - Proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The required measures of the Washington State Energy Code and the Uniform Building Code will be incorporated in the construction of the residential units. Energy conservation fixtures and materials are encouraged in all new construction. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this Proposal? If so, describe. There are no known on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today and none will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. 11. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Special measures are not anticipated. © 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 13 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rent<Oe948i4 b. Noise i. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The primary source of off-site noise in the area originates from vehicular traffic present on adjacent streets. ii. What types and levels of noise would be created by or as- sociated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term impacts will result from the use of construction equipment during site develop- ment and residential construction. Construction will occur during the daylight hours, and in compliance with all noise ordinances. Construction noise is generated by heavy equipment, hand tools and the transporting of construction materials and equipment. Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increased use of the property by homeowners. iii. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction will be performed during normal daylight hours. Construction equipment will be equipped with noise mufflers. © 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 14 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rent<890485 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. The current---- use of adjacent properties is listed as follows: North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 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 assocfated 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. SEPA Checklist Page 15 of 22 The Enclave at Brtdle Ridge Prel084Bat City of RentcO 6 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 resideoF-work in the completed project? Approximately 71 individuals will reside in the completed residential development (31 units x 2.3 persons per household = 71.3 individuals). J· Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The existing residence that is to be demolished is not occupied, so no individuals will be displaced. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None at this time. I. Proposed measures to ensure the Proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed development is compatible with the prescribed land use codes and designations for this site. Per the City Zoning Code, the development is consistent with the density requirements and land use of this property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The completed project will provide 31 detached single-family residential homes. Homes will be priced with a market orientation to the middle to high-income level homebuyer. © 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 16 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rent<09948'i" 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. -Rroposed-measures-to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The maximum building height will conform to City of Renton Standards. b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views in the vicinity are not likely to be enhanced, extended or obstructed by development of this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? The location of the buildings adheres to or exceeds the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district. The landscaping will be installed at the completion of building and paving construction. A Homeowners Association will maintain the landscaping and common elements. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the Proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will be produced from building lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the site. The light and glare will occur © 2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 17 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rento00(t4IB8 primarily in the evening and before dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light--and glare from-the project will-- not cause hazards or interfere with views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your Proposal? The primary off-site source of light and glare will be from vehicles traveling along the area roadways. Also, the adjacent residential uses and streetlights may create light and glare. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Street lighting will be installed in a manner that directs the light downward. The proposed perimeter landscaping will create a partial visual buffer between the proposed units and the surrounding neighborhood areas. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Maplewood Heights Park (Approximately 0.37 miles east from the Site). Maplewood Neighborhood Park (Approximately 0.3 miles west from the Site) Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail Site (Approximately 0.3 miles west from Site) © 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 18 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rent<9'89489 13. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control ---impacts-on --recreation,-including-- recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Park mitigation fees will be paid to the City of Renton. 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 156 1h Avenue SE at two locations. © 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 19 of 22 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 1561h Ave SE and-SE 144th-Street. . · c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will have garage and driveway parking spaces. Each home will have a minimum of two-parking spaces per lot. The project will eliminate those associated with the existing residence that is to be demolished. d. Will the Proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including drive- ways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). 1561h Avenue SE will be improved per City of Renton road standards. A new public subdivision road will serve the development in a looped configuration and will provide a stub to the south. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) 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. SEPA Checklist Page 20 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Renl'0'60491 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. SEPA Checklist Page 21 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rent'O'OtfMl92 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Water: Water District 90 Sewer: City of Renton Telephone: Century Link C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledg . I understand the lead agency is re- lying on them to ake its decision. DATE SUBMITIED: ·'I. zr.. _v_~~----' 2014. © 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 22 of 22 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat City of Rento00949S PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: JUSTIN LAGERS 9675 SE 36TH ST, SUITE 105 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 PLA1 RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2014 ... ···; ; . .. . -~ ; The p!at name, ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE THE has been reserved for Mure 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. II 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 ;(..c. a J CL,,. . .: .t. Leroy Oladwid RECEI\/Ef) FEB 2 7 20ii CITY OF 1<i:NTON Pi.Af-..g,J:i,?:; D/Vi3!0,\! 000494 ~ / First American Kristi K Mathis Title Officer (206) 615-3206 kkmathis@firstam.com Title Team Four Fax No. (866) 859-0429 Fi meric:an Title Insurana O,mpany Slb .xewart St, Ste BOO 5eattle, WA 96101 Phn -(206)615-3206 Fax -(425)551-4107 Michelle Treherne Title Officer ( 425) 635-2100 mtreheme@firstam.com Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 Stewart Street #800, Seattle, WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers Re: Property Address: 14004 156th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 Rrst American Title File No.: 4220-2206449 Your Ref No.: f~Fc::Fl\!ff) FEB 2 7 2014 CITY CF RENTON PtANt-~1/\JG Di\/J~~IOt-~ 000495 form No. 1068·2 ALTA Plain Language Commibnent 1mitment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 2 of 10 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agree to issue a policy to you according to the terms of this Commitment. ··~- When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Sdledule 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 y_ Kristi Mathis, 11tle Officer Rrst Amerit:dn T!tle 000496 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: January 31, 2014 at 7:30 AM. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT Homeowner's Rate Standard Owner's Policy $ To Follow $ ... -Proposed Insured: ------..... PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company Simultaneous Issue Rate AL TA Extended Loan Policy Proposed Insured: To Follow $ To Follow $ 1mltment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 3 of 10 PREMIUM TAX To Follow $ To Follow To Follow $ To Follow 3. (A) The estate or interest in the land described in this Commitment is: Fee Simple (BJ lltle 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. Rist American 77tle 000497 Form No. 1068·2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment The following requirements must be met: SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMENTS .,m~ment No.: 4220·2206449 Page 4 of 10 (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) -oocuments satisfactory to us creating the rnteresfili the land ana,lor the mortgage to be insuia:f 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 infonnation: PART ONE: 1. Any off record leases, surveys, etc. 2. Statement(s) of Identity, all parties. 3. Other: SCHEDULE B SECTION II GENERAL EXCEPTIONS 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 ti~e 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, enrumbrances, 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. Rrst American Tlfle 000498 Fonn No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment PART TWO: SCHEDULE B SECTION II EXCEPTIONS 1mltment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 5 of 10 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 coverageof the policy or policies are availaolefrom 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/Are.a 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 RON 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 lights as a result of labor and/or materials used, or to be used, for improvements to the premises. The Company reserves the right to make additional requirements prior to insuring. An indemnity agreement to be completed by PNW Holdings LLC, is being sent to Closing Escorw and must be submitted to us prior to dosing for our review and approval. All other matters regarding extended coverage have been cle.ared 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. Rrst Ameriam 77tle 000499 form No. 1068~2 ALTA Plain language Commitment rrnitment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 6 of 10 7. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Qty of Renton, Washington Ordinance No. 5465" Recorded: Recording No.: November 05, 2009 20091105000541 Rm Americdn Tltle 000500 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES 1m1tment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 7 of 10 A. Potential charges, for the King County Sewage Treatment capacity Charge, as authorized under RON 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 SE 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. First American TJtle 000501 Fonn No. 1068-2 Al TA Plain Language Commitment CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a)"Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. 1mitment No.: 4220-2206449 Page 8 of 10 (b )"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting according to the state law where the land is located. ~---· the title 2. LATER DEFECTS The Exceptions in Schedule B -Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B -Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment. 3. EXISTING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted In good faith to: comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B -Section I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B -Section IL 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 daim, 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 ll.C. cc: Sally Lou Nipert Rrst American 7it/e 000502 Forni No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment First American ·¥' I Rn;t~ 1ide ·--We Are Committed to Safeg\lardlng Cltlmmer Information 1mitment No.; 4220-2206449 Page 9 of 10 First Ameria,n ld:Je Insurance Company 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, WA 98101 Pim -(206)615-3206 Fax -(425)551-4107 In order to bett(!f serve your needs now arid in the future, we may ask you to provide us wltfl certain information. we understand ttiat you may be concerned about what we wlll do with such inbmation • partlcu!arly any personal or finandal' Information. We agree that you have a right to know how we wW utll!re the personal Information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our subsl<fiarles we~ adopted this Privacy Polley to govem the use and handling of your personal Information. Applicabllty ThiS Prtvacy Policy governs our use of the information that )'04.I pr<wide 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 publlc record or from another person or ei,tity. 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. 1)'pes of Informatton Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing', the types of oonpublic personal Information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applk:ations, forms and In other communications to us, whether in wrJting, In person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our aff~iated companies, or others; and • Information we receive from a oonsumet reporting agency. Use of Information We request infomlatm from you for oor own legitimate buSiness purposes and not for the benefit of any nonafflllated party. TherefCl'e, we wVI net release yoor Information to nonaffillated parties except: (I) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested r:I us; or (2) as permitted by lciw. We may, however, store StJCh Information lndefloltfly, im:luding the period al'ter which any customet relationship has ceased. Sucf1 infonnatlon may be used for any internal PUrJXISe, such as Quallty control el'forts or customer analysis. We may also ~de all of the types of nonpublk: personal Information fisted above to one or more or our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies lndude financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty Insurers, and bust and lnVestment advisory companies, or companies lrwolved In real estate sevices, sud1 as appraisal companies, home warranty companies and escrow companies. Furthemlore, we may also provide al the information we collect, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on Ol.lf behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies or to other financial lnstitlrtions with whom we Or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Form. Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy wDI continue to apply to yoo. Confidentiality and Security We win use our best effOrtS to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access lo any of your Information. We restrict access to non~lc personal Information about you to those indlvic!uals and entltie!. who need to know that lnrormaHon to irov!de prod.Jets or services to you. we will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that yoor Information wtll be handled responsibly and In accordance with this Privacy Polley and First Ame-ii:.an's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronle, and procedural safeguards that comply with fa::leral regulations to guard your nonpui:iic persona! information. InfonmltlonObt.alned Through Our Web Site First American Finandal Cofporatlon iS sensitive to privacy Issues on the Internet. We believe It is lmpartant you know how we tll!at the inl'onnation a boot you we receive on the Internet. In general, you can Visit First knelic:an or Its amnates· Web sites on the Wortr Wide Web Without telling us who you are or revea.Ung any infonnatlon about yourself. Our Web servers collect the domJln names, not the e-mail addresses, of visitors. This Information Is aggregated to measure the number or YiSlts, aveta!jle time spent on the site, pages viewed and similar ll'lformation. First American uses this infoonation to measure the use of ow site and to develop Ideas to Improve the content or our site. There are times, however, when we may need Information from you, sudl as your name and email address. When Information is needed, we wm use our best efforts to let you know at the time of coledJon how we wlll use the personal informat:b:1. Usually, the personal lnformatio!l we coled Is use::! only by us to respond to your Inquiry, process an order <X" allow you to access specific account/profile information, If you dloose to share any pe-sonal lnform;rtion wth us, we wil only use it in accordance with the polldes outUned above. B1151ness Relatlomhtps First American Flrlandal Corporation's site and Its affiliates' sites may contain links to other Web sl:es. While we try to llnk only to sites that share our high stand<1rds and respect far prtvacy, we are not responsible for the content or the privclcy p-actices employed by other sites. Cookies Some of First Amerlc:an's Web sites may make use Of "coolr.ie" technology to mea$Ure site activity and to o..istomlze Information to your personal tastes. A COOkie is ai, ekment of data that a Web site can send to your browser, whldl may then~ the cookie on your hard drive. firstAm r;pm uses stored rookies. The goal of this tectlnology is to better serve you when visiting our site, save you time whei you are here and to prO'l'ide you with a more meaningful and productive Web site expenence. Fair lnfonnation Values Fairness We wnsider consumer expectations ab:Jut their privacy In olt our businesses. We only offer products and servk:es that assure a favorable balance between tof"lsumer benefits and consumer privacy. Public Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for society, enhances C011$Umer choice and ere.ates coosumer opportunity. We actiYefy support an open publk record and emphasize l:s lmportallC@ and oontrrbution to our economv, use we believe we should behave responslbly when we use Information about a coosumer 11'1 = business. we wll obey tne laws goYemlng the collection, use and dissemination of data. Accurac, we wlll take reasonable steps to help assure the acruracy of the data we oolect, use and disseminate.. Where possible, we wiH t.ake reasonable steps to correct !nae.curate lnfonnation. When, as wt!, the public recon::I, we cannot correct Inaccurate lnfonnation, we wll take aH reasonable steps to assist consumers In identifying the source of the erroneous data so that the consumer can seC1Jre the required correctlons. Education we endeavor to educate the U$e11; ~ our products and services, our em~ and others rn our industry about the Importance of consumer privacy. We w1n instruct our employees on our fair Information values and on the responslllle cOiled:ion and use of data. We wilt encourage others In our industry tu coled and U$e Information In a responsible manner. Security We wnl malntm appropriate fac!Hties and systems to protect against unauthorized access to and corruption of the data we maintain. Form S!HRIVACY (8/1/09) Page 1 of 1 Privacy Information (2001-2010 First American Rnandal Corporation) Rrst Americ.an Tttfe 000503 Form No. 1068·2 ALTA Plain language Commitment ,1mtment No,: 4220-2206449 Page 10 of 10 FIRST AHERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COHPANY 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 First AnNYican Tltfe 000504 '~"° 4. 54 AC 0060 " • - " M ' [[ i '" I ·= ro C ,.,,. .. -I "= w 1' f< M --u, a w l I 1•1= I ,.,,05 --·•= -,._ -a,'flo 0160 : "r' 01 "'"' Q180 "1 _,.,. Q22Q "1 I ,:~ 16 .. 5317t ! : h, oi12~3t~L-i& ~~ sa•ljo J 5 soso:~i~ ! -;•!.,, 0 ! r,,: · 20 ~ a one 10 g ~F~~--__ Ji'1~-r1-·-10 .. ::...w...:.:·-.---~;i·-·.:::·~···"""' .... ' 13681 sl . 90"6 ' "" ,i 10910 s,: SE' IN 9027 9086 9044 9090 ,. F Qt' 80 I ~... I J .v.. ~.., 10937 SF' :0930 SFI 10924 srJ 10911 SEI 90"7 !!IL._. __ I • " 16857 "'88 0 "• ~iJO_r·=:c•«-S -· ------· '""?T=-~,'"'rt~I;{,t,,~li,/,O;i!.,e_-,,~,!ti/'.'\i;"e.so;,-,,f•l"'S""''t?.,-:";9""C.'C'7';'.S· ·: :. ' a ID t "' 591. JS ~ "'-<D l of! SS,56 7 "' "' 74 ,i 7 ?9,79 a.Jc E 42 [ .J~ ;'o fci 9819 sr :2 3 : 942520 i .. "' "'l'l I i,:i ,t '6' ::::2 0010 "' :::: "'~ '' ~"" -,, .,;. a ' • =• 0 'e SUNN SLO ES ,',p '7' it· "' """ ':.... 6 ~-,.' :f, 1 "',,..-, ~ "' ":;',,,"' ... C l ~ N 6::::: ~10 4 So;;,.,"' 'g \ICL. 73-13 ~ 7 " T ... o• -' ' ~· 8 :£ ::; ' [LOT 1 ,.,_ ... KCSP 481066-8109100 ~ 0 ~,i z z ,1, /L; l<l::z: 1 r-; tffl:11) ::z: 1030S s 10304 s~ 10C2':1 sF' 10296 S(;!:~ -N Q: :~ r :2 001l 10 ;~2 S 0040 0050 0059 0070 - j 3J1r -~.· ~21 :. -?,t· ·--!~ _.._ .. ·:--~-BB-:-lB-.? • .!..,... . ... .7.4;;.-..,.2.; -....2.t.. ....... -1...J..9......,.B.4. ~1 311.92 s 88-17-35 E 1 ~~(,!,Jo···· --·· --4'09.ii! -----· ···· .. NS -1a::.1ow 213.72 · ·:i10La2 1sa.91 I . ::~ir ~r ~¥~ 10809 I 0080 80597 SF 1. BS AC 9104 uo I 6 l ~OHO SF ~ l ':::' I " l. 93 ACI 0062 0 " ·-" -cO :; H960f 0068 ,.., 711 00~ w: 410 H : : N88-18-1 W 4 .1/J . ' -~ ~;t· N~C . " !.!..Q. <1\ JOO 2450# 0067 ·~ JOO 1<$>"" - oo .-z,,.;, *Jg 249001 g 0064 5 lso ~ ~· -· 0 -12~ sot :-;; • :i ' ·..,; :B 150 0069 J ~ r-·-~ J -JI'' I ----,, -~ cl:~ I ~~ 1,.:: ~ 21 W I uij ,;, • ' I "'•" .,~ ~·1 ~ii l ~ l 109201 i ; ..-J ', ,' , ,,_, 1 _ 58 ,aoos ' i' H.O J) j~ :r ~ :;f 30 ~: N; ~\ d /:1 ~;'2 ' ,·II .·L:: ,!-t.\ ; ~~' :; l ... .,,,"b·,. 1o·/-'! ~!,__"i ~ d ;::J; ' ' k'O," "' ,;y· ;, . :· ~·. ~ ·j' • --·-J, N • '-----/--'; ,....,,., / E,011.2~ l.-, .;:.; / ~\ l!,·-_: ?..\~J---;:-.:~, i·"l w "' ~ • ~ r' ~~ 18 " () --}> -, 2 -< 7 ... ') L \... (~ .... ....., "-;::--, tr: -~ ... """• ·-~, 9o ·~ .._ f:fJ "" 'l "'' = :;:.: LOT A I ,ff :J ;d' rn g ~ CJ ~~ $ ~ re' ,? N~~=28:-0J~ 621_. 9_67 LOT B .. = = N!!_S-_J8-09i'/ 624.l.l_ 72 (i-:-36 1'1ll!S 9,1, 4.21 AC 186~02# 9122 4 .27 AS 19606 9t 9023 ~ N " "!" Wrl M rl I " f ' 0 z,o " N ,o ·~ " e """ N - 21641 ~· 90SO rn- .,_ ~· 1. 01 AC 9048 .J...§.:]_ U 70 +/- KCSP 475042 TRC '""'" " " - 21668 SF 9030 J]Jt -i. -$,P. ,.,_ - 180 .---so -E ~' " ~;;o s; ;;; lID__ 80 0 .~ 1. l4 AC 9041 165 100--I !00 7508250475 TR B ':,""'"' TRA ~ M ~~ 13200 s :3200 S 9120 9113 100 100 378 v c,ct 7-55 Sep 24 -5:-L&.A (noi:itxble oeorge Ou;l.met and Cathleen M, Ouimet, h11·f to John c. Ntpert and Sally Lou Nii,ert, Sally Lou Nipel't be:t.ng the daughterof fp c&.!w ··~ ,... ... ·rhe w 1140 ftor theN 100 ft of thetMk of the swt or the s~t of se-:: 14-23·Jt5 ewm., exc thew 60 ft throf. >t:n 01< 1111 to rldhy gde 000506 D "pr li9-56 Apr3-56 L & A (Non George Ou1me\ andKathleen M Ouimet, bw, to John c Nlpert and &illy etou NipJ•rt, Cy an(IW B 30 rtorw 60 rtor N 100 rtottheNWt or SE t of aeo 14-23-5 e"m 1nKCW XCNOK Ml to F;I.JySTc 512l'i'5 K 000507 ., 20091105000541.001 1111111111111111 20091105000541 Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON ORO 76.81 PAGE-HI Cf' 1115 11/15/2809 11:24 KING COUNTY, MQ Plea.sc prin1 or wpe information WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet (RCW 65 04) , Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): (all areas applicable to yourdocumcnl muSI be filled in) I. Ordinance #5465 2. 3. 4. Rererence Number(s) or Documents assigned or released: Additional reference #'son page_ of document Grantor(s) (Last name first name. initials) I. City of Renton ' 2. ' Additional names on page_ of document. Grantee(s) (Last name first. then first name and initials) I. ' 2. ' Additional names on page_ of document Legal description (abbreviated: i.e. lot block, plat or section, township, range) These ponions of Sections 13, 14, 15. 22, 23, & 24, all in Township23 north. Range 5 East, W.M., and Sections 18 & 19. both in Township 23 Nonh, Range 6 East. W.M., all in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows ... Additional leual is on na•e 1 of document. Asse8SOr's Property Tax Pan:el Account Number D Assessor Tax# not yet assigned 142305911901 and others The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the infonnation provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to veri"'· the accuracv or comcleteness of the indexine infonnation nrovided herein. I am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional fee as provided in RCW 36.18.0 I 0. I understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some pare of the text on the original docwnent. ----------------------Signature of Requesting Party 000508 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5465 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO AND/OR BENEFITTING FROM THE CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR PHASE II AND ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE UPON CONNECTION TO THE FACILITIES. Tl IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C!TY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. There is hereby created a Sanitary Sewer SerYicc Special Asscssmc11t District for the area ser\'cd by the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II project in the northeast 4uadrant of the City of Renton and ·within King County, which area is more panicularly described in Exhibit "'A" attached hereto. A map of the service area is attached as Exhibit "Jl'". The recording of this document is to provide notification of potential connection and i1Hcn:st d1ar_g1.:".s. \\'hile thi~ connection charge may be paid at any time. the City does not require payment until .,.;uch time a~ the parcel is connected to and, thus. benefiting from the sewer facilities. The propcny may be sold or in any other way change hands without triggering the requiremem, by the ( 'ity, of payment of the charges associated with this district. SECTION II. Persons connecting lo the sanitary sewer facilities in this Special Assessment District. and \vhich 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 lo the system development charge, the following additional fees: CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City or Renton, Washington, certify 20091105000541.00: • that this is a true and correct copy of Ou/inane, "~?f"' f. Subscribed and sealed lhisLday of A_,,,.d , 2ora. ~-.J. b.la,U.,c-, City Clerk 000509 200911 osooo541.oo: ORDINANCE NO. 5465 A. Per Unit Area Charge. New connections of residential dwelling units or equivalents shalLp(l)' a fee_ Qf $3 5 L9S per_dweUing 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 arc described in Exhibit '·A" attached hereto. A map identifying the properties within the suh-district is attached as Exhibit "B". The properties located within this sub- district arc subject to both charges (Area and Frontage). SECTION Ill. 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 (IO) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. Interest charges will be simple interest and not compound interest. SECTION IV. (30) days after publication. This ordinance is effective upon its passage, approval and thirty 2 000510 20091105000541.00<I ORDINANCE NO. 5465 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _ilh day of_J_u_l_,,_y ____ , 2009. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 6th day of_-"J"-'u"-'1...,y'------' 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 000511 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA ASSESSMENT_BOUNDARY 20091105000541.00! 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 I 28th St (NE 4 1h 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 155lh Ave SE and l 56'h Ave SE, to the east line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way margin, crossing 1601h Ave E and the west half of 1641h Ave SE, to the section line common to said Sections 13 and 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way, crossing the east half of 164111 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 Southea~t 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 IO I 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 comer of said Lot I, said Northeast comer also being on the west line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said UGB, crossing 172nd Ave SE, to the intersection of the easterly right of way margin of I 72"d Ave SE and the southerly right of way margin of SE 132nd St.; EXHIBIT A-CENTRAL PlAlcAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 OF6 000512 20091105000541.00E ORDINANCE NO, 5465 Thence continuing easterly along the southerly right of way margin of SE 132"d St and said UGB line, crossing 173'd Ave SE, 175th Ave SE, 178th Ave SE and the west half of180'h Ave SE, to an intersection with the east line of said subdivision, said east line also being the west line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence continuing easterly along said southerly right of way margin of SE l 32"d St and said UGB line-;--crossing the east halfof1801h Ave SE, I 8 I" Ave Stand I 82"d Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 182"" Ave SE; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin of l 82"d Ave SE and said UGB line, to an intersection with the westerly extension of the northerly right of way margin of SE 134'" St; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and the northerly right of way margin of SE 134'" St and said UGB line, crossing 182nd Ave SE, 10 an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of I 84'h Ave SE in the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way ma1in of I 84 111 Ave SE and its southerly extension and lca\"ing said IJGB line, crossing SE 134 St, SE 135t11 St, SE 136u, St and SE 140'" St, to an intersection with the north line of Tract 23, Renton Suburban Tracts Division No. 4, recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, pages 74-76, said records, in Government Lot 4 of said Section 18; Thence easterly and southerly along said north line and the east line of said Tract, to an intt:r.;cction with the northeast corner of Renton-Suburban Tracts Division No. 8, recorded in Volume f,9 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 Plat at the southeast corner of Government Lot l in said Section 19; ·n,cncc 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 Pl.its, 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 39-4 I, 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 SAO, AAEA ASSESSMENT PAGE 2 OF 6 000513 20091105000541.00'. ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along said east line of said Government Lot 10 and said Tract A and said UGB line, to the Northeast comer 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 comer also being a point on the !!ast ling_qf --the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; ---... ... . ... - Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Traci C of Skyfire Ridge Div. No. I, 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 comer 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 subdivisiun; 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 Govemment Lot I 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 I; 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 OF6 000514 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; 20091105000541.00! Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the Southwest corner thereof, said corner ----------alsg being-a point on the east line~of Government Lot 6 of Section-12; "111ence South O 1 °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 of391.81 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 I of said Maplewood Heights in said Southwest quarter of Section 15; Thence northeasterly along the north line of said Block l of said Plat, to an intersection with the ,1cst line of Lot !0, East Crest, recorded in Volume 87 of Plats, page 49, said records, in said Soullnvest 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, Gae'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 PAGE4 OF 6 000515 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; 20091105000541.00S 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 wi!nllleWestline-ofthe Northwest quarter of said Section l 5; . . .. . Thence northerly along said west line crossing NE 2"d St, to the most westerly southwest corner of Alder Crossing, recorded in Volume 251 of Plats, pages 37 -42, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the southeast comer 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 somherly 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 IOI, said records; Thence continuing easterly along said existing City Limits and the south line of said Tract 2, lo 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 ea.~terly 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; TI1ence 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 NE4'hSt. ExHIBIT A-CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERC!cPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 5 OF 6 000516 20091105000541.01( ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, to the intersection with the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section I 4 and the point of beginning. EXHIBIT A-CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAO, AREAASSESSMEITT PAGE60F6 000517 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONT AGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA "A" --- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 20091105000541.011 Lot I and Tract B, Carol wood, recorded in Volume I I l of Plats, pages 99-100, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot I I, Carolwood No. 2, recorded in Volume I 14, page 74, said records; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; and TOGETHER WITH the West 150 feet of the East I 80 feet of the North !65 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 l 4; 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 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. 8 !09100503, located in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; LESS Roads. Exhibit A -Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage -Area A Page 1 of 1 000518 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONT AGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA"B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 20091105000541.01: Lots I, 2, J and the 20 feet wide undivided interest parcel lying between said Lot I and Lot 2, of King County Short Plat No. 576015, recorded under King County Recording No. 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. 675021, recorded under King County Recording No. 7602040384; and TOGETHER WITH Tracts 4, 5, 6 and the West l 50 feet of the North 80 feet of Tract 7, all in Block J, Cedar Park Five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volwne 15 of Plats, page 91, records of King County, Washington. All situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 14 and the North half of Section 23, both in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Exhibit A -Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage -Area B Page 1 of 1 000519 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL·ASSESSMENTDISTRICT_ .. AREA "C" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 20091105000541.01: Lots I through 8 and Lot 17, Ridge Point Estates, recorded in Volume 165, pages 64-65, records of King County, Washington; TOGETI IER 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 11, PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd); and TOGETHER WITH the North 133 feet of the East 120 feel of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; and TOGETI IER WITH that portion of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter ot' the Northwest quarter, lying easterly and southerly of Linda Homes, recorded in Volume 74. page 6, said records; and TOUETHER 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 1561h Ave SE (Co. Rd. l 049, August E. Gerber Rd.) and easterly of the northeasterly right of way margin of !541h PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd.); LESS Roads. Exhibit A-Central Plateau Interceptor SAO, Frontage -Area C Page 1 of 1 000520 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA~'~" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 20091105000541.011 Lots land 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 WITH the west 150 feet of said Ea~t 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 No1ih, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying northerly of the north line of Lot l of King County Short Plat No. l 286002, as recorded under 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 000521 () m z (/) -i -0 ?; ~r --0 ~ s:; Gi -i (/) ~ mC (/) -Vl z 3: -i mm 20091105000541.01, * *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 ________ --1 20. __ _ BY: '---------------Authorized Signatory (print name) 000523 RETAIN THI~ ..,IGNED COPY OF THIS PAGE _.4 YOUR FILE. THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY--DO NOT SEND WITH INDEMNITY AGREEMENT 000524 Accepting Office: First American Title Insurance Company Address: 818 Stewart St, Ste 800, Seattle, WA 98101 OR: 4220-2206449 Filing Reference: INDEMNITY AGREEMENT I (Mechanics' Liens) THIS INDEMNITT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this Sixth day of February, 2014, by-Sally Lo1rNipert, (indi\tfauafly arfa colrectively, the "Iiidemnitor''); liif.ivor ol Firsf American-Title Irisurance Company, a California corporation and its agents and employees (collectively "First American Tltle Insurance Company"). Rf~!!AJ:S: A. Indemnltor is the owner of, and/or has, either directly or indirectiy, 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 Tltle Insurance Company has been requested to Issue one or more Tltle Policies In respect to the Property insuring against loss by reason of Mechanics' Liens. D. In connection with future transactions, First American Tltle Insurance Company may Issue one or more Tltle Policies insuring against Mechanics' Liens and if First American Tltle Insurance Company, at its sole discretion, elects to so issue a Tltle 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, TiiEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: A~RffMf.r:tI: 1. DEFINITTONS: As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings: TERM: Construction: Construction Costs: Effective Date: Mechanics' Liens Policy Date: Property: State: Title Policy(ies): DEFINffiON: Any and all work, construction and/or placement or segregation of materials which may give rise to the right for liens to be filed against the Property under the applicable statutes and/or equitable laws of the State. All costs, fees, expenses and/or obligations for labor, materials and/or services for or in connection with, the Construction. The date this Agreement becomes effective in accordance with Paragraph 3 below. All liens or rights to lien existing against the Property or which subsequently attadh or are claimed against the Property due to Construction. The date of Issuance of a Tltle Policy for the Property. That certain real property as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The state in which the Property is located. Policy or policies of title insurance Issued by First American Tltle 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 oovenant 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 Medhanics' 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 Tltte Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000525 Mechanics' Liens against the Pro, y except as previously specified by Indemrc in writing to First American Trtle Insurance Company. All representations, warranties and covenants contained herein are material to First American TrtJe Insurance Company decision to issue a TrtJe Policy for the Property. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE, Delivery of this Agreement by lndemnitor to First American TrtJe Insurance Company shall not be deemed acceptance of this Agreement by First American Title Insurance Company or a commitment to issue a Trtle Polley for the Property. First American TrtJe Insurance Company has no duty to Indemnitor to accept this Agreement or, in the future, to agree to Issue a Trtle Policy for the Property. Upon acceptance of this Agreement by First American Trtle Insurance Company as evidenced by the issuance of a TrtJe Policy, this Agreement shall remain in effect as long as First American Trtfe Insurance Company has any possible liability under any Trtle Policy issued at any time in reliance on this Agreement. First American Trtle Insurance . Company may rely on this Agreement to Issue Trtle-Policy at any time 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 Trtle Insurance Company even If another Indemnitor is not liable for any reason, induding the failure of such Indemnitor to execute this Agreement. 4.2 Waiver and Release. First American Trtle 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. 5. 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 Trtle Insurance Company, at law or in equity, Indemnitor agrees to pay, protect, defend, indemnify, hold and save harmless First American Trtle Insurance Company from and against any and all liabilities, daims 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 Trtle Insurance Company, and actual attorneys' fees awarded against First American Trtle Insurance Company, directly or indirectly, by reason of, or arising under any Trtle 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' Uens. 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 TrtJe 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, Indemnltor agrees to promptly notify First American TrtJe 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 1ltle Insurance Company shall, in its opinion, deem it reasonable to protect Itself or its insured(s) under a Trtle Policy, First American 1ltle Insurance Company shall have the right, but not the obligation, (a) to take such action as First American 1ltle Insurance Company deems reasonable to protect its interest and that of its insured under any Title Policy, and/or (b) to demand that lndemnltor, 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 1ltle 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 000526 the Property; and (2) such counsel to deliver to First American Title Insurance Company a written representation in a form reasonably satisfactory to Rrst 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 Rrst 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 insmuted by a third party, -Indemnitor shall cause-(l)"such action or proceeding to be timelydefende(fand 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 Rrst 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 Rrst 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 Rrst American Title Insurance Company. Indemnitor may object to First American Title Insurance Company choice of counsel for reasonable cause. (e) If the payment of a sum of money will discharge, eliminate or remove the effect of the Mechanics' Lien as to the Property, Indemnitor shall pay such sum as is sufficient to discharge, eliminate or remove the Mechanics' Lien in a manner legally sufficient to effect the release of the Mechanics' Lien of record and shall deliver documents to First American Title Insurance Company, In a form reasonably satisfactory to First American Title Insurance Company. (f) Indemnitor shall take such action with respect to the Mechanics' Lien as First American Title Insurance Company shall, in its discretion, authorize Indemnitor In writing to undertake, provided that any such authority shall not be a waiver by First American Title Insurance Company to require Indemnitor at any time to comply with the foregoing subparagraphs of this Paragraph above, within ten (10) days of First American Title Insurance Company written revocation of authority to take action other than that under any other subparagraphs of this Paragraph, and demand that Indemnitor comply with any other subparagraphs of this Paragraph. 5.5. Interest. Indemnitor agrees that any sums which might be advanced or incurred by Rrst American Title Insurance Company pursuant to this Agreement or by its exercise of any rights hereunder shall be repaid by Indemnitor to Rrst 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. Determjnation 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 Rrst American Title Insurance Company shall be deemed within the terms and obligations of Indemnltor under this Agreement even If the matter is subsequently determined by a court to not be within the Title Polley as to the Mechanics' Liens. 6. REMEDIES. Indemnitor specifically acknowledges that upon any default by any Indemnitor under this Agreement after demand by Rrst American Title Insurance Company, Rrst 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 Rrst American Title Insurance Company to secure the obligations of Indemnitor under this Agreement. Page3of8 October 2001 © 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000527 7. SUBROGATION AND SUBt 1INATION. 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 accountiA9 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 directy 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 daim of right to cause a marshalling of any Indemnitor's assets; (b) all rights and remedies accorded by applicable law to indemnltors 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; Page4 of8 October 2001 © 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000528 (c) notice of acceptance hereof j 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 Amelie.an 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 Rrst Americ.an Title Insurance Company to disclose to lndemnitor any facts Rrst Americ.an Title Insurance Company may now or hereafter know about the Owner, since Indemnitor acknowledges that Indemnitor is fully responsible for being and keeping -informed of the financial condition of t:lie·ownerand of all drcurnstancesoearin\fon the risk of nonperformance· - of any obligations covered by this Agreement. 10. NOTICE. Any notices, demands or communic.ations under this Agreement between Indemnitor and First Americ.an Title Insurance Company shall be in writing, shall include a reasonable identific.ation of the Property together with First Americ.an Title Insurance Company order number, and may be given either by personal service, by overnight delivery, or by mailing via United Stated mall, 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 Americ.an Title Insurance Company is not completed on the signature page, notice to First American Title Insurance Company shall be given to First Americ.an Title Insurance Company State office. Ail 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 Wajyer. No delay or omission by Rrst Americ.an 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 Rrst 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 Rrst Amelie.an 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 Invalidjtv. In any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or the applic.ation thereof to any party or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the applic.ation 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, modific.ation 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 jn 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 Rrst 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 000529 11.8. Other. This AgreemL shall be construed according to its fair mt ,19 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 dloosing 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 sudl 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 constiMe a portion of this Agreement. The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated into this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or-neuteF gender andthe-slngular or plural number shall be deemed to indude the others wherever and-- whenever the context so dictates. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind tile 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 J None at this time [ [ [ J Security Agreement* (Non cash) ] Security Agreement* (Cash) ] Security Agreement (Letter of Cre<lt) [ [ [ [ Letter of Credit Agreement with Sight Draft Form J Control Agreement J Deed of Trust l Mortgage A bream 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 lndemnitor 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 ti1e 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 may be needed to perfect a personal property security 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 Company IS UNDERTAKING A RISK SIGNIFICANllY GREATER THAN THAT UNDERTAKEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF PROVIDING TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES AND RELATED SERVICES BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND ISSUING POUCIES OF TinE INSURANCE IN RELIANCE ON THIS AGREEMENT, AND, THEREFORE, INDEMNITOR HEREBY DECLARES ITS WILUNGNESS TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND TO INDUCE First American Title Insurance Company TO ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT, REALIZING THAT INDEHNITOR'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 000530 NOTICE: THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS PROVISIONS WHICH PERSONALLY OBLIGATE INDEMNITOR. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT INDEMNITOR CONSULT LEGAL COUNSEL PRIOR TO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT. INDEMNITORt: Sally Lou Nipert Name: Name: SSN: _________ _ SSN: ----------- ADDRESS FOR NOTICE TO First American Title Insurance Company: (If this infonnation 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. 1 All petRllls/entlties executing this Agreement shall be deemed named parties to this Agreement as If their name also appeared In the lntrodudory paragraph on page 1. Page 7 of 8 October 2001 © 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000531 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 Of.SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 8 of 8 October 200 I © 2001 First American Title Insurance Company All Rights Reserved 000532 Fi, ..... American r,ue Insurance Company 818 Stewart st, Ste 800 Seattle, V'/A 98101 Phn -(206)615-3206 Fax-(425)551-4107 ESCROW COMPANY INFORMATION: Escrovv 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 Kristi K Mathis Title Officer (206) 615-3206 kkmathls@firstam.com Title Team Four Fax No. (866} 859-0429 Michelle Treheme Title Officer ( 425) 635-2100 mtreheme@firstam.com Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 stewart Street #800, Seattle, WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Attn: Justin lagers Re: Property Address: 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 SECOND REPORT RISt Amenc.,n Td/e File No.: 4243-2195519 Your Ref No.: 000533 Form No. 1068-2 Al TA Plain Language Commitment ....ommitment No.: 4243·2195519 Page 2 of 9 COMMITMENT FOR mLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agreE0e> issu~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-11. The Conditions. This Commitment is not valid without Schedule A and Section I and II of Schedule B. First American Title Insurance Company i- Kristi Mathis, 1itle Officer First Amer/can T,t/e 000534 Form No. 1066-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: January 29, 2014 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Homeowner's Rate with 10% Combination Discount -Standard Owner's Policy-·-- Proposed Insured: AMOUNT PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company Simultaneous Issue Rate with 10% combination Discount AL TA Extended Loan Policy Proposed Insured: To Follow $ To Follow $ commitment No.: 4243-2195519 Page 3 of9 PREMIUM TAX 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: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS SPOUSE ON OCTOBER 21, 2008, DATE OF ACQUIRING IDlE 4. The land referred to In this Commitment is described as follows: Real property in the County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 000535 Fonn No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment The following requirements must be met: SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMENTS i..ommltment No.: 4243-2195519 Page 4 of9 (A) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be Insured. __ j!l) _.eay us the premiums,_f.ees and.charges for the policy. (C) Documents satisfactory to us creating the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorded: (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest In the land or who wlll 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 dalms which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. C. Easements, daims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disdose, and which are not shown by the public records. E. (A) Unpatented mining daims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the Issuance thereof; (CJ Water rights, daims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (BJ or (CJ are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, Inducting 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, installaaon, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse daims 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. Rrst American Tille 000536 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment PART TWO: SCHEDULE B SECTION II EXCEPTIONS Commitment No.: 4243~2195519 Page 5 of9 -Any_policy. we Issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction,· The printed exceptions and exclusions from the coverage of the policy or policies are available from the office which issued this Commitment. Copies of the policy forms should be read. 1. Lien of the 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.: Amount: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: Amount: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: 142305-9023-06 1st Half $ 2,599.94 $ 340,000.00 $ 36,000.00 2nd Half $ 2,699.93 $ 340,000.00 $ 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. Rrst American Tt!Je 000537 Form No. 1068·2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES .;mmitmmt No.: 4243·2195519 Page 6 of9 A. Potential charges, for the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge, as authorized under RON 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. 8. 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 RON 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 8, KING COUNlY TESTAMENTARY DIV. NO. L08M0034, REC. 20080812900004, KING COUNlY 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 COMMm1ENT PURSUANT m WASHINGmN STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THIS COMPANY. Rrst American 7itle 000538 Form No. 1068-2 Al TA Plain Language COmmitment Commitment No.: 4243·2195519 Page7of9 CONDmONS 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 locatee.------- 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 -Seeton I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B -Seeton II. We shall not be liable for more than the Polley 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 daim, 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 000539 Fonn No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment . ····· I ¥ First American ~:ii!TFust~~tie~ Privacy Information we Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Infonnation 1...0mmitment No.: 4243-2195519 Page8of9 First American Title Insu/'iJnce Company 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phn -(206)615-3206 Fax-(425)551-4107 In oroer ta beth!r serve your needs now arxl In the Mure, we may ask you to provide us with certain Information. We undermnd that you may be con~ about what we WIH do with sLdl Jnformatlc:m • partla.darty any personal or financial In~. We 119ree that you have a right to know how we wm utilke U,e pe!"SClllal information you provide to us, Therefore, together With our subsidiaries we have adOpted this Privacy Polley to govem ttie use and handling or your personal Information. App.licabDlty This Prhlacy Poley gove:ns our l,.lSe of the lnformatb-1 that you provide to us. (t does r,ot govern the rranner In Which we may use infOrmatlon we have ootai~ from any other source, such as infonnation obtained l'rom a publk record or from another per.;on or entity. Arst American has also adopted broader guld~ that go,.,em our use or persona) Information regardless of its source. First American calls these g\Jldel!nes Its Fair Information varues. Types or Information Depending U!X'l which of our sef'lices you are utilizing-, the types of nonpublic personal 111rormati:m that we may collect lnducle: • Information we receive from YoU on appfrr;ations, fOrms and In other communications to us, whether In writing, In per$Qf1, by teJephooe or any otner means; • Infomatlon about your bansactioos wlth u.s, our affiliated ccrnpanles, or others; and • Infumlatlarl we receive from a consumer reporting agency. use of Information We request lnfum,atlon from you ror our own fegltlmate business purposes am:! not for the bene!i: of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your inf~tron to nonaffillated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as penritted by law. We may, however, store SIJdi Information Indefinitely, Including the perbd after whicti any customer relationship has ceased, SUc:h lnfQrmat!On may be use;j for any Internal purpJSe,, such as quallty control efforts or customer analysis. We may also ~an of the types of nonpublk ~1 lntonnatloo listed above to one Of more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies lndude financial service prm,iclers, :such as title Insurers, prq:ierty and casualty Insurers, and trust and Investment advisory companies, or companies Involved In 1"63! estate seN!ces, such as appraisal companies, home warranty comP<1nies and escrow c:ompa11!es. Furthermore, we may also provide all the lnfonnatlon we coHect, as clescrlbed allOVe, to compa,ies that perform JnclOOjjng services on our behalf, on behalf of our affdlated companies or to other financial instltutions with whom we or our affill,1ted companies have joint marketing agreements. Fonner Customers Even ff you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Polley will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We wllr use our best efforts to ensure that oo unautnorlz$t parties have accw to any of your Information, We restrict access to nonpubllc personal !nforn;atbn aoout you to those lodivldua!s and entitles who need to know that infomlatlon to provkle products or servkes to you. we will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your lnfoonatlon wll! be handle:! responsibly and In accordarlC1! wlt11 this Privacy Polley and Fll'St AmEr"lcan's fair Information Values. We rurrent:/y maintain physical, electrook. and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonptblic personal informatlon. Information Obtained Through Our Web Sfte First American Financial Corporation Is se,sltlve to privacy Issues on the Internet. We believe ft is Important you know how we treat the Information about ycu we receive on the Internet. In genera!, you can visit Rrst Nnesbn or Its affiliates' Web sites on the World Wide Web Without telling us wflo you are or revt".ahng any Information abol.t yourself. Our Web servers collect the domain names, not the e-ma/1 addresses, d vlsito!S. Thi$ lnfonnat!on Is aggregated to measure the: number of visits, ~ time spent on the Site, pages viewed and Slmllar lnfomlatlon. First American uses this Information to measure tf)C use of our Site and to develop ideas to Improve the content of our site. There ara times, however, when we may need lrtfonnatlon from you, such as your name and email address, When \nfomlation Is needed, we will use our best efrorts to let you know at the time of collectbn how we will use the personal Information. Usuany, the personal Information we collect Is used Ollly by us to respond to yoJr lnqUl!y, process an order or allow you to access spedfi:: account/profile Information. If you choose to share any perSOl"lilll information with us, we will aily ttSe It in accordance With the policies outlined above. BUSlness Rdationsblps First American Flnaoclal Corporation's site and Its affiiates' sites may contain links to other Web sites. Whne we try to link only to sites that share our high standards and respect for prl\'aty, we are not respons!ble for the content or the privacy pract:ic:es employe:f by other sites. Cooklu Some of First American's Web sites may make use of 'cookie" technology to measure site ad:iVity and to customize inl'ormaticn to your personal tastes. A cookle Is <Ill element of data that a Web .site can send to your browser, which may then store the COOide on your hard drive. nrnro com uses stored cookies. The goal of this tedmology Is to better serve you when visiting our site, save you time when YC\J are here and to provide. you with a m::ire rneanfngful and productive Web site experience. Filir Information Values fairness We consider consumer expectations about their privacy In all our businesses. We ooJy offer products and services that assure a favorable balance between consumer benefits and CDf<S1.Jmer -· Public: Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for soctety, enhana?S consumer c:holce and awtes consumer opportunity, We 11ct!ve)y support an open publlc remn1 and emitiaslie Its Importance and contributiot1 to our economy. UN we belleve we should behave responslbly when we IJSe lnforrnati:lrl about II consumer In our business. We wll obey the laws gc,veming tile c:ollectlon, use and dlssemlnatloo rl data. Accuracy We wru ta~ reasonable steps to h~ assure the aca.iracy of the data we mllect. LJSe 11nd disseminate. Where possible, we wm take reas011able steps to rorrect haccurate fnror'ITliltlon. When, 11s With the publk: record, we cannot comict Inaccurate Information, we wru take all reasonable steps to assist coosumers In Identifying the source or the~ data so that the consumer can secure the requl~ m1TectionS. Education We endeavor to educate the users of our products and 5el'Vlces, our em~ and otl'lers In our lndustTy about the Importance of consumer prMIC/. We WII Instruct our ffll)k,yees on our fair lnrormatiotl values and on the responsible colle:tion and use of data. We w!U encourage others In OU" Industry to collect and US!!! Information In a resp:insible manner, Securltr We WIii maintain appropriate fadftties and systems to prtJtect against unaut:l'IOrired access to and comrptlon of the data we maintain. Form 50-PRIVAC'f' (8/1/09) Page 1 of 1 Privacy Information (2001-2010 Arst American FlnandaJ Corporation) 000540 First Amena,n 7ltle Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plaln Language Commitment Commitment No.: 4243-2195519 Page 9 of9 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Exhibit "A" Vested Owner: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS SPOUSE ON OCTOBER 21, 2008, DATE OF ACQUIRING TTilE _Real property-in the County of King, State ofWashingron; ilescribeifas follows: LOT B OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DMSION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUN1Y, WASHINGTON. BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TI-IE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNlY WASHINGTON: LESS NORlli 100 FEET OF THE WEST 440 FEET. Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9023-06 Situs Address: 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 First American TJ1:Je 000541 1--0··11;J;t· .. /J t ,..., -·"" ,. :6 30 uo 1f" "°"" " z ~ ~:f ~~ 10751 iJ 0012 -,. .. L ""~:, 101oe s 1o.:J,; s;,i; lU.' l:. :'." 0030 00'40 0050 ~ 88-18-1 W ~t9. ~ ..... """ - \,>L73"'3 ~ ~~;~·' ;~;.;' ~ -6, N~•-18-rnw ''lij 2 ·;1-'1i s; 10309 s~~ 0080 Jl, 'L.9....:l,A ,./ 1n·. i':t · '"iµ"O?; t2 11...,'.n ec::;e-; s? l. 95 ."IC 9104 .'LJ!...8 P-;.;? E ii.:>e, 91 z ·-· ~, ·-· n, .;I r, . ' ,-. 7 M M . ~ i 0 ., .i~O. 409'.lE SF 9057 0' • ... ..,c ';l:::; • 0, ~ ~~'.IS 1. Y"l A• 0062 I ., . I : •, --0068 ~ ,.,,,.,, ·,u ro 11~;-!, Jg~: H9S0f " "' NBB-18-HfW "Tf'Ll.i'.r s 181) " ·--" I J' ,~ LOT A .. , .... "' ~ cij~ M ., ••1,:1 -I~ ,.,, .. m, .. ,, .. "" -~ll.!J ,,;,, ~ moo, f J ~ ;ji 0064" 5"' 2316C i;T t 10!)60 -· n, l~~·-·· 0067 -- ··-- 3080~ t 5-0 .. -- 12. - 1215Ci 0069 ::;1 M '/• i 11, ~ ~.! [Y # ~ {. 2'i I\.C l ')E,~02• 9122 ~ ~.;:, 2115,;~ sr 90SO 9037 9036 1:J!_(,_ -- I' "I' 4t -' :it ~ ' ··-~ ulfi ::i: 1·,?111 tit!, 1"4~-~~ ,1 ':i 89-20-21 w I :>:,;::: ~~te.~.2.B-091\ r,?:I. '•§.1 'I· : f'; ')!: I~_,... ,;,.; •tJo 0 . ~ , I • ea-,,,,;7;;,, ~ ~[ ~m1 ~ i; 'l i ~ &,;r # .:J ' . .,'°' -"""~ ... 1'1~ '::2 -· "" 93H! 0078 " 'so ··~ •• NC "'Lnf ~ .f LOT B en ':.:."':" 10.'..G<l,f oos1 E 1S c;~oot ~ oo- 'll :,1~ .. !~ II ~~ :,: I!: iii ~ ......... -- "'""' con 1.27 AC 1S6089. 90" :\ " ~ l~~ KCSP 475042 TRC ·~i 1.01 ;\C 9048 ( I 7U + - N ;l; m !OC 7SOB250475 TRB ·:~ N M .,, 0 '" v,,; ,- 1. H A( 9041 " 1011 TRA N '~;~ ::: ., I 21669 sr 1320cL n 9030 9120 9113 · :;;,: t<flfl-~~-O!!M 62~.12 no+/-S.P. !.OC 100 , J "" -..,.., rr, 120 • .36 I ,s i{ ~~ --{JJ () ~ ;,-:; r,, ,., ;,-, J: I 9 g ,_., " : I ~ 9013 -r·'-.1 ~ -:::.:) ·"- 0 ·1· p 1,:1:~ ~ .... J.-"' 30 , 3J '\' ~ :;: ~ n n ,) ~, 1 S EA-~B-9 E:1248 40 (PJ :., 750 e-: .,.., , o e , 7 .--«:r "' s ~ (; 10 ,! .,; g ,..,.., 0 ..'., g '"""'" 2 .... ,...... :: ~! :: ,,.,,:i i>j 5 "' ~ 4 :... 13S '· .. ~3.:n""'~ ,,..,. 3"" '.-:::-l~ ....... -.•---··------.. ---.00 >I ---~""i;+..-Q-9~:~.!,i;',a.u ~iiA~·-.;.. -·-·-::--.o"o"""-I -····-, ·--1;;61' ~:f:"«9~-;-..,...~ w--.~,-t~-~- I.~ ~~ ..'.,:,: TR.A ;::"! .-;::o; :· 0-: ,., ;: , !·1~ ·~iO "im C'ltO z ''"''"' o~, n:oo ,,.,0 I. 0000 :;:: !._,....; '"""" ~' ;,-,, ....... CARO'' 000 °"0 )'; • w ·"' "',., ""'" ...... "I o; 0 L ''°"''' "I.; _vo,.m,.0-100~'' •m•,,caos,~• o• ,.x • ~: 7'> 169':il 1?91.4 3F 1~-02 s: 12022 3F 0070 0' w ,"'>,., 1s::J SF~:, /J'ffl OO'in :'.'." I;,JO_ '...L'Z .; "l-.... 'IJ'"<> 0100 0090 n11n 0080 .,'"!'~ -·· ..._ ·· AA ________________________ _ ..'.JI ~'IJ - n- ,~ 12'~ 5 """r• ,;, Filed for Record at Request of & When Recorded Return To G.R.Ouimet 2923 Maltby Road Bothell, WA 98012 1111111111111111 20081021000150 CHICAGO TITLE C 43,18 ~AGEHI OF eez le/21/2088 99:48 KING COUNTY, MA ··e2ass0s3 1112112eea es·48 Ki=~ COUNTY, IIA SALE $10,19 $8.ee PRGEeel 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 20081021000150.00' 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. S. 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 Nwnber: 142305-9023. CHICAGO mLE INS. co@ REF# /.,2 2i? 50,i'. /0 000543 • 6. Consideration. This conveyance is made in consideration of Decedent's gift in her Will. 7. Conveyance. Grantors convey, grant, and quitclaim to GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET all of the interest of Decedent's estate in the real property described in this Deed (together with all after-acquired title of the Grantors to the real property), which interest represents Decedent's interest in the real property at her death. STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET, Deceased By:d(£LLC~ GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, Co-Personal Representative ~~~7] .d SALLYLONIPERT, 1 Co-Personal Representative 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: _t_c~To-~_tff._t;_-_t!... __ l_f._,1~ol®=~8- S1 ture '"5 fJ/$ K(H( ,?N ~ I {'I <,? H (f! H If "1/JIV Printed Name NOTARY PUBLIC for Washington Residing at: RcNTa N • t"> A My appointment expires on: 1 111 M!, UI f J dl.P I :1. , ' 000544 KINt( COUNTY, WASHINGTON ./ ... ft ,TEST';jMENTAR .... ··'DIVISION Kilig ~~0°·LoaMpo34 . . L..._._ .. ·•··· .. DECJ.,Af<ATJON,-······· ,, ...... /<p;ffJw.~.f,1£1.1'0 ~·-:ESE:~:~S(~-':T Wf/tE ::·' UNDERSl::NEC OWNERS nF THE LAND HEREIN,-bESCRlf3Et}" 00 Hffiffi'Y WoU<E A fESTAMENT,iffl,' DMSION.",THEREOF :: -: PURSIJAAT TO KCC19A:OJ:l.070.A:4.F., N.10 8£CL.ARE ~is 0 :·· OMSION TO BE THE GIV.PHI(:.. :'R£PRFSt.,;' ... TiON o(· Tl-I(."." SAM[, "'ND THAT SAID OMSl(W IS W,Df.'WllH THf.FREt:: CONSENT ANO IN ,t,CCOR(lt.NC( WITH n-!E;. DESIRES OF .c· "lllE OWNER, AS FILED WFTI1 THE SURERIO~-~RT or:: THE STA.TE '.I W?\Ht~N FOR IONq COUNJY, UNDER NO. __ ~ • -a 'L"' ... :J.....J!~.JL __ . IN WITNESS WHEREOF WE HA.VE S£T OUR HANDS ANO SD.LS'" -4~.1 .,/)_,..,_, ),\J;f t,11, r..1 IIICIIMf) 0\111,otl SM.LY !_ 'llf'V!T CO-EXB:UTOII CO-OC£CIJTOR rnr .. n: "" l<Al't(.EEN QUIMET ~"IE or l<ATML.££11 QUIMEI" 5rATE Of" W"Si-llMGTON,l ss. COONN or KlNC ON TIIIS DAY POISOIW.LY N'P£o\RED OCFORE ME c,. !fithe,rd t,W11tt1-t' S.JI'( ~ A/i',:,r,+, • TO ME io;NOWN TO BE Tl-,[ INDMDtJAL(S) DESCR!cll'.D IN AMl WHO E)([ClJTEO THE 'MTHIN ANO fOREGOING INS1RI.JM£NT. .,. ANO M::KN0WU:DC£0 TIIAT HE / SHE SQl[lJ,·.Tl-1£ SAME ~-· ··. HIS / l+E~ VOL.vNTARY ,er AND DUO. ro1r·'rHE USES ~ PURPOSES Hf(R(IN MENTIO"IED. ,;: •. :: GIVfN I.JI,/(-=:~ MY•twlO._ANO OfF!c1AL,~ THIS _,._ff'. "'' "' __ ..Ep!.1..-.'' . ~ ~ ' 1,/[,J,;. . . .. . ··=Ha:fAAr ,Z:··~u-~ THE"'STNE OF W~NCTOM. UY COl,ll,11$Sl()1 O:P!RfS ,,' 11. ·£;'-,., . ' APPROVAL OEPAATMENT OF DE\.'£1.0F'MENT AND ErMRONMENTAL SCRvlcES ~:;i"'o~';;~"'· I.AND , PLATTING IT, LANO US SERVIC£$ C>MSION klNG COlMTY DEPARTMENT OF A,'iSf.SSMENf<n ___ .. _ t_ EXAMINED ""10 APPROVED THIS .RNIAY Of"~-20'6 . S.o+t-%k ~~- klNG COtJH1Y ASSESSOR DEPUTY Kif.IC CO!JNTY ASSESSOR RECORDING NO. IIJIIIIUIII -~,1:-' .... ..... ~.GR·:· .. ·········· .. ~f,r_··o~RI ... AT ..... M EOUEST Of" ,os TESTAMENTARY DIVISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET YDL./PAGE ).5 / /ICJ'i LOCATED IN THE S.W. 1/4, OF THE S.E. 1/4, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANCE 5 EAST, IY.M., KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ffllS TtSTAMCNTART DIVISION COIIR£CTI...Y REPRCS£NTS A SURVEY MADE 11'1' t« OIi UNDER MY DIRECTION IN COJ<lrot!MANC£ WITH STAT[ AND COUNTY STATUTES. IN, ~~,-~------ ~~Ll:-·/1~,-~ P.L.S, caTIFlCATE NO. 40016 'JM!lm,.Ja"r~roR~i.lffl • Ktt111A.O!!.Q7!1Ji.4I. IT l!I WUf ltl II( ~ "5 A • -"'•· .. ·· .. ·:) l ~~..::k-~.%~~..::.,~ i--li1 .. --i.,.--h.., Zll --JS llR MIT THE UlT5 ~f IE1Xlll[ Milt«. sm:::s 1lflOOOH : ., fl<[-IJN[~PIIOCES5:IIIM1E J :. .-.· ,. ~~~~-~ 14, $ Naf.lTH,!M e:,.s,-_ '!'-9,t """""""'-~ ilE R£\EIED Ul«lER !>IE ~ >Kl DRAWH EIY: DATE: JOll NUMBER:.· LM:'5 II arn:l' AT 1Hlt 1-.. J.A.C. 8/7/2008 .. ' 2~8-0.37 CHECKED ·9Y:rsc.A.I:t, , 0.8.H. N/A SH[ET: ·tOF"·;/ 0<-rc"31,i1 V Pl.Of: ni. .._ o, 1i!:Jo,14 7liii., ..... ,. c, ......... TESTAMENTARY DIVISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET VOL./PAGE is112JX> -- KING CO(JNTY. WASHINGTON .·/l•fl .TiST);MENTARY ~ ./ DIVfSlON LOCATED IN THE S.W. 1/4, OF THE S.E. 1/4, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., Kitf CoyntyN9 L0SM0034 .... g .,· } ,.,,,.,.--· ............. ~jNf~~:··· J'~ s.w. 1 ,J r,JE;_!;.r-.-,,, •. ,..,----"'i:'1':. N/0 0.~' .:(~!i~- "'Ll.MlrS Sl!NNY swre,t · il'Zi!.t~2 , LOT J : LOT ~ •• -J !fi!"""f -.jO' I tf ~: ~--------T ~-:·'ll'!l--L--. ,_-- ~: ~-i.H: '~-t~ I : (OtWJMl[5 N.) (CIIHIWtlf:S 111J \ » ' 2.t"~rw, OF' PWJI>. COR. ,..~-"~~ij OF PfKlf'. C'0/1. ., I t,,j s:1 ' ;!ti .,~·-"'" " ~ ~al a 'iq;:~ ~f :"ifflarm"ll@!i;1" J ;ij;'. ---«TM I ' I ; £ -cu =·- '1, .. ,./,f/TB: .•.. ·' 18&,0(lidt'~ ,r. -1.27 At:R.A'_§_ ······"·",,. ... -t-u~·r~a=~ ---------,· .,.,:··---,.·'----.:'--~_-::_ ~ TAA i>NIC£L 142J05-iioso "i<2 ,& L!f or,p<,,,l'-~ 1:::. ,;, 1Nt ...W,::fl 141.l(J5-Sll)f! KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON -·····.,, ... •.. ,,.,, __ ... .,, . GRAPHIC SCALE 1. 1~-100• 100 0 100 ,,•:~::a&DON ,i; .. , Of" S.£ f<UrH 5T-llfll',Ii;,.JjOfflN tll1"YrfJT":fcs,~ .-,,_~~~-~c:.w'~ '::"'Jro .. _ ······-· ... :.::_:_:~~~_;:~.- (,(SS N. ,m-:r££T Of:.7N£ 11£ST 4-.Jb nn. U:st-,11:'f l!f$T .Jo f£IT TIIDlroF.' .,,•' .,· NOTES: 1. ~ vsr ~-C*-0:1-.«. 1. n£ sou,IIWil£S ~ ON mis-.'i1M1£1' llO'RfSDlf oaD t.frill ClllllY. JCFUN.. ~ .w,r OTHI'"~ ~ """""" .3. .~ Cl,LCU,IIU> PUr ltOXllfO or St.f!lon' f!l"C(lf!OCIJ W >tll.lME' !05, P~ 0, UN£W.R RE~ /,/Cl. i'~ ~OF II'....: CWIP"f, ~- f .. 1.J' -OF =·-~ --· --~ / .... ,..; ,. : SOO =" :·: ',.-' ff«cr C <&·,,,.;;_~..C. •. ' -.•. .·. ---· I " -· ____ ,,.. --,---~--~ . .£'. ··.. --____ , ___ _ --~ . "" ~ ~- .REFERKN'CE SURVEYS: I. RfCOl!D OF ~ /lfXORDED Ill \oOI.UMf" !~, PAAE OJ l1!WDDI R£/XIFlf)M'} HO. ~ Rrr:afll>S IF KING C()lllllrY, ~ ~-CNffil.llOOO PUT~ W \,l'.lU.11,c 111, PACF: !!>~. (.Mlffl li£COl\'OIN(; NO. ,-,_ .~ OF IONIC COUHT\'. ~- ;·ifEGEiiYr:',• .. @FO<HJ~AS~ '@ I> ; TAX fWKfl_ J~Z.Xl5-901J IMrn r~%\,7iili.W M l>{f. r». 5.E. lf41H ST. NtrJ fl!lllJ/ A'1:. S. (NOT HtW) rnuw> Wf. 70 Cf/HSl~ W ~) (HaD AS S£Cl'1CW CCIINl:f') e§ ,'ft/,,'1/' ~i/W0c'~:' \ -~~'la ' ~ -°"". rm C!lll!NDi' 5£.CTJON. INT. CJf ~:£ r.«111 ST. N«J 11S-1rn~s.E. I •. . ---1-jJ(lQ:_09' kASJ _ ----_-=-=-_ ---1:Dli~' (/.£A.SJ 11 •. lJ H''·······•-· MIB:JE!Ulll 2617.l'P" (JEAS.J •••••••.•• ~···2' 24 (8'.515 OF IFAA'IM:lS) S.E. f441'H ST. .,····,;_;::::~~-:G?.1.:~ ~· PDR"llOtll or, S.W. 1/'I, S.E. DRAWN BY, I OATE~ J.E.R. 8/7/200fJ CH[t:l(EO SY:I SCALE, I SHEU: 0.8.H. l"-100' . 2 OF 2 -' ~-(rll,p,Of ,,,..,,., 01, ,,., ..,. u, ,s,». ,·lhu..-l.200!!.1' ~.111~ ~ KJ}l/cOiJNTY, WASHINGTON ,)u, ,i' ~i~tt:NTAR ~geo.,.ntyN,:O' LOBJ(,0034 DECl,AMTJOJ,{, ' '.i/.:'tlow • ..u.,~o{~·· rHESr°PR[SO{{S:" THAT ~)itt( .:··· UNDERSIGNED OWNERS Df THE LAMl HER£H.i ·bESCRIR(O" DO hER£BV UA,KE A '[ESTAMtNTAWf DMSIOH:.T\-lrnEOf :: PuflSUANT lo KCC19A~.p7oMs., ANO atCLARE ~i:its ;. OMSION 10 BE 'OlE CRAf'lil(;_.:"REPRfS[tfl'ATION 0(-JtlU." SAME, »¥) ThAT SAID OMSl()l,i IS hlADl:.'Wtnt ttt_E._.FR~:.: CO~SENT AND IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH Tl-IE.DESIRES OF .-; THE OWN[fi, >S fll.ED Wf'Tl1 THE SURER!OR'·-cQllRT OF;: ~~ ST~J-,!.:7;'t~G~o.r k°.:Jrl<lm: l~~ks~OER":"·. W'iER(OF WE I-IAVE SCT OUR HANOS ANO Slc>.LS"' .4&:1 ,l& .. -..i Mletwll) DUll,IE:f o,-om,,~ )\'\JtJ ;£..,11 I pf ..1 -· -~~= [tTA£ OF O(A'M.n;M QIJMET £STA]( IX IU.ll<!.l'EII OllMET STATE OF W!\SHINGTQtl,l "· COIJHlY Of KING ON THIS DAY POISOWd..l.Y N'P(AREO BEFORE ME 6-Rithlr/ ~WMl.f-{' SAily L/IU Ni'ptrf, TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE INOMOlJAl..{S) OESCR!!;l(D fN ANO WflO EXEcurrn TH£ wrMN ANO f'OOCGOING ,~TRUM[NT. . ANO /CKNOW\.f[)G[D THAT HE. / SH( SICNED·.'l'wt ~E A!J:' I-IIS / HER VOLUNT~ JCT ANO DEED, FOR'·THE USES Af"O PURPOS(S ll1EREIN WDmONW. ./· _./ CJV81 UNDER MY.,HANQf,\t,O Offlc1AL.,SE"J,I_ Tf<IS ff. DAY or --...1!.Mj.1/1.1 • , • , '.ri!IL ~,'*'~'~,. /~l;.,~V:t l l '" ! \-:.: --i,IL~ l \ "f'~ ',:;--09-ll":;e~ "11111?:;,~1$.~ ..... ~ .. ~~ APPROVAL ./J!mw/(,[;;,1,1.~ ··"' .,;;~-~~ TH( 'Sf:{/-OF WA-<;HiNGTON. ~-~ ?\?.~ EXP!~~ .•. / DEPARTMENT Of l)MLOPMENT AHO ENYIIWNMENTAL SEfMCE"S APPRO,,m nus~ ~~~T.200B. 0~~1flS' l.AND US SERVICES DMSION KING COUNN OEPARTMD+T CF ASSfSSl,I~--.. _ t_ [XAMIN!..O MID APPROVED nus -~'1'. Of ~-· 20.QS .£',ott-r..,1,lc..._ ~~~ KING OOUtlTY ASSESSOR DEPUTY Kl,.;G COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORDING NO. ,0Vallllllllll ~·tlll'I LlJ.N Hf1\J~~iil1 .. &: •. r,,l'GR SUPT. ·01 •• .AT ..•.• M EQUEST OF '·t~ TESTAMENTARY DIVISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET VOL./PAGE ).5//l'JC/ LOCATED IN THE S,W, 1/4, OF THE S,E, 1/4, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANCE 5 EAST, W,M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE TJ!tS TESTAMDIT"JIY llMSION CORRCCTlY REPR£S!Nt5 " SUl!VE'!" MAOC 9Y WE OR UNDCR MY DIRECTION IN COMFORW"NC[ WITH STAT[ AND COUNT'f ST ... TUTC!,. IN, h,g . .::>008 __a_,__-1, ,lU , P.LS. C(WrlrlC"TC HO, c,>ooc,c,c>'""""'------- f'!'iii,c,:f-· 1>IS ltEW[Sf (IIJaure Jal ~ ~ • KO::i....aaDl'IIA4J". rr '" Hill ro BE ll£WiRDEl> ,os " COlllffl\lfJII' ~ Nn' _,. 11"1' de! ccunv nw 11£ .,/~··· ' '! l.OIII II llCIR l'ftESOIT ,-,.,,,_ CONWN A 81-.DH; 5ITt: -1-DlB w·~-253 -ff:IS la ~~lDltiE~=~~ I .:= ./ :: ~~~-~--~ S.W. 1/4, S.f: 14, t..B NORTH, .lf:5 £1\ST,.'11/:1,1. -._ llllU 8£ -UNllE1I !ME ~ N,CJ DRAW BY: UM ERr: ur; 11 El"f[Cl' AT llillf TM:. J.A.C. ,---,;,;;,, , . .-.n,, !iiu Aug 0 CHECKED 8"1':1 stAl::E: O.B.H. N/A _,. SHEET: ' ,.. ~~: TESTAMENTARY D/VISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET VOL./PAGI:: J-5 KINC COUNTY, WASHINGTON ,.,/1.-fl Jff sT4iJENTARY .... /"DIV!Jf!ON l(j -~ NQ: J,,08}10034 ,'19 .,' ,/" . ""' LOCATED IN THE S.'/Y. 1/4, OF THE S.E. 1/4, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANCE 5 EAST, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON I W.M., 1 1 .• 00004 , .. -·· ......... --·· 1 ~l~1 1 UITJ ••. .I st/tl'JthC'F:4.f/JID' • .._It J'•j' 'V° ~ 1 '-1.----------L.:--)(' J 1 1'4(/j~/"'1( ~-( ' l . " . ·~:~_ 3, l!O'r', I.INf" : (MY/11,U;S N.) :,,,_· , ......... ., .. , ... ,._.,, I.Or.;';·'•.-/:f' KCSP 48-1066 8fQfJt0f!P'OS .,·(~~ OF _ _;fix ~:f~2.Jo5-91CJ~· \r ~ ,. I' Ii. NKJ o.~· II'. r,r ff«JI'. CCII. ------_ .... , ····:. >.-;;.·::··_ -.. ;': ,-:·' ----..... .-· -1./ H.~ r,f'.i;_ ! «--~ ' • I I . 8' : ~1 "ii ,~~mit 1:· ~ 1 ---""= \I.I I" ,· :_,,;, ~ ~-"":'.., "'"I~ -~ ~§ .," ~ ' " i ; £ .a ~-aF --·-: ... _,/.fl( JI, •• -···' 186.088.'Mf Sil FT- _y?' .ACRES I tr··!·!' -~i"Z ' "";;;;_;;. b.1 S, Ji .!.8' i a-PROF'. coo. (CONTWu£S !,,) -~01fi, Ei2,f.J2 ~16!. %t1&r~;..111 I·~-~ ~ ~ TAA P,IRC8_ 1~~305-WIJ ·~ I~ 1t1111 lbli'~"".w9F"b PIPE II((, CF ,u:. 1"'41N ST NI() ,mm 11>£, S. (NoT HEl.D) J·,~ =-= T.O: PA/len !42J03-lio5o " or me N~ 1{~':,µ W. 1/4, ii/' TM PNft:U 1'2J05-rotll ---:;: ___ ..... .-________ .---~ .. ------ ffi4cr C -~-·~-~~75 ·-· '.·:....:-,_:----_,_·. ·::.-... ""' , ..... - ~~ IIOY. COfl. E~ 1'!:flf~=';°&ffl~~~--\ ~~i.b'N,(I AS SOIJJ'I{ QU4K1£R ~ St.:cncw IHr ~ S.f: 1-M»; ST. /,#ID 1541w •>£ S.E OUM1 00(. RI CCWSFli'l/t"Jl'W IN ML\) (>ti.D ,IS SU:00,, IXJRl,£11) \ ' -----1--!:¥.19.ll9 1)£.\.5J _ ----* ----t}:)8153 i'EASJ _A__ J~ i:i: ....... •••• M'l8'3El'07'1t' 26J7J2 f1,£ASJ --~~ {8'.SISOF~J S..E. 144TH S7'. ... rw,-r,,--,..; 54--.0:Jn•r ~ ... Ii!.... IU.N ft!2=.lr:'iz ! • i. GRAPHIC ScJ.U: 1~•100' ~ a 100 .BA:STS''OJ',.QJ:ARiliGS: : .. .,' IJ£NfM',S .';lfOWN ~ ~ aw:z, °"' ~~"If • OI S.£. lHr>! S"r., 8£/Rt-.J<ORrll tJIT.Jll'V"T ~. AS .<· --,~~~~~;;'.~. •'""·~/!.K,IMl f.OI.WTYj/"AS-:yi· . ,···U:C:;(J,:DESCR~ON: ,,· W/.~,~~J '·'.··<, ....... ::~--~·fr:~.$~~,~;~ ~rtR. (.(SSOl.l~·IX'-~IO'EST~=-' ~. PIE 1116T "° ttt:r 1IOf'QII::. NOTES: ... ,. <' !. W(lf,U,IOITT: I.AST >f<l/1:ti [14..,-02--0! ~-1)*." l!OI.NWIEt -°"' ~ S!.f!'t£Y ll'EPRE5WI" om, I/NB (WLY, .I.C1'l.W,. OWHCRSH1P M,\Y 0/~ ~-I J. -e.l.CLU1Ill />Of~ Of" 51.ffiO' REl'ORDEI> IN '>'DUME IC,. F',¥;£ <lJ l»!O[R ~ "°· -Rf£Olf/DS OF' l(M; COl/lt1Y. ~- REFERENCJ: SURVEYS: , Rf.I."URO(l/:'$'--Y~/H',O<_~f()d. PACE. ru LWD{JI fl£COIIVING IIO. ~ I 111"CQitfflOFl(.MJOOl/tffi',-ll'.W I 2. CMQl.ll(IO() PL,lit MIXJRDffl IN \oOI.Llllfc I II, ; PA(:l'fl,u,;oe;,~N<'.J.7!11l!lJIIIJ58$ IICl.:QROSOf"JONCCVl"'7Y,-lbH. f;ucENu.-.. @ro,,c;,~ASfl!'.:cRfllED .--''·•:SET 1/2" m;ij,w .. CAP #0/W 40016'" rj"f'OI.MJ~-~--AS'~''·,-., ..... _.I 14,),';~ ~Rll-!.:-i:5 E,\~1/~.M. ""~=- Dii~ J.£.R. C/1£CK£D Ri:I SCAL.£: O.B.H. 1•-100' ,n....~7, ''Pff NUWBt.JI: . ; I .. ~~-a,31·; · ·sf-lffi, 2 Of 2 ,ri,"Joi. J 4merican Title Insurance C.Ompany 818 Stewart St, Ste BOO Seattle, WA 9810! Phn -(20£)615-3206 Fax -(425)551-4107 ESCROW COMPANY INFORMATION: Escrow Offlcer/Ooser; BRIE REGAUA SUDDERTH bregaliasudderth@firstam.com Fi~tAmerican Title Insurance Company 11400 SE 8th St, Ste 250, Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: ( 425)455-3400 -Fax; (800)363-0756 Kristi K Mathis Title Officer (206) 615-3206 kkmathis@flrstam.com Title Team Four Fax No. (866) 859-0429 Michelle Treherne Title Officer (425) 635-2100 mtreheme@firstam.com Note: Please send King County Recordings to 818 Stewart street #800, Seattle, WA 98101 To: PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th ST STE 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers Re: Property Address: To be determined, Renton, WA 98059 THIRD REPORT Rtst Amenc,,n Tltfe File No.: 4243-2173612 Your Ref No.: 000549 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain language Commitment Jmmitment No.: 4243~2173612 Page 2 of 10 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by llRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Agreement to Issue Policy We agree to issue a policy to you according to the te,ms of this Co_lTlmli:rll_E!nt. -~--~- . -When we shovir-the poficy amount andyour 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 i- Kristi Mathis, Title Officer Rrst AmeliuJn T!tle 000550 Form No. 1068·2 ALIA Plain Language Commitment SCHEDULE A 1. Commitment Date: January 29, 2014 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT General Schedule Rate with 10% combination discount Standard Owner's Policy Proposed1nsured: PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington limited Liability Company Multiple Coverage Rate AL TA Extended Loan Policy Proposed Insured: To Follow $ To Follow $ .ommibnent No.: 4243·2173612 Page 3 of 10 PREMIUM TAX To Follow $ To Follow 3. (A) The estate or Interest in the land described In this Commitment is: Fee Simple (B) litle 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. R,st Amerk:an T,tfe 000551 Fonn No. 1068-2 ,mmitment No.: 4243-2173612 Page 4 of 10 ALTA Plain Language Commibnent SCHEDULE B SECTION I REQUIREMENTS The following requirements must be met: (A) (B) __ (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Pay the agreed amounts for the interest In the land and/or the mortgage to be insured. Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. -DoGumentssat!sfaetory to us creat!ngthe Interest m the Jarid and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed, delivered and recorded: 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. Releases(s) or Reconveyance(s) of Item(s): Other: 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, daims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. E. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions In patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, daims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (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, lnstal/atlon, connection, maintenance, construct/on, 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 000552 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment PART TWO: SCHEDULES SECTION II EXCEPTIONS ,mmitment No.: 4243-2173612 Page 5 of 10 Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction. __ Toe printed exceptions and exclusions from the coverage of the policy"or policiesa"re 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. 2009110S000541. 3. General Taxes for the year 2014, which cannot be paid until the 15th day of February of said year. Tax Account No.: Amount: Assessed land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: Amount: Assessed land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: 142305-9122-06 1st Half $ 2,436.80 340,000.00 0.00 $ $ 2nd Half $ 2,436.79 $ 340,000.00 $ 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 Mezlstrano ls/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 Hon Exhibit B herein wlll be omitted in said extended coverage mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this pa@g@ph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard cove@ge policy to be issued. 000553 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment ,mmltment 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. Rm Amerla,n Title 000554 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Pfain Language Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES immltment No.: 4243-2173612 Page 7 of 10 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. · ·s:-· 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 titie 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 Polley will be the Al TA 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. RrstAmefia>n Title 000555 Form No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment Jmmltment No.: 4243-2173612 Page 8 of 10 CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS (a)"Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b )"Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title according to the state law where the land is located. 2. LATER DEFECTS Toe 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. EXISfING 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 MUSf BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any daim, 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 000556 FOfTTI No. 1068-2 ALTA Plain language Commitment (:tj~ I First American ·c.¥?1 Fiist-xiilerican 1Itle Privacy Information We Ans Committed to Safeguarding Customer IIJformation Jmmltment No.: 4243·2173612 Page 9 of 10 Fi/'$1 Amerkan rd:le Insurance Company 818 Stewart St, ste 800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phn · {W6)615-3206 Fax· (425)551-4107 In order to bettel' Sl5Ve your needs now and In the tutura. we may ask you to provide us with certa!n infonnation, We uncletstand !hat you may be concerned about what we wm do With SUCh fl'lformatjon • particularly any personal or fiflandal fllformation. We agree that yoo have a right to know hew we will utilf?e the persor,.;,J information you Pf1;1','1de to us. Therefore, together With our subsidiaries we have adopted this Prlvaq, Polty to govern the use and handllng of your pmanal infOrmatlon. AppNcabilftJ This Privacy POiicy glVemS our use of the in~ that you provide to us. It does not govern the manner In w~ldl we may use lnrormatlon we have obtained from any other source, such as lnformatlOn obtained frOm a public record or from af)O(her pe!'SQn or entity. Arst Amerbn has also adopted broader gulde!fnes that govern our use of per9J11aJ lnfomlatlon regardless of Is source. First Arntrlcan calls these guidelines It$ Fair Information Values. Types of lnform;;dlod Depending upon which of our services you are utlizing, the types of nonptblic pe!SOnaJ Jnformatloo that we may COiiect Jndude: • Infcrmatkln we receive from YoU on appfrcat:IOns, forms and ln other communkatlons to us, wtdher In writing, In person, by telephone or any ottier means; • Jnfomla!ion about your transactionS wfti1 us, our affilated companies, or others; and • Information we receive from a cnnswner reporting agency. Use of Information We request lnftfmatiCrl from l"'O!J for our own legll,nate busbiess purposes and not for the benefit of any nonafflliated party. 1'herefQ-e, we 'Nill not release your lnformat!Ofl to nonal'filli9tf!d parties e:mpt: (1) as necessary for us to provide tile product or service you have requested of us; or {2) as permitted by law. We fMY, however, store such lnl'ormatlon lndefinltely, lnduding the period after which any customer relat!onship has r.eased, Soch lnf'twmatlon rni!l'f be used for any Internal purpose, su:h as quality c:ontrd efforts or w,;tomer analysis. We. may also provide all or the types of nonpubic personal lnfonnatbn listed abave to Ol'll! or more or our affiliated companies. Such affillared companies lndude financial service provkiers, sUch as title. Insurers, property and casualty Insurers, aod trust and ~ adVlsor,' companies, or companies Involved In real estate ~Ices, SUCh as apPBisal companies, home warranty companies and escrow con,panles. Furthem,;:we, we may also provide all the Information we o:inect, as deso'lbed above, to companies that perform marketing S&Vke:S oo our behalf, on behalf of our affiliate;! companies or to other tmancial lnstitUtioos with wham we or our affiliated companies have joiit malkel:lng (!greements. Formw CllStomerS Even If you are no longer our customer, our ?rivacy PoiiQ' will contlnUe to apply to ycu. ConfidentlaDty and Sea1rtty We wm use Ol6 best efforts to ensure that no unauthortzed partieS have ~ to any of your Jnfurmallin. We resbict: ~s to nonp..iblle personal information about yau t.o !nose Individuals and entitles ~ need ID know that infool'lirtion to prtMde products or services to you. We wm use our best efforts to train and overaee our employees and agents to ensure that your Information wRI be handled responslbly and tn accordance with this Privacy Polity end firSt American's Fair Irif0rlnation Values. We currently malntaln physfcal, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulatio!1s to guard your noopubllc personal lnfQrmatlon. Information Obtained Through Our Weta Site first American Anandal Corporat100 ls sefl51tlve to pmat;y lsslJeS on the Internet. We beJieve It Is Important you know how we treat the lnformati:ln about you we receive on ttie·[ntemet. In genera~ you can vfslt First Amel'fcan or Its affillates' Web sites on the Workf Wide Web without telling us who you are or revealing any information about yourself. Our Web ~ cooect the domain names, not the e-mail addresses, cf visitors. To!s Information iS aggregated to measure the number ol' viStts, average time spent on the site, pages viewed and similar Information. f'rst Amerlcan uses this Information to measure the use of our site aoc:t to de\lelop Ideas to improve the cnrrt:ent of our site. There are llmes, however, wtien we may need lnl'oNnatbn ftQm )"Oll, su::h as your name and email address. When information Is needed, we wlD use our best etfurts to let you know at the time of collect.Ion how we wil use the persooal fnfonnaticn, usually, the~ !nfonnatlon we collect is used only by us to respond to your Inquiry, process an order or allow you to aa:ess specific ac:cot.1nVprofile information. If )'OU choose to share any personal lnforrnat1011 with us, we wlll only use It In ao:nrdance with the policies outlined above. Basiness RefatJonshlps Flrst Amerbn Flnandal Corporatioll's site and Its affiliates' sites may contain links to other Web s~ Whffe we try to link only to sttes that share our high standards and respect. for privacy, we are not responsible for the a:intf:flt or tne privacy pQct:ice5 employed by other Sites. Cookie, Some of Arst American's Web sites may make use of "cookie~ tedlrKllogy to measure site actMty and to customize Information to yoor ~! tastes. A cookie Is an element: of data that a Web site can send to your browser, whldl rrilf'I then store the cookJe on your hard drive. flmMI com uses stored eookles. The goal of this ~ogy rs to better serve you when Visiting our site, S3Ve You time when you are here and to pr(Mde ycu with a more meaningful and prod(.lct!Ve Web site e:perieice. Fair lnfotlNtk»I Values Palm~ We consider cansumer expectations ablut their prNacy ln al/ our buslneSSeS. We only offer products and serviceS that assure a favorable balance~ am sumer benefits and consumer -· Publk: RBCOlll. We believe that an open publ'IC recofd crea~ significant va1L1e for society, enhances consumer dlolce and ~ ecnsumer opportunty. We acttvefy support an epen publle re<:ard and emphasize tts Importance and cootributlon to our~. Use We believe we should beha~ responsbly when we use lnf0m2tion about a (OOSUmef In our business. We WIii obey the laws govemlng the collectlon, use and dlsse:nl!\iltlon of data. Accuracy we will take reason.able step$ to help assure the accuracy or the data we collect, use and c!l!.seminate. Where possible, we w1m take reasonable steps to corre:::t Inaccurate lnfurmatlon. When, :as wth the public record, we cannot comct inatCUrate Information, we will take all reasonable step$ to assist consumers Jn identifying the sou~ of the erroneous data so that the consumer can secure the required corred1oos. EdUcatlon We endeavor to educate the UsefS dour products and services, our employ'JeS and Qtl1ers i1 our Industry about the !rnportan,ce of consumer prrlacy. We will ln$b'!Jct our empJoi.>ets on our fair lnfucmatlon values and on the responsible coftectla, and use of d.!ta. We wiU enct>Urage others In OUr lndushy to a:llect and use lnfotmatlon In a responsible manner. ~ty we wiU malntaln appropriatle: fadlties il"ld ~ to prctect against unauthortz«r acress tn and corruption of the data we maintain. Form SO-PRIVACY (8/1/09) Page 1 of 1 Pmacy Information (2001·2010 First Amerfcan Flnandal Corporation) 000557 Form No. 1068·2 AL TA Pfain Language Ccmmitment mmitment No.: 4243-2173612 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: LOTA OF KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION NO.: L08M0034, RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080812900004, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BEING NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTI-iWEST QUARTER OF TI-iE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTI-i, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY WASHINGTON: LESS NORTH 100 FEET OF TI-iE WEST 440 FEET. Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9122-06 Situs Address: To be determined, Renton, WA 98059 000558 Lcit 1 l.9l A 0061 '" -21~f 0067 " - 1.n AC ooss • - 124501 "' 1~n 0059 I ;· u·:1:ut ~ ... l' ••1 ~ -l09Hf ;:_ ooos ---101u1 9J91t 0081 ~ 0078 " " -"' • = 90001 °: • 0079 . "" 0&431 ""' = 90001 ~ '" 0075 • " : ~ :,: • ~~ " •Ii -, l04fl Sr 01'0 -' ~'.3.JL_ ·1ou ~ ~ <' ~~ To -• UUl 6 . -'"' ' ' s • • • • I • ,: . 0 ~ i· Is ?", ~ t:~ . - " ~ ' ..-1-\, g •, )'>" ;a; ,' ~ S·-• 0 • " ' ... ~=-" 15 ~ ·-~~ ' ',, 11 ~! 10 --10(51 6 01so " ---~----::' = 1o~n sr l09JO SF 109.2f SF 10,n s 10Jl0 SI 9027 .. "" .. "' N8ti-l8-lull 410. 0 LOT A LOT B ''" " :;., . -" 139750 i_';J TR A ! 0 ~ _ ~r z~ CAROL\ QQD.,.,. ; a 179H SF 0000 1.32. 00 1~tJ2 ~r OHO lH.~O -·~8.00 ----·--- .S.E 143RD ~T 9090 .. 12oz2 sr 0000 89.00 ~13 f.21 AC l9~202f • '"' * • 9023 JO ; 10 7 ' ,; . •i Is i! lo 10151 SF 0070 ... U.00.;,~]j I . ~i ~ !! ~ "' < "' ~ •j It) a ... ' ---------~n.-----·---s Rl•3Q·Dl II: lOIO.G'J' IZJ. --' . ··-!1,:,J .• --· ..•n.07 -- "' - tOT 1 '::' f KCSP48108e- ~0587 SF L~5 AC '104 , .. ,2. 02 • 21641 sr HHO sr 9037 90SO "' •7• c----=-, . :; !!-2!-, U241.40 (Pl 5 "'"' 1!1.fl • ' lSOO:t SF.i: 00<0 2.ll ____ n2.oo ·-·-·-----·- .... ::. . . '· Filed for Record at Request of & When Recorded Return To Sally Nipert 14004 !56,. Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 IIIIIUIIIIII( 20081021000149 CHICAGO TITLE D 43.00 PAGE0a OF 012 101211 eea ":48 KING UNTY, WA E2368092 10/21/2908 99:47 KING COUNTY, WA sie~ si:::: PAGE901 OF 001 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED (Upon Distribution of Separate Real Property from Testate Estate) Grantor,;: GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET AND SALLY LOU NIPERT, Co-Personal Representatives of Estate of Kathleen M. Ouimet, deceased Grantee; SALLY LOU NIPERT Abbreviated Legal Descr.; LOT A, KING COUNTY TESTAMENTARY DNISION NO. L08MOOJ4, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20080812900004, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Parcel No.: 142305-9122 20081021000149:lll 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 KNf. 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 I 4-23-05 LESS N 100 FT OF W 440 FT LESS CO RD Assessor's Property Tax.Parcel Number: 142305-9122. CHICAGO TITLE INS. co@ REF# /:)J:lS'~? ,Jo 000560 20081021000149.00 6. Considerl!tion. 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: STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) ----- Estate of KATHLEEN M. OUIMET, Deceased By:,L&Y~ GEORGE RICHARD OUIMET, Co-Personal Representative ' g~ ~]1~ SALL YLC5{jNIPERT: Co-Personal Representative 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 W1der my hand and official seal on: D(T'J /!,.Ci( / (, . oU) 0 ;J ~ . I, .;J ,,~ ~''"'"'"""~ .... ~ "'''' S ~,,,. Si ture /'' ....... ~~~~ P6.K./(R.MJ S:lt.J GH GHvf>1/11J il:/..,,.o"tA \ ;; Printed Name . . .... -·t. .. i : . \1•' •Z! \ \ -}Pj NOTARY PUBLIC for Washington ~ PiJ•\,\.;,,,§} Residing at: Rtt,rrot-1, wA .· .. ~~ ........ ~11:>'\ ... '' OF w.-,,,,,, ''""''"'''' My appointment expires on: 111 IJ1!.-(_rf I "4 4Q I k 000561 Kil{/'/ COUNTY. WASHINGTON ,,/'l2 .ft .,:r;;TA;MENTAR , : ~ ,. DIVl;!JON . Ki,,g Col,!nty Nd,. l;OBM.0034 ·. ,. ,,· ~·--~,-.. "' ,, ... ··nEsf.;AEIATIOf·-·"· ,.-, ..... _~ow,olJ.b,"4£Ff~ 11iESe:°PR£SO,f!S~·iHAT we;i~E .:·· ~SmNEll ~ERS M THE lAf(D HEREIN "3£SCR18ED. D(I HEREBY )ti«£ A ra!.TAlilDIT~ OMSION,~fi.iEREOF .:· , PLJRstJ,l,Kf TO 1CC:C1!M;Uf\.070M.F .. AND a!Ct.AAE l:fi°!S .,,· DMSION TO !IE THE GR,\PHIJ:..,·REPRES[f«ATION o(.'lliE:.'.' S#,1,l(, ANO THAT SAID D~ IS W,Df.• ¥1'm1 fli(·. FR~; OONSENT .MIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH TI-IE DESI~ OF .a· lJ-£ Cl'IM:R. AS Fll..EO WrTl-1 THE SURERl6rf--C01JRT OF:: THE STAlE '!f WASloffNGTON FOR l(JNC COI.JNT'r', UNOEfl' ·.: ~t:l'J • -t.J@(I/ • 1 Jq/T IN WllNESS ·.,. i ••. __ •• , .. ,,, ..... , .-:· TESTAMENTARY DIVISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET LOCATED IN THE S.W. 1/4, OF THE S.E. 1/4, ·1 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M .. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ······ .. ,.,-,, . ,,,- ,;..>' . .r.···•-·.~, .......... , ....... ,. VOL./PAGE lSI I 1q WHEREOF 'WE hA.VC SIT OUR HNIDS ANO SEALS" •.·,,J .,, ,·,,,,,,,., ... , .. •' ,, ... ,.·. ,f· ~/;:);:'.'.;~ ··•·· _4&,·1 .~/(I,,-t ~~ 00.._,.. tsTmOF,u,n,\llifOl,lr,IU St,t,TE OF" WASIIIICmN,~ COONlY OF" KING s. ~J1,p0.1 ESTATt Of KATJ.lt£EN QIJIM£f ON TH$ O,.Y PERSONALLY N'P£ARED BEfORE ,.U: t,,. Rr'UW'I tJli"<f t S.Jltf l4u Al/etrl-• ,, TO ME 1<HOWN TC 9E THE INOMotJAL(S) DESCR!8([1 IN ANO =~~~=NH£,.,, ~~~=·~:p:-._, HIS / H£R 'vOI..UHrARY ACT AND DEEO, f"Otl,''Ttt[ USES N/1) "1.JRf'OSE:S Ttt~ MfJffl<lNffl. .-/ •• .-::- GM}t LINDER ,, WiNDL N-iD omcw..,6£M.. THIS f!f DAV OF U_JIIJ..---. ,c , ~ ·.,{/: .,, •. , .... ,,,, _/~J;.,t,,r,· =/.~K./r& :,~ C ~--~i(~~ ,' ~';'U:.011v,.,.. 0 l\£~~JSif or 'fl,ISHINGTON. l,,• ,,,,-·· ~·········,.:, ~ -·-MY {;·ffiEXPIRES .. / t,. -~./); .... \, .,."f ,.,_011.1~/ "'11ifff;,r:M,. .. ,,;:.~ APPROVAL DEPAlffi400 Of OE',£J..Of'MEHT AND DMROHMOfTN. SERVICES N'PRO'v'ED ~ R~"" . ''-"""' . UH!> ~ OMSION klNG OOtJH1Y 0Ef'ffl11./.ENT Of' ~~, ..••• L EXAMINED AND Af'f'R(NEO 11-·tlS ~) Of'~ 2Cl..Cf! ~i,.,_____ ,t/'u,J..Jw ih-aodi l<lNG: CQ.M1Y ASSESSOR OEPU1Y !<INC COUNTY 1'SS£SSOR RECORDING NO. ~Jli\~11111~111 aJl"!I <#' 11111 11~.N ll/,l'a11!,ll';,r .<'le.. MGR. SUPT. •.• .AT ...... ~ EQUEST OF .~ >RDS ... ,./', .. , .. / , . . , ... ,.,.., ... • ,,,,,.~· .... ,, -.········' '=·-~, •. )' ·:·.,, .... ~· '"·-~---·······' LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE THIS 'Tt:STAMENTARY DIVISION CORRCCTLY REPRESEHTS A SOINEY MADE BY wt OJI UNDER WY DIREe'T'ION lN CONf'OA'MMtCl Wffit STATE AND COUMfY STAJ\JlES. IN: A, ___.D,..,,, :B ,l;/1 t P,U, CER11fl¢ATE lfO. 40016 - ,,' __ :.::· ,:,·······''} ..... ,··· .. ,,,.,,,v,.-•' ,,•' :/''= ''.!' .,: .:: ''····'' ,t''i-.... ··.,. ,,.· ;.,, ........ ~ .,, ... ~· ... ,, "'"• .·;:;, ·-·•.-.,, , ....... . .. , .... ,·· --:-;,,,, ..- .... ,,,. -fllQIBT cJ.WJ'Q fUI ~·~ ttl:IIA.~. ffl!ll«l'!'TDIIEIEiWllllllASA :: '•::/,,_,;-· .... ,, .,,,,· ._,,/(/''~;t ./· COlfl,lfNE),TCF/ottf'_.-IIT-coum"J1tl,J'Tlt( · -· U71S II nD1 l'IDIOfr :!!"Ale CllNWN ~ ....__, Sil£;: --I fli-Dl"f Wj· :.-f• ~~~~~~~ PORTIOH'~· .:· . •. .. ~~~~~ S.W. 1/4, S.£. 1/4, 5!fe. 14, T~ MOlffil, .lr,S tAST.,W,.M. ~ WU. II!: Rl1IIQID 1.11DU1 THE ~ NII DRAWN BY: TE: LAll!SIIIUITC'l'AflllllT'I-. ~,/ J(r Of ,. -....7,IOOll."f " y, ...... ·>i.,/' ... ,~/' __ ,. ·'" .~/ , .... .!/ KI1"b COifNTY, WASHINGTON ,.,"'1--fl /·isr).MENTARY TESTAMENTARY DIVISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET VOL./PAGE t5J/2.ro LOCATED IN THE S.JY. 1/4, OF THE S.E. 1/4. ,· .... _,.· DIVISION Ki"9 Coynty ~,r;/_1,,ea.1,rpo34 ;: -~ ----.-.>" -.,,·__ -~···· •. -~-.... .. j • '1~ . -,.,./" .. --'-"•· .. OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANCE 5 EAST, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON W.M., .00004 - i!.*"" Ill ... -.,.,... ,.,-' ........ --,.,· .Of' PROI'. a/k. .c(~.W.) ¥ILUCJl"S SllNJIY SLOPl'S .:· •',·.. ,f' ' ' \ ~~I : i.tTTJ W" =• ..• -•-,,, ::t~---·-•,,,> _.'>"''" ,,,.,,··· p~i'' ;;., xc-st0 zt;: a1os1Df!io~---· ''.,:..- ,: /··1' ... -=-t---~---~i~~..,.,-l }11'"''riiii'" Jf ,'f.. it:~!'( T.4'"/i" =·--·J e, l!Pt. UJtE iF--/:~.~ "iCT'li"=i.ow.or ---:colt. (ctW~N.) ./'' :-· .. ,, .. ---······· ,W PARCfl.:'i4.UD~-IIC¢ ,, . ,·: . ,1'' __ .... ---•, 1 -~ "' . o; ~' ,..-.. _,.,..,,,, CF-.~ ; ~-..;:··· . .(··· _,:'/'- ''·· ... ,:,{' ---TAX fW<OO.. 141.Jl'lS-.:-WSQ ·::. ~~1; "'I:~ n 1='idl'~to.,,.~· i ~ "'1 " ~--119 ~-GiEJ "~I ~ ~~' _,,·· ru~r.,~~ ... -··· ,,·s .. c,-... -,"q·_r·«~-.• -.-•. ,,.-,,·1 fllt1.00B.bY SQ. n. ••. ,,.,,,· ~ J ,. ""·- ~ ' - -127 AC'RSS ' ----' ---------------"'- .. ~-,,,.,•·"''"., "'"···-~--:: .... ,,, ... /~ : :; ··::;;., _;,_,~,; . OF";,-' -~ iQ<o. COIi. _,, --t:l!nf~.R" ti A-1:z. 'v-t.11£:t/Flf~ '£rfµ ' ;;.·i!fll1~··;'· ' " "' ~ I~ '@ ll '~ r..uC" F'ARCEl. 14.Ull:;.-9()J.J -. 'OF SL-i+<,rn si". 1111D r..mt AW. a (HOT t6II) "1: s.£. ,,um sJ. llliD kwmr M'"ll fll'i.D AS ~ Qll'llfmt CIJllllffit SEGTIDt'. HO -· /'llUIII'.) OOC ro ~ ~ NW<) -- --\iiihi,. ii@i -.... ·-····-· ""· Of' 5.1!: ,....,,,., s.r. -!fflH A\£. IS.£. fllWI ,\S 5£I:1l()ll, COllH£!1) lJ-,i1JlJ _fr---+~~~----~----~~ w..___ __ _ "'89"3607"11' 2617.7Z' ~J (8'.S!S"OF~ _....-fr:u ---· S.E. l447'H SJ'. <,ii" ,,,- "\, ..... ,, . ._.,.,., ., ... ···· ""' ... ,ca,.., ,, • .=,; ··.,-.,f's· m11 .~ ,,,,,_ __ ,,,,·. -<, ... _.J~ 100 ,00 GRI.PHlC SCM..I: l 1·-100· ! 0 ,,.IJASIS''OJ',~GS: ;~:,., ,.-. ~ 5IIOtfN ~AM:~ OIi nil>.~ ..... ,, ... ~~~~sr~~~,F~~;_, Cil"~Ar"°':p,,clE"~~-"10.. • ,······ :.;::::;;;:;J~;."/ /'1. / !W~~~W'z~~~~t: Glw1m\ ./~---·· "''"'"'fll.Jl;..'IC'IMGcqv,ny. ~ .,· ~.H,P~-~~"}bmr. ~ :;;~;;__, . I z. 1)£ ~ ~ °"' 1!<115' SlR!\C ~ DC@ ~ ONI.Y. ~ OflNDtSIII' 11111' aTHt]fWtSI:. M-. J. ~ ~= ~ MWfll) Of'~ REl%ffl)[U "' l'OWIE l~ ~ (IJ -~ HO. ·-ltEl:llRDS OF IONC COOfll'f, ~- REFERENCE SlJRVEYS: I. ,rraJl/0 OF SUl'\£Y /lfD:lffOEll N wt.UM£ Ii f'J.cE ru LJftDE1! ~ NO. - /lCCOIIUS OF KH1 COU!l1Y. MIIISIM70H. :,. C'M!(ll.lJOOO PV,T~ tN >t:Jt1..I£ 111,, PJoct1111.111CJEJ1~Na~I -;. l'ltc(lffDS OF l<9KJ GOI.NfY. ~RW. ! \;UGOO:·--. • fl)l,MI ~"" OBClll9ED ~---,.-~!~~~:~~~~,, J.E.R. CHECkEO BY:I sc.,.u:, I !!mII, 0.8.H. 1• .. 1(1()' 2 OF 2 ,riii,"~lff,~ ""'-......:'" .,., ./''·., .. i' TESTAMENTARY DIVISION FOR RICHARD OUIMET VOL,/PAGE J.5!/19 K1Nc:'cau11rY, WASHINGTON _.,f''l•ft fi;T1MENTAR ./.. 1!111 ,/ DIV!j;!ION LOCATED IN THE S.W. 1/4, OF THE S.E. 1/4, OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON .,· .· Ki!'ig ~ N_J.:/ .~OBM/J034 ··1 " ' ., . , ... ! .. :,, ... ,;ECU'RAf;oN.-_':,~ ···. <.: ::,,,,,,. ,,.,.,·· .::'· .,/'' .!} :/" ~-"""• ,•' '"k't,ow,,w_~E:ff BY T}IESE' PRESE?f[S THAT ~--'°iJ.JE .::· UNDERSIGNED 0WJ,;£RS OF THE" I.ANO HERE"1N • .fS€sCRIB(O" J,,· DO HEREBY h.W<E" A TSSTAMENT~ OMS!OH.,Tfi£Rmr .:· ' .•.... ---·,,: PIJRSUNIT TO KCC19A.Ofl 070A;4.F,, MIO 9EC!.ARf Jfi"rS ,,· DMSKIN TO BE: THE ~C, REJ>Rt:5£/'lf,',TION OF'· TI,[,: SAAie:, ANO ~T s-JO DMS1(JW IS MADE WITH TH( ~ -. CONSOO At.ID IN .'CCOROt,1,NCE WITH 'nii DESIRS OF • j ,;' . .,,-.. t""~,/···"· ,, ...... >/ ..,,······ ·.,:/i:>/" Tl1E OWNER.~ fll.ED ltlff(H 7HE SURER/OR' <:qk!RT OF . _..,' ,, .. THE STATE '?f WASHll>tG'TON FOR KING COUNJY, UNDER.. .,, .... , .~ .,,_ .(" NO tJI •• ., /flit!~, MI . IN WllNES5 • -••• ,' Wf!EREOF WE" HAVE SET OUR HN10S ANO SE'Al..S" '.$.:? 44:, .. r111,:,t J'Af'Jki7L ~,1. -0!,W[T SIIL.i.Y 00-£4CIJlQR CO-P£CIJIOII ESli'tlE OF ~TH.£tl\l QUl,IET f:$f/lf[ OF" ~TJjl£El'f QLMllT ST.AT£ OF WASHING!tlff,I_,.,, COLMY Of KING ) ·•·,,,,.,., .. , .. •' ,,,.- ··' .:-:-· ON llllS M.Y f'ERSON.'J.1.Y APPEARfl) B£fORE ME r,,.RM,##'I01,,illftl-,' ,f~(t/ /.Ju Ni"p,.+, .. ·=,," TO M£ KN<M1 TO BE TiiE JlJOMOUN..{S} ~8(D IN ANO = ~ ~~ ~~EQ~~Df· ... it' HIS / H£R WLUNTAR'I' ACT ANO D£f0, f"OlfTHE LISE'S ~ PU~ THEROtl WEHt!ONro. .,,·· _,,· GIVEN lJM)£R I.IYb~,_,.,,o om:w,,~ THrs a!~ """' . ~..,. -~ .. · /' r ~ ·~ ~,""n\""•,, ... .. .. ; +o1~J.. ~-S.JIJE OF WASHINGTON ~ _ , • i,,-~ffl ElCPIRES / ,~ :""tt.\.sC> ~ ...... iii,,..,~ :.>.og,IJ'i:f$:F ,,,tr::,:~~«-... ~~ APPROVAL DEPAATI.fENT Of OE'.'>'a.OPMEHf AND DN\ROt,IMEtffAL SERVICES APPROVED THIS e ~F' ~ ,20QS. ~ o~JD,.,,;_,.,._,;; ikl:i R. f'tAmNG ~ I.AND U S£JMCES DM$10N KING COUNTY OV'AATM[NT OF. A.SSfSSM~ _ . _ f.. o.,,,t,IINW Nm J'PF'ROIIED TlilS ..il,p,.nAY OF"~· 2GQ6 ..>'rn+t-~bi., ~141' ~ l<lNG CQIJ"'1Y ~SESSOR O K1NG COVNTY ""5SESS0R R£C0RDJNG NO. ~~8~11111111111 Bi!li.!i',..-'"M ..... ............. Jc:,. MGR. SUPT. ..... AT ....• M EOUf:ST Of" .~ IRDS . ,,,,-·· ,,,-··· 'f; __ ,,,,-·· --··--·· ,,,---·,.-... _ :, .... •'' ., ''<,.,,,_, ..... ,,;·,· LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE TJIIS TnTIJitOlT,VIY OM!llotl CORR[CTI.Y 11£f'RESEHT.S A SURVEY MADE 8'I' t,f[ Off UHDtR 1h DIRECTION IH CONFQ;fflU.MC( WITT\ STAlt: AHD COUWTY sr ... wn.s. IN: ------""1L"1!l!/---------~ \2, il:11, p LS CERTIFICAU HO. -40016 -~,--· ·-:~~-/;• .,/'' .)'' .,, __ .... - ,,,· ;·\,, .... ,·1 ;.' '···.,.,/; ,. •.. ,:"'•,,,}· .,:-'" '-':, ''""" ., ....... ,· '''=·:-.,, •. ,..,,,···· ............... _.,, .,/,,,·'''f ~,:·:.> -., ...... .... ·' ' -~(; •... • Tlfl ll£QI.Cr QlW.FU -~ -l(OCJM.OU17QJ,.U. fT'5NDTIDll!:!IOiOIIXilASA ~a: _ _....,._CCUl<J"iTll,\f1HE .,,· .J' lD!S -'I TlO! f'llaOcf Sim CllftlMt A PJIIJIIID mE: -I IIQO ':] 01! 11W 111£ IDIS 1111T llfallE Q.OIN. 9llS fftlOtQI DtE: eeuro.tT UNI: IOIUmlfHr l'l!OeESS( 0A NI£ ==-~-=-~~ , .. ,,..,.,,..,"'"·.'F.,=•,.11o ... llf'KIOIIN. illllJ. II( R£OOlal iNl£ll ™E OIDWICtS 1111 DA.TE: OB IIIUW8E -.-IAl!i II mECT AT 11W" 1111E. 1 ·OF·i.' Aug--.in&• '· "'~ j+.f .. ,} -.·· ':7,' .. :;;r i • ! .~ .. ' \._ ... •,,._ ., 't ' .,,,j! .~ \ ·, .~ ' @ .J,~~ I " • 1··•, ..... , .... / •ll' ~ ' ~<Q~ .... _ ~ ,;~~ I I ··--.J I -~ ~ !i i! ii .~ t ~ :t • . -· ~ ii 20091105000541.00· Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, W A-28.057 Please prinl or ty~ informalion 1111111111111111 20091105000541 CITY OF RENTON ORO 76.lle PAGE-HI OF eu ll/lll/Zte9 !e:24 KING COUNTY, UA WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S C over Sh t ee (RCW 6S.04) Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): (all areas applicable to your document must be filled in) I. Ordinance #5465 2. 3. 4, Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference #'son page_ of document Grantor(s) (Last name first name. initials) I. Ci~ of Renton ' 2. ' Additional names on page_ or document_ Grantee(s) (Last name first. then first name and initials) I. ' 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 Rf(' Sections 18 & 19. both in Township 23 North, Range 6 East, W.M., all in King County, Washington, more • EI\IED particularly described as follows ... FEB Additional legal is on pa~e 2 7 ?n,4 •-v I 3 of document. r-·-· . ·~..;., Assessor's Property Tax Pan:el Account Number 0 Assessor Tax# not yet assignetlA~,1!-J,tv._, 142305911901 and others The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to verifv the accuracy or comoleteness of the indexin2 information Provided herein . . . I am requestmg an emergency nonstandard recordmg for an add1ttonal 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 000566 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCENO. 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 TI-IE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. There is hereby created a Sanitary Sewer Sm·icc Special Assessmelll District for the area served by the Central Pla1eau lntercep1or Phase JI project in 1he northeast quadrant of the City of Renton and \\'ithin King County. which area is more particularly described in Exhibit ·'A" attached here10. A map of the service area is attached as Exhibit ··1r-. ·11ie recording of this document is lo pr0vide notification of r<itential connection anJ intt:n.·st \.'hargt::,;. \Vhile this connection charge may be paid at any time, the City does not require. payment until such time a~ the parcel is connected to and, thus, benefiting frn111 the sewer facilities. "!lie properly may he sold or in any other way change hands withou1 triggering the requirement, by the City. of payment of the charges associated with this district. SECTION II. Persons connecting to the sanitary sewer facilities in this Special Assessment Districl, and v,rhich properties have not been charged or assessed with all costs of the Cen1ral Plateau Interceptor Phase II as de1ailed in this ordinance, shall pay, in addition to the payment of the conncclion permit fee and in addition to the system development charge, the following additional fees: CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Renton, Washington, certify 20091105000541.00: that this is a true and correct copy of Ot,i,,1qocs NM"' s:. Subscribed and sealed ttiis_day or Atl!J"st, 2oa:t.. &:,,,..w· .J &a.Ure-: City Clerk 000567 20091105000541.00: ORDINANCE NO. 5465 A. Per Unit Area Charge. New connections of residential dwelling units or equivalents ____ --~~~-shall pay_~fee of $351.95 per dwe_lling unit._Tho~e_ properties_ i11cluded within _t_bis 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 arc 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 arc subject to both charges (Area and Frontage). SECTION Ill. 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 ( I 0) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. Interest charges will be simple interest and not compound interest. SECTION IV. This ordinance is effective upon its passage, approval and thirty (30) days after publication. 2 000568 20091105000541.00L ORDINANCE NO. 5465 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this .filh day of_J_u_l~y ____ , 2009. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 6th day of __ J~u=l~Y~----' 2009. Approved as to form: ~..,-.,-.. ~~ Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: . 7/10/2009 (summary) ORD.1553 :5/2 ! /09:scr 3 000569 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA ASSESSMENT BOUNDARY 20091105000541.00! 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 4th Street) and the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, crossing 155th Ave SE and 1561h 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 l 601 h Ave E and the west half of 164 1h Ave SE, to the section line common to said Sections 13 and 14; Thence continuing easterly along the courses of said southerly right of way, crossing the east half of 164'" Ave SE and 169'" 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 Southea,t 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 l and said UGB line, to the Northeast comer of said Lot 1, said Northeast comer also being on the west line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13; Thence easterly along said UGB, crossing !72"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-CEITTRA.L PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 OF6 000570 20091105000541.001 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence continuing easterly along the southerly right of way margin of SE 132"d St and said \JGB line, crossing i 73'd Ave SE, 175th Ave SE, 178th Ave SE and the west half of 1801h 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 I32"d St and said -UGB line;crossingtheeasthalfofl80th AvcSE, 181'L1'1veSEand182nd Ave SE, toa~-- interscction with the westerly right of way margin of I 82"d Ave SE; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin of I 82"d Ave SE and said UGB line, to an intersection with the westerly extension of the northerly right of way margin of SE 134'" St; Thence easterly along said westerly extension and the northerly right of way margin of SE 134 11, St and said UGB line, crossing 182nd Ave SE, to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 184 1 1, Ave SE in the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Thence southerly along said westerly right of way martn of J g4tl• Ave SE and its southerly extension and leaving said lJGB line, crossing SE 134 St, SE 135 111 St, SE 136 111 St and SE J 40 1h St, to an intersection with the north line of Tract 23, Renton Suburban Tracts Division No. 4, recorded in Volume 6 I of Plats, pages 74-76, said records, in Government Lot 4 of said Section 18; Thence easterly and southerly along said north line and the east line of said Tract, to an intersection with the northeast comer 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 ,orncr also being on said UGB line; Thence southerly along the cast line of said Plat and said UGB line, to the Southeast corner of said Plat at the southeast corner of Government Lot I in said Section 19; Thence wcskrly 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 000571 200911 05000541.00, ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence northerly along said east line of said Government Lot l O and said Tract A and said UGB line, to the Northeast comer 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 comer also being a point on the east line of -the-No-rtheast-quarter-ofsatctSection23~ -·------------------· -----· -··-·· Thence northerly along said east line and said UGB line, to the northeast corner of Tract C of Skyfire Ridge Div. No. I, recorded in Volume 141 of Plats, pages 93-99, said records; Thence westerly along the courses of the north boundary of said Tract C and said UGB line, to the Northwest comer of said Tract C, said Northwest comer 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 comer of said subdivision; Thence westerly along the north line of said subdivision and said UGB line, to the Northwest comer 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 comer 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 comer thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of said Plat, to an intersection with the Southeast corner of Briar Ridge, recorded in Volume 113 of Plats, pages 60 and 61, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said Plat, to the Southwest comer thereof, in Government lot I of said Section 22, said Southwest corner also being a point on the west line of the East half of the East half of said Government Lot l; Thence southerly along said east line, to the northerly bank of the Cedar River; Thence westerly along said northerly bank, to an intersection with the east line of Tract A, Cedar River Bluff, recorded in Volume 172 of Plats, pages 53-56, said records; Thence northerly along said east line, to the Northeast comer of said Tract A; EXHIBIT A-CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD. AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE30F6 000572 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 Volwne 78 of Plats, pages 1-4, said records; Thence southerly along said east line, to the Southeast corner thereof; 20091105000541.001 Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the Southwest comer thereof, said corner .-also being.a.point onthe.eastline ofGovemment Lot 6 ofSection 22,· ------- '!bence 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 of391.81 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 I of said Maplewood Heights in said Southwest quarter of Section 15; Thence nonheasterly along the north line of said Block l of said Plat, to an intersection with the west line of Lot 10, East Crest, recorded in Volume 87 of Plats, page 49, said records, in said Southwest quarter; Thence northerly along said west line, to the Northwest corner thereof, said Northwest corner abo 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 comer thereof; Thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 14, to the Northeast corner thereof; EXHIBIT A-CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD. AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE4 OF 6 000573 ORDINANCE NO.~ Thence northerly along the east line of Lot I 3 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; 20091105000541.00! 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 ·------·-·-· · intersectionwith the·west line·ofth-e Northwesrquarter of said-Section 15; Thence northerly along said west line crossing NE 2"d St, to the most westerly southwest comer of Alder Crossing, recorded in Volume 251 of Plats, pages 37 -42, said records; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat, to the southeast comer 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. lo 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 IOI, 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 halfof 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 SAO. AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE50F6 000574 20091105000541.01( ORDINANCE NO. 5465 Thence easterly along said southerly right of way margin, to the intersection with the easterly line of the existing City of Renton Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 5064, in the Northwest quarter of said Section 14 and the point of beginning. EXHIBIT A-CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR SAD, AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE60F6 000575 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTIUCT -------AREA "A"--- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 20091105000541.01 " Lot I and Tract B, Carolwood, recorded in Volume l l l of Plats, pages 99-IOO, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot I l, Carolwood No. 2, recorded in Volume l !4, page 74, said records; and TUGETI lER WITH that portion of the South west 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 thereat: and EXCEPT the South 132 feet thereof; TOGETHER WfTH the South 20 feet of the North 284 feet of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 330 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the North !20 feet of the South 252 feet of the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the West 150 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the East half of said subdivision, EXCEPT the North 284 feet thereof and EXCEPT the South 252 feet thereof; and TOGETHER WITH the East 230 feet of the South 132 feet of the North 264 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH the West 165 feet of the East 195 feet of the North 132 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; and TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 481066, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8109100503, located in the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 14; LESS Roads. Exhibit A -Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage -Area A Page 1 of 1 000576 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT -----AREA "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 20091105000541.01 ~ Lots I, 2, 3 and the 20 feet wide undivided interest parcel lying between said Lot I and Lot 2, of King County Short Plat No. 576015, recorded under King County Recording No. 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. 675021, recorded under King County Recording No. 7602040384; and TOGETHER WITH Tracts 4, 5, 6 and the West 150 feet of the North 80 feet of Tract 7, all in Block 3, Cedar Park Five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volume 15 of 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 000577 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONT AGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAt·ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA "C" LEGAi. DESCRIPTION: 20091105000541.01: Lots I through 8 and Lot 17, Ridge Point Estates, recorded in Volume 165, pages 64-65, records of King County, Wa~hington; TOG ET! !ER 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'h PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd); and TOGETHER WITH the North 133 feet of the East 120 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, lying easterly and southerly of Linda I Jomes, recorded in Volume 74. page 6, said records; and TOCiETHER 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 1561h Ave SE (Co. Rd. I 049, August E. Gerber Rd.) and easterly of the northeasterly right of way margin of 154 1h PL SE (W.J. Orton Rd.); LESS Roads. Exhibit A-Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage -Area C Page 1 of 1 000578 ORDINANCE NO. 5465 EXHIBIT A CENTRAL PLATEAU INTERCEPTOR FRONT AGE ASSESSMENT PROPERTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AREA "0" ___ _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 20091105000541.01~ 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 WITH the west l 50 feet of said Ea~t half of said subdivision, lying northerly of the South 365 feet thereof and southerly of the North l 95 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 l and Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 1286002, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8708140726, said Lot 2 being later amended by Lot Line Adjustment No. 890718, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9010241356, said lots being a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23; LESS Roads. Exhibit A-Central Plateau Interceptor SAD, Frontage -Area D Page 1 of 1 000579 20091105000541.01! I • > .,, ~ a "' "' :, I !J '° "' ti\ il:' 3 C: "' :, "' -3 8' ;! C :, g> C. .. C < :, 0. .. < .---· ·-----~----·· -· ·-·----- RECEIPT EG00020176 BILLING CONTACT Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36TH ST, 105 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA14-000241 PLAN -Prelirnlnary Plat Fee Technology Fee LUA14-000241 PLAN -Environmental Review PLAN -Preliminary Plat Fee Printed On: 2127/2014 Prepared By: Jill Ding TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: February 27, 2014 PAYMENT METHOD Check #10363 Check #10363 SUBTOTAL Check #40003 Check #40003 SUBTOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $3,970.00 $150.00 $4,120.00 $1,000.00 $30.00 $1,030.00 $5,150.00 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CJ.TY OF RENro -A"-~~·-,,v. C N ",iv'-.:, !/VISION 000581 Page 1 of 1 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 -Phone: 425-430"7200Fax: 425-430,7231 · STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) COUNTY OF KING ) Justin Lagers, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the 3rd day of February, 2014, I installed one public information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at 14038 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, WA 98059 for the following project: 156'h Ave SE Assembledge Project Name Sally Nipert / G. Richard Ouimet Owner Name 2. have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information sign(s) was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code and the City's "Public lnformation-Signs-;lnstallation" h_a_ri_goot-pyckage. RE 1-...f /\ 11 ._.-._'. ( // J // ------' --'~· . V t: L, ~ / ,-1//~ -4-, / ;,,-,a__, rEB 2 •· · / j;?t'aller Signature < ,-7 cJ!4 CIT'',.._,.,·.;,., '0', SUBSCRIBED ~~~RN to before me this 3rd day of February, 2014. ,. :, ,..,, . ·-~" " ,· +~ \. RO If,, ~ ~ /~~ / -" . -.#"~o';,,,,~;\tat1~·-•,,,,~ ~ P< -/ / -~ ~~ ~;::,J-.. ~ ff cf fl 01"•,-,:\-~ NOTARY PU&B C in and f the State of Washington, --o + -~-z C>.. -} ~ :: fu -• -i! ~ residing at. _,_c.v_/Y1_0_.,.,_£-----==/'------------~ ;,, .:z..-- ill'. ~ A ,CJ ~ 0 ~ ~ c,13 ~ ~ '.(Jg\, '\bi.$ J;;. = / J. / \ ;,~.-.;o-17· ,, .. ~c, .:' My commission expires on fY • 17 · /7 ,, . e:· 11.1,,\\\\\\~ 'fl,."('i& $ ---~-'------ ,,,,,,, OF w;,..S ,..s-""' lh\\\\\\''"''" -3 - C:\Users\Justin\AppData\Locaf\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.lE5\FFHOQTX2\pubslgn.'tJo~iJ2 tQ King County 000583 tQ King County 000583 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Olbrechts, Thank you for this clarification!!! Roger Paulsen --Original Message- - Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:36 AM olbrechtslaw@gmail.com Jill Ding; Vanessa Dolbee; Cynthia Moya Re: Appeal Process Clarification From: phil 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@cs.comJ 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 Oarification Ms. Walton, 1 000585 Absent a response to my question~ w, I am assuming that code section RM~ ,-100(G)(9) applies, and that a Request for Reconsideration of the H"dring 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!!! Roger -Original Message- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> To: bwalton <bwalton@rentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <jding@rentonwa.gov>; olbrechtslaw <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; VDolbee <VDolbee@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 4-8-11 O(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, ii 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 000586 -- 3 000587 Cynthia Moya From: Sent To: Cc: Subject Mr. Paulson, - phil olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:45 AM 'Roger Paulsen'; Cynthia Moya Jill Ding; Vanessa Dolbee RE: Appeal Process Clarification - 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 appea I to the city council until the reconsideration request is resolved. Thank you for pointing out the errors. Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-J IO(E)(l4) 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-l 10(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-IOO(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@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 darification 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 000588 -Roger -Original Message- From: Roger Paulsen <rogeraoaulsen@cs.com> To: bwalton <bwalton@rentonwa.gov> - Cc: jding <jding@rentonwa.gov>; olbrechtslaw <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; VDolbee <VDolbee@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 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, ii 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 000589 _.-. r ¢ City of r _______ ffe_ ..... : r'<. 12\( (l [((~,r nl . --____,, __ --._, V--- NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Department of Commur1lty & Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division of the Qty of Renton. The foffowlnc briefly describes the applitation and the necessary Public Approvals. DA TE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION, LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAMfa March 10, 2014 LlJA14-000241. ECF1 PP The Enclave a.t Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a a.a acre project srt:e located within the R-4 (Residential ,&\ dwelling unit! per acre) toning designation. The proposal would rESult In the creation -of 31 lots and 2 tracts {Tracts A and 8) and a new public street. The proposed lots would ra~ in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the 11ew lots: would be provided vfa a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14·000250) is proposed between tax parcels l42.30S9Q57 4lnd 1423059U2 which will result in 30,175 square fee.t of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed sllbdivislon. No critical areas are present on the pro Jett site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156"' Ave SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITTGATEO (DNS-M), As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unJlkely to res:ult from the proposed project. Therefu re, as permftted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renb:Jn is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be Issued. Comment period.s 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 O&ennination of Non--Signiflcance-- Mitigated (DN~M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 27, 2014 March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lageon / PNW Hokltngs, LLC / 9675 SE 35• Street Suite 105, Me~lsland, WA 98040/ EML:Justln@amerlcandasskhomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be requtred: Requerud St'.1:!tas; locatfon whell! application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING, Environmental {SEPA) Revfew, Preliminary Plat Review Construction, Bulldine, Fire Dralnage Report. Geotedmical Report, Traffic Study Department of Community & Economrc Development (CEO)-Planning OM:s.fon, SixtfJ Floor Renton Cty Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Pybfic he,rJnp; h tentatiVf!Ty ghi:duled for April 22, 2Dl4 before the Renton Hearing Examln!r in R·enton C9Vncll Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton Oty Hall located at 10SS South Grady way. If you would lfke to be made a party of record to receive further information an this proposed project,. complete this form ahd return to: Oty of Renton, CED -Planning Division, 1055 Se. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: ~ Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241, ECF, PP NAME, \.JAbE Wa ... w,vGt+oY MAILINGADDRESS,G:,S12.. !)e S:bn l?¥Ji\ City/State/Zip, Re"N"ti/.J ,wA. qs~~Cj TELEPHONE NO.: 1-C t,. , c:j O 'i -e <;; 0 ~ CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land Use: Envlronm11mtal Documents that Evafuate the Proposed Project: Development Rerulatfons Used For Project Mftlgatlon: Proposed Mltiptfon Measures: The subject site Is designated Reddentlaf Law Oenslty {COMP-RLOJ on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and R4 on the Ot'(s ?oofng M~p .. Environmental (SEPAJ Ch'eddist The project will be subject to t~ City's SC:PA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110 Resldsntlal Development. and other applicabfe codes and regulation,; as appropriate. The folfowlng Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by e,:isting codes and regul;,tions as cited abo\'e. • Project construction shall be required to comply wlrh the submitted geotechnkol ,~port. Project construction shall be rer:jufred to comply with the submitted traffic study. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Jlll Ding, Senlor Planner, CED-Planning Division, 1055 South Grady way, Rento"" WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on March 24, 2014.. Thls matter ls also tent.tfvely .scheduled for a public hearing on Aprll 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Ftoor, Renton City Hall, 105S South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at {425} 430,,6578. If comments cannot be submitted ln writing by the date indicated above1 you may still appear at the hearing imd pre$tnt your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish ta be made a party of rer;:ord and receive additional Information by mail, please contact the project manai::er. Anyone who submits written comments wilt automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project, CONTACT PERSON: Jill Eml: jding@rentonwa.gov Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6S98; PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If yau would like to be maide a party of record to rei::etve further Information on this proposed project, complete: this form an.cJ return to: City of Renton. CEO-Planning Division, 105S So. Grady Way, R~nton, WA 98057. N:ame/Rle No.: The Endave at Bridfe Ridge/LUA14·000241, ECF, PP NAME,------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ City/State/Zlp: _________ _ TEL£PHONE NO.:--------------- 000591 Denis Law Mayor October _28, 2014 - Roget Paulsen · _ 6617 SE SthPlace. Renton, WA 980:S9 · . . . . . Re: Enclave atBrrdleRidge Preliminary Plat_ LUA-14_-000241, PP, ECF ·- D~ar Mr. P·aulsen:- · · City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton_ -At_ the r~gular Council meeting cif October 27, ~014, the Renton City Councfi adopted - .. the recommendation of the Planning arid P~velopment Committee to affirm the . Hearing Exa.miner's Final Decision with conditions: A copy of the approved Committee . feport is enclosed. If you have any questions, ple~se contact me ai: 425-430:6504. Sincerely, ,,lf) ·.• EnC:: ~&.O <:o01mi.ttee Report .. . cc: . . -.-Mayor Denis Law . Council Pres_ident Don Persso~ . . ·Julia Medzegian, City Council:Li~ison Hearin& _Ex-amif1er-' . Jill Ding, Senior Planner J<,nnifer Henning,.Planni_ng Director _ Van.-ssa Dolbee, turr~nt Pianning Manager_ St~ve Lee, Developrnent Engfneering Manager Craig. Bumel~ ~uilding Official -· Sabrina Mirante, Development Services· - Gamion Newson, Senior Assistant.City Attorney 'Larry Warr.en, _Qty Attorney· - -Justin Lagers; PNW Holdiri.gs, Applicant · Parties of Rec·o_rd (16) · · · · -----· -_ ----_-_-> · .---.· • _. _-_---_-· --000592 _-_ 1055 South Grady Way • 1'\enton, Washington 98057 '(425) 43Q-651 o / Fax (425) 43o-6516 • rentonwa.gov .--__ · _-- . . PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REtOMME,NDATIQN : APPROVED BY . .. CITY coUNC.IL. . . · .October Z7, 2014 < Date lbf ?/20.J'/ ... . . . . . .- Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appe;il LuA:14·-00024i · (October 23, 2014) . . · TI1e Pl~n~ing a~d Develop,,;.ent Com.mhtee rei;ommend; that 1,he Oty Council AFFIRM the Heari'rig ·., . . .. Examiner's.final Decision on Reconsiderytion {Arra/Decision) on A(!gust 8, 2014, subjed to the suggested.' ·· ·, , ·modificatio~smade·be/ow. · · · · ·· · · · ' · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. Facts: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . · . Oil October 23; 2014; the Planning ~nd Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed ·· hearing a·rguments of the App~Jlants, Roger and Jason· Paulsen,,and the app/icarit's/deve/oper's ·.. . .. • · representative;~ttorriey Brent Carson. Staff, represerited by_ Jill Ding, provi~ed ;i basic overview of the . · . prnject with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by Appeflant's argument: , ' . . . . ·• . , . . . . F(ndirigs of Fact-and Conclusions of law: . . ,The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, andthe'P.artiesstayed·withiri. the re.cord. After · careful consideration of the arg~ments; the liund~eds of pages of documents, including the Final Decisioh, . the PDC dofis notfind .any substa~tial errorthatwarrants reversal of the Hearing Exaininer's'Fina/ Decisioh. . . ' . . . . . . .,, ' . •. . . ... . . . ) .. Asa result, th.e PbC adopts the.Hearing Examiner's Final Decision,)n its.entirety, subject to. the · · .• modifications noted below. . -. , , . . -. Ccincerni~-g the positions of the parties, the PDCund,erst~nds· that one of Ap,pi:/Jants' concerns.relates to , . . ,. . . . . th .. : . . . . , . . . . . _. the volume·of traffic that utilizes 156 Avenue SE. tt appears that this volume may-be the result of p_eop/e ·see~ing to .a11oid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants; concern is real.:and it is _a cohcemthat the Oty Council shares )ri someforin or anotlier. Traffic_ operating at i.os F (the ~erst .. · . ·. · · possible level), is not desirable a.nd 'needs to be corrected. Furtherinore, the PDt un\ferstands that traffic• · along 156tli-A~enue SE is a problem.now, will continue td, be a problem in the futui:e, even without this • .. developmerit, and that the addition ofup to ii mor:e.trips during rush. hour will riot make it better:· · . . Notwithsta.nding th.is fact.and the anticipated con\inued poor access, the f'DC does not belieye tliat the . : solutiotdo the existing problemandthe.antfcipated probiem.is to prevent the deve/opmerit of Enclave at .· . ·. · BridleRidge; An effective soiution 111ust address the· flow and/or ~mouni: oftraffic ~Jong 156ih Avenue SE. . ·Asa result, the PDC recomriiends the following: · · . . . . .-. . . . ~at the Cir/~~u~cii require c)ty staff to ~ep~io~tize the 156"' Aven~e'SE/SE 142°d ~lace .. . . intersection for installation as soon a~ possibleiand no less than 3 years after the ccimpleticin ·of ... . the p~jei:t: ; · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · The Hea.~ing Examiner noted that the concurrency detef'(11ination that'the proposal will not.violate R~nton's . transportation LQS Js undisputed and therefore. must be accept1id as a verity. Finqi Decisio11,'page lS, Jines : . 4-9: This means tha_t a[lyadd_itional congestion cau.sec:I by the 'Endave proposal uwou/d not be considered~ .·. significant adverse ehviron_merital jmpact:.''Final Decfsion, page is, fines 8-9. In sum, the PDC: fil')dS that the . Hearing E'xaniiner did not errjri approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures 'as it relates to traffic. . , . , , . . , , . . . . , Contrary to theAppellant's claim, the PDCalso finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient ~ritten·. ; .· fincllngs .;lid found th?t this proje<;t was in' the publ_i~ interest by referei'\tes to frontage improyements and . . . . . . . . 000593 arighf.:of-~ay dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, t(le-Hearing Examiner's Finai · Decision shall be niodified to include the fci11owing language for clarity: Renton's Corn prehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating · .. to the deveioptne~iof the community as .a whole." RMC 4-1--060,A.1: On~aspectof that policy . is thatRentoh;S traffic requirernenJs also cOnsiderthe impact to the entire city's transportation system arid not merely~ specific intersection. Another aspect_ of that policy is that the -Epel ave · ' at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use arid interest by providing housing that is · consistent with the site's designation of Residentia.1 Low ·Density on t.tie Renton Comprehensive · Plan Land. Use Map arid the property's R4 ~oning designatiori. The Enclave at Bridl~ Ridge· .. sub.division project is consistent with Rentoli's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acce'ptable .. I eve is of iicce~s; ~ublic services and it promotes the publlc interest.in satisfaction ofRMC 4-1~ · 060A'.S.b and· c. ·· · · · · · AciditionaUy, t(ler~.ippeareq i:o be a couple of Sc:riven~r's errors in the:H~arin~ Examiner's decision that '· neecl to -~e co erected: T),ese :errors are ai:nended as _follows: · · · · · .·. Page 21, line 21 ·sho.uld be amended to change the word "County" to ''Renton". The sentence will th~n-read· as ~he· primary releva~t inquiry for purposes of assessing:whether Renton staff · correctiy .is~ued an MDNS is whethe_r the project as proposed has a ·prob.able significant, ._ environmenta_l impact."_ · · · · · · · Page 24, line 3 the word "not'' sh;II be removed. the sentence will then read as follOws: '.'In this· .. . case the. City clearly made a prima racie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic " . . . impacts prfor to issuance o.fthe MDNS:" . . . . . . . lh ·sum; the Ap.periants have:failed tci establish pursuant to RMc 4-8-110.F. 7 that any "substantial error in fact or iaw exists in the record" justifying a reversal ilf the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The ~rrors or areas thatrequire darificatfon or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council.. · -The PDC recommends thatthe City Co4ncil affirm the Hea~ing Examiner's decision subject to the .. modifications. outiiQ_eci a.hove. . . ' . '. . . ·.· ,:/ . ; .· .' . . -. . . .. Ed Prince, Chair. , Not in Ati:~ndanct;? . Tern Brie.re, Vice Chair . i ;... /;·· / :~,:,':,,' ."f~'c_,,!;1_·{,~_ .. · • V.j',~-v;._.,,, ~ _ Marci_e Palmer, Member : ·cc: · Larry Warren Garmon Newsom II · · · C.E. ChipVin_cent Ji"II Din_g Endave at ~ridle ~id~e ~tision -AFFIRM ., ____ __ 2 -000594 . . ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle 18225 SE 14 7th St. Renton, WA 98059 Gary & Janice Smith 14504 166th Pl SE· Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert 14004 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell 15451 SE 142nd Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Brent Karst VanNess Feldman, LLP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 David Michalski 6525 SE 5th Pl. Renton, Wa 98059 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Nipert 900 Queen Anne Av N. Seattle, WA 98109 Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2"d Pl. Renton, WA 98059 . Jason Paulsen 31 Mazama Pines Ln. Mazama, WA 98833 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Marsha Rollinger 6618 SE 4th PL Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd. Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl. · Renton WA 98059 000595 October 27, 2014 APPEAL CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 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. Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decisian) 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: 000596 000597 October 27. 2014 Renton City Council M·,nutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to re prioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no Jess 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.l One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5.b. and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. 000598 October 27, 2014 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Wawern - SECO Development and B&O Tax Citizen Comment: Zimmerman -Amazing Grace Lutheran School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg Renton City Council Minutes l MOVED BY PRINCE. SECONDED BY PALMER. COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Page 319 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. Grace Wawern (Renton). representing SECO Development, remarked that the firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies 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. Dr. David-Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 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 a re ready for college. 000599 ' PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION October 27, 2014 Enclave at Bridal Ridge Appeal LUA -14-000241 {October 23, 2014) ' APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL , Date_ '"f 1 / 2011 · The Planning and Development Committee recommends 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), ~ith a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's · representative, attorriey 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 war'.rants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's.Fino/ _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 Appellants' concems relates to the volume of traffic that utilizes 156'h 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 PClC understands that traffic along 156th Avenue SE is a· problem now, will continue to be a problem in the future, everi 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 ~ccess, 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.1S6'h Avenue SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: ' ' ' That the City Council require cjty staff to reprioritize the 156'h Aven~e 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 t_hat the concurrency deteri:nination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepte·d as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9: This means tha_t any additional congestion cau_sed by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and . ' . ' .. . 000600 a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final · Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establis_h the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.l. One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire city's transpo.rtation system and not merely a specific intersection: Another aspect of that policy is t.hat 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 Residentia.1 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 Compreh~nsive Plan as it insures acceptable levels ofaccess, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of R.MC 4-1- 060.AS.b an.d c. · Additionally, thene appeared to be~ 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 "R.enton". The sentence will then read as "The primary releva~t inquiry for purposes of assessing.whether Renton staff correctly issued an MONS 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 prim a facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic ~ impacts prior to issuance of the MONS." · · In sum, the Appellants have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F. 7 that an'y "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 modirycat~ons outli.Qed above. / ___ .--..--,....._ . ,::"' '.~~·· Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance · Terri Briere, Vice Chair --·· ~----~--- Marcie Palmer, Member·· cc: Larry Warren Garmon Newsom II C.E. Chip Vincent Jfll Din~ Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision -AFFIRM . . . --- 2 000601 October 27, 2014 APPEAL CED; Enclave at Bridle Ridge -Renton City Council Minutes -Page317 Concluding, Ms. Mathias reported that the City declared the moratorium because the administration anticipates that the State legislature will take action to align the regulations regarding the recreational and medical marijuana industries. She stated that moratorium also prevents businesses from vesting to regulations that are anticipated to be changed by the State legislature. Public comment was invited. Howard Mcomber (Renton) acknowledged that the City is not going to take any action on this issue until the State provides further guidance. He urged Council to apply as liberal a policy as possible for medicinal cannabis when making its final decision on this issue. He also remarked that he believes medicinal cannabis to be no more harmful than over-the-counter headache medicines. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: 000602 October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes ,.... Page 318 ===-===~-------,-----'-"==-===="-"'===-----'----------'-="--== That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4·9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R·4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acceptable levels of access, public services and it promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-060.A.5.b. and c. Additionally, there appeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: Page 21, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County" to "Renton." The sentence will then read as "The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MONS 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 fade showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MONS." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4·8·110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. 000603 October 27. 2014 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Wawern - SECO Development and B&O Tax Citizen Comment: Zimmerman -Amazing Grace Lutheran School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg Renton City Counc'il Minutes MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Page 319 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. Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies like Amazon from moving to Renton. She added that her company is also interested ih 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. Dr. David-Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr. Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. 000604 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMIITTE RECOMMENDATION. -APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL , Date l~lz-1/io.Jy · .October 27, 2014 Enclave at Brida! R.idge.AppealLUA -14-000241 (October 23,2014) ,' The Planning a Rd Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing - Examiner's-Final Decision on Reconsideryition (Final Decision) on Aqgust 13, 2014, subject to the suggested ~odifications 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 a·pplicant's/devel;per's -· · · -representative, ~ttorriey Br_ent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of th_e .. project w·ith a PowerPojnt presentation which was followed by Appellant's argument. Ffndings 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 dol;'s' notfind a·ny substantial error that warrants reversal of the 1-iearihg Examiner's'Fina/ Decision. As a result, the PDC adopts the Hearing·Exarniner's Final Decision, _in its entirety, subject to the 'modifications noted below. ' ' Concerning the positions of theparties, 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 ;es ult of people seeking to a11oid or bypass l_-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' concern is r'E!al, and it is a concern that the City Council shares in some form or another, Traffic operating at LOS F (the ~orst possible'level), is notdl;'sirable and'needs to be corrected. Furthermore.the PDC un9erstands that traffic' · along 1561hAllenue SE is a problem now, will continue to_ be a problem in the future,everi without this development, and that the additii.J~ of up to 9 more trips during rush hour will not make it better. - Notwithstanding this factan!l the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not belieye that the . solution to the existing problem and the anticipated probiem is to prevent the,developmept of Enclave at Bridle Ridg~-. An effective solution must adclress the ff ow and/or amount of traffic alonfl.1561h Avenue SE . . As a result, the PDC recommends the foHowing: That theCity Coundl require city staff to reprioritize the 156'h Aven~e,SE/SE 142°a 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 deterr:nination that the proposal will riot violate R~nton' s transportation LOS is undisputed ahd therefore_ must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, llnes 4-9: This means tha_t any add_itional congestion cau_sed by th~ E~clave proposal "would not be considered a · significant adverse environmental _impact."Fincil Decision, page 18, lines 8,9. If! sum, the PDC finds that the · Hearing Exan,iner did not err in apprp11ing the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures 'as it relates to traffic. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDCalso fjhds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written:_- findings and found that this project was in the pubH~ interest by references to frontage improvements and . . . . ' . . . ~ . ·". ' . . 000605 a right:Cof-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, th~ Hearing Examiner's Fina.I · Decision shall be niodified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's. Com prehensiVe Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establi~h 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 requirernents also consider the impact to the entire city'stranspo.rtation 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 Residentia.l 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 Rent~n'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 corr~cted. These errors are ar,nended asfollows: . · · Page n, line 21 should be amended to change the word "County'' to"R~nton". The sentence will then read as ''The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly is~ued anMDNS is whether fhe project as proposed has a probable significant environmenta I 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 prim a facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic , · impacts prior to issuance of the MONS.".. . . In sum; the' Appellants have failed to establish pursu~nt to RMC 4-8-UO.F.7 that an'y "s.ubstantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal bf 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 He~ring Examiner's decision subj~ct to the modifications outJined above. '/' '· . . ,·: ---:-·· Ed Prince, Chair Not in Attendance · Terri Briere, Vice Chair /)Ai" ' : ;~ /, {J//'z.c~ .' ~ {(.. //,"_, . Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren Garrrion Newso.m II · C.E. Chip Vincent JiU Din~ Enclave at ~ridie Rid~e Decision -AFFIRM 2 000606 October 27, 2014 Monday, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PROCLAMATION DECA Month & Hazen DECA Entrepreneurship Month - November 2014 PUBLIC HEARING CED: Six-month Extension of Medical Marijuana Moratorium RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. DON PERSSON, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; RANDY CORMAN; GREG TAYLOR; ARMONDO PAVONE; ED PRINCE. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER TERRI BRIERE. CARRIED. DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ZAN ITTA FONTES, Senior Assistant City Attorney; JASON SETH, Acting City Clerk; JWEN 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. A proclamation by Mayor Law was read declaring November 2014 to be "DECA Month and Hazen DECA Entrepreneurship Month" in the City of Renton and encouraging everyone to join in this special observance. MOVED BY TAYLOR, 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. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to consider the six-month extension, as declared on September 15, 2014, of the 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. 000607 October 27 2014 APPEAL CED: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 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. Planning and Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report recommending that the City Council AFFIRM the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13, 2014, subject to the suggested modifications made below. Facts: On October 23, 2014, the Planning and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed hearing arguments of the Appellants, Roger and Jason Paulsen, and the applicant's/developer's representative, attorney Brent Carson. Staff, represented by Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the project with a PowerPoint presentation which was followed by the Appellant's argument. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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 Fino/ 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 fiow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Ave. SE. As a result, the PDC recommends the following: 000608 October 27 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 318 That the City Council require City staff to reprioritize the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd PL intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than three years after the completion of the project. The Hearing Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not violate Renton's transportation LOS is undisputed and therefore must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18, lines 4-9. This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal "would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact." Final Decision, page 18, lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures as it relates to traffic. Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and a right-of-way dedication. However, to address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision shall be modified to include the following language for clarity: Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establish the policy relating to the development of the community as a whole." RMC 4-1-060.A.1 One aspect of that policy is that Renton's traffic requirements also consider the impact to the entire City's transportation system and not merely a specific intersection. Another aspect of that policy is that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision project is consistent with Renton's Comprehens·1ve 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 MONS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact." Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will then read as follows: "In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MONS." In sum, the Appellant's have failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas that require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council. The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject to the modifications outlined above. 000609 October 27 2014 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Wawern - SECO Development and 8&0 Tax Citizen Comment: Zimmerman -Amazing Grace Lutheran School Lease of 200 Mill Bldg Renton City Council Minutes MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Page 319 Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written adminjstrative 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. Grace Wawern (Renton), representing SECO Development, remarked that the firm is building a new hotel in Renton. She expressed concern that the proposed Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax will discourage large companies 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 8&0 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. Dr. David-Paul Zimmerman (King County), administrator at Amazing Grace Lutheran School, remarked that the school has been located in Skyway for 60 years and has outgrown its current facility. He expressed appreciation to City facilities staff that helped to convert the first floor of the 200 Mill Building for use as a school. He remarked that the school desires to eventually occupy the second and third floors of the building. Dr. Zimmerman explained that Amazing Grace Lutheran School's student population is very diverse, and represents 26 nations. He further explained that students receive individualized schedules, learning plans, and support. He added that students receive introductory courses from universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford Engineering, and Duke. Concluding, Dr. Zimmerman reported that the school has the ambitious goal of graduating 100 percent of students who are ready for college. 000610 October 27 2014 Citizen Comment: Dissinger- Human Services Funding Allocation Citizen Comment: Mcomber - Homelessness Advocacy CONSENT AGENDA Council: Meeting Minutes of 10/20/2014 Court Case: Rubinchikov, Forfeiture Removal, CRT-14- 007 CAG: 13-149, Sunset Neighborhood Park Fourplex Demolition, Forma Construction UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Finance: Vouchers Lease: 1st Floor of 200 Mill Building, Amazing Grace Lutheran School Renton City Council Minutes Page 320 Lynn Dissinger (Tukwila). from Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN), expressed appreciation to City officials for supporting the program for many 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. Howard McOmber (Renton) requested support for the A.R.I.S.E. (Area of 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. Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/20/2014. Council concur. Court case filed by Amanda Speed, represented by Michael J. Kelly, Attorney for Plaintiff, versus the City of Renton, et al, regarding alleged false arrest and seeking damages from an incident that began on 2/3/2013. Refer to Q!Y Attorney and Insurance Services. Community Services Department recommended approval of a Job Order Contract Work Order with Forma Construction in the amount of $192,673.05 for Sunset Neighborhood Park Fourplex demolition project. Council concur. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Finance Committee Vice-Chair Palmer presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 333186 -333644, five wire transfers and one 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. Finance Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a five-year lease with Amazing Grace Lutheran Church to operate the Amazing Grace Christian School on the first floor of the 200 Mill Building. Revenue generated over the duration of the lease will be $705,728.47. 000611 October 27 2014 RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Budget: Authorize 2015 Property Tax Levy Budget: Establish 2015 Property Tax Levy Budget: 2015/2016 Utility Rates Budget: 2015/2016 Solid Waste Rates Budget: Adopt Business & Occupation Tax Renton City Council Minutes 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 COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION.* Page 321 Council member Pavone recused himself from voting on the Amazing Grace Lutheran School lease Committee report. He explained that both of his children attend the school. Councilmember Taylor explained that his daughter had attended the school approximately five years ago. He asked the City Attorney to clarify whether or not he too should recuse himself. Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes replied that he did not have to recuse himself from voting on the report. *MOTION CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the 11/3/2014 Council meeting for second and final reading: An ordinance was read authorizing the property tax levy for the year 2015. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. An ordinance was read establishing the property tax levy for the year 2015 for 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. An ordinance was read amending Sections 8-2-2 and 8-2-3 of Chapter 2, Storm 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. An ordinance was read amending Section 8-1-10 of Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title 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. An ordinance was read amending Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of City Code, imposing a Business and Occupation Tax and adopting a new Chapter 5-25, entitled "Business and Occupation Tax Code." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/3/2014. CARRIED. 000612 October 27 2014 Budget: Clarify Business License Fees Budget: Modify Senior Citizen Threshold for Pet Licenses Budget: Adopt 2015/2016 Biennial Budget ADJOURNMENT Jason Seth, Recorder October 27, 2014 Renton City Council Minutes Page 322 An ordinance was read amending Section 5-5-3 of Chapter 5, Business Licenses, 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. An ordinance was read amending Subsection 5-4-2.C of Chapter 4, Animal Licenses, ofTitle 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. An ordinance was read adopting the Biennial Budget for the years 2015/2016, 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. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. TIMEd:?!~GJ Jasor Seth, ~Gd;,;g City Clerk 000613 Council Committee Meeting calendar October 27, 2014 November 3,. 2014 · Monday CANCELED CANCELED CANCELED 5:30 PM 6:00 PM Utilities Committee, Chair Pavone Public Safety Committee, Chair Corman Community Services Committee, Chair Taylor Planning & Development Committee, Chair Prince -Council Conference Room 1. Title IV (Development Regulations), Docket #10 Committee of the Whole, Chair Persson -Council Chambers 1. Inclusion Project Update 2. Presentation: Adopt the Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan 000614 .. ·/· . Pl.ANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMME_NDATION . APPROVED BY ·. CITY COUNCIL . Date · l~f 1/20J'/ . October 27, 2014 .Enclave at Bridal R.idge Appeal LUA :14-000241 (October 23, 2014) · The Pl;inning and Dev'eloj:m,ent Committee rec;ommends that ~he City Council AFFIRM the Hearing. , · Examiner's}ihal Decision on Reconsideflltion (Fina/Decision) on A4gust 13, 2014, subject to the suggested· modificatio~s:made·below. · · · · · · .· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. Facts: . -. . · -· . · .· . _· · . . • . · . , _.· . . . . · -·. _· ,, . _ . . . · . On Octobe'r 23; 2014; the Planning and Development Col'nmitti=e (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed · hearing arguments of the Appellan'ts, Roger and Jason· Paulsen, and the applicaht's/devel~per's. -.. • · representativeiattorriey Brent Carson. Staff, represented tiy Jill Ding, provided a basic overview of the · , project w'ith a PowerPoint presentation which was foilowed by Appellant's argument: , , , Findih~s of Fact~nd Con~lusions of law: , , ,', , ,, , , , , , , . , The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the P<1rties stayed· within the record. Aftei , 'careful consideration of the argtiments; the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision, .. the PDC does hot find irny substantial errorthatwartants reversal of the Hearing Examiner's"Final Decision. As a result, th.e PbC adopts tf1e Hearing·Exaniiner's Final Decision, .in its e~tirety, subject to the . , : modifications noted below., , , . . . . , , Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that ohe of App1;llants' concerns relates to . the volume of traffic that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that thisvoiume maybe the iesult of people. see~ing to .avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways in the vicinity. Appellants' Concern is r~al, a~d it is _a ciincernthat the Oty Council shares iri some forin or another. Traffic operating at 105 F (the ~orst . . . possible level), is not desirable and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the PDC un9erstands that traffic: . along 1561"Avenue SE is a: problem, now, will contin~e tci b_e a problem in the future, even without this development, and that theaddition olup to 9 more trips during rush_ hour will riot make it better: . · Notwithstanding this fact and the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC does not belieye that the . solution to the existing probiemand the ,mticipatecf problem is to prevent the,developmerit of Enclave at .. · Bridle Ridge; An effective soiutiori rhust ad!lress the.flo~ and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE. ·Asa result, the PDC recommends the following: . . , . . . . . . ' . · That the City Cou~cil require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place . . . intersection for in_stallation as soo'n as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of .. the pr-ojei:t; · - Th.e Hea~lng Examiner noted t_hat the concurrency deten:nination that the proposal will nofviolate Renfon's . transportation LOS Is undi?puted and therefore. must be accept~d as a verity. fin;/ Decision, page 18, lines . 4-9: This means tha.t any additional congestion causet:f by the End~ve proposal "would not be considered~ -· significant adverse ehvironmerital_impact.~°Fino/ Decision, page 18, lines 8c9. In sum, the PDC finds that the Hearing Examiner did not err in approving the propo~ed development with the stated mitigation measures . 'as it relates to traffic. . -Contrary to the Appell~nt's claim, the PDCalso finds that the Healing Examiner made sufficient written findings <!rid found that this projec;t was in the publ_ic interest by references to frontage improv,ements and 000615 ; . a right~of-way dedication. However, to. address this alleged deficiency, the Hearing Examiner's Fm;/ . Decision shall be niodified to include the following langu·age for clarity:. · Renton's Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose "is to define and establis_h the policy relating to the deve1opinentof the community as a whole.~ RMC 4-1--060.A.1. One.aspec:tof that policy ·. is that f\enton's traffic req.uirements also consider the impact to the entire city's transpo.rtation system arid not merely a specific intersection; Another aspect of that policy is that the-Enclave · ' at Bridle Ridge subdivisi~n will serve the public use arid interest by providing housing th~t is · consistent with i:he site's designation of ResidentiaJ Low Density on the Renton Compre.hensive Plan Land. Use Map and the pro'perty's R~4 zoning designation. The.Enclave at Bridle Ridge' . s~bdivision project is con~istent with Rent~ri's Comprehensive Plan as it insures acc~ptable. leveis o(acce~s; public services and it promotes the publlc interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1~ · . 060.A:s.b a['ld c. . . . Additionally, there-.ippeared to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the-Hearing Ex~miner's deciiion that ' need to be corrected. These errors are amended as follows: · · · · · Page 21, line 21 ·sho.uld be amended to change the word ,;County'' to "Renton". The sentence ' • • . . . ~-. • ' 4 • . ' wHI then read as ''The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether Renton staff correctly issued an MDNS 1s whether the project as proposed has a probable significant . environmenta.1 impact.". · · · · · · Page 24, line 3 the word "not" shall be removed. The sentence will theri read as follows: '.'In this . . case the City clearly made a prrma facie showing that it did an adequate review oftraffic " . impacts prfor to issuance of the _MONS." . . In surr( the Appellants have :failed to establish pursuant to RMC 4~8-110.F. 7 that any "substantial error in fact or law exists in the. record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or areas thatrequire 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 modificationsoi.Jtiineci Wiove. . . . . ' . ' . / ,.,,..-.. ·,. . . . ·--:.,/. '. . _; . ,_ . -Ed Prince, Chair Not in Ati:~ndance · Terri Brie're, Vice Chair . ) , ;/{;,1(,i_t.1 ;~_/);(,~_ ·.· ,_ . Marci_e Palmer, Mernber ·· cc: Larry Warren Garmon Newsom II · : C.E. ChlR Vincent· Jfll Ding Endave at Bridle Ridge Decision -AFFIRM -. •, - .~--- 2 000616 Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Planning & Development Appeal Hearing Jill Ding, Senior Planner October 23, 2014 ' · City of ---------,r 1.2·1r 1-tr:\~lll c.:....._. --.._; -:--' ,..., ~----- Community and Economic Deve1opment Brief Desc1·iption 11 /ri• · Located on the C west side of 1561h ==,-~~---r-.L----il ' ' f----Ave SE just north , of SE 142"d Pl. 8.8 acre site located within the RLD Comp Plan designation and the R-4 zoning classification. /o--;J3-/Lf 11 ff>tf2'614 000617 1 Bri,:;f Dc·sc.1 iption 31 lots (two tracts) at a density of 4.45 du/ac • Ranging in lot size from 8,050 to 12,566 sq. ft. Bi ref Description cont. • A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was processed concurrently, removing 30,175 sq. ft. of parcel 142305-9057 from the subdivision. • Access is proposed via a new "looped" public street off of 1561h Ave SE with an extension to the southeast that terminates in a temporary cul-de- sac turnaround. It is anticipated the road would extend under a future development application. • The site is currently developed with an existing single family residence and detached garage proposed for removal. .-~ RENTON 11/24/2014 2 000618 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 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 -~ed by the applicant and the City. RENTON 11/24/2014 000619 3 Brief D0r.-ctiptfoi1 Cont. ' The applicant's analysis concluded the project would not result in a significant adverse impact to the intersection of 155th Ave SE and SE 5th Pl. The City's traffic analysis concluded that a signal is warranted at the 156th Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection. • On May 19th, 2014 the ERC issued a revised DNS- M requiring payment of the project's fair share of a new traffic signal ($3,435). ' A new appeal period commenced on May 23rd .. \). (; ~ed on June 61h. An appeal was filed. :~ RENTON ~~- ,,, •• <•> ?U> c, ,a . Brief De~cripfio11 ConL On June 24, 2014 a public hearing was held for the SEPA Appeal and the Preliminary Plat. • On July 18, 2014 the Hearing Examiner approved the Preliminary Plat and denied the SEPA Appeal. • A Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed on July 30, 2014. • The Hearing Examiner denied the Request for Reconsideration on August 13, 2014. • An appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed on August 26, 2014. -~ RENTON o,~w '" >J•L , ' ,. f 11/24/2014 4 000620 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. "" •.h"' fl<l ~, PI 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. ~~· -~ +~~~f RE N T O N ,;.,,,_v,,.;c-..... ., ... ,,-,,,,., 11/24/2014 000621 5 Availability of Pubrc 5,"rvices • The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. • A stormwater wetpond is proposed within Tract A on the southwest corner of the property. • The project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. • The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstr · · '',. ~ns. :,~; ·"· ,,, "' ,,,, '' ,._. ':'-:,....,f.;:, ~ RENTON Reco r11111 <JI\ dz·, tion Staff recommends approval of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, as depicted in Staff Report Exhibit 3 subject to the 21 conditions of approval listed in the Hearing Examiner's decision. 11/24/2014 6 000622 11/24/2014 000623 7 Denis Law Mayor October 14, 2014 APPEAL FILED BY: -r ' - Cityof l -~lJWll City Council 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 1561h 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 3:30p.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, Ed Prince, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 000624 September 8. 2014 Appointment: Parks Commission Appeal: Enclave @ Bridle Ridge, Paulsen (LUA-14- 0£0241) CAG: 14-088, Runway Blastwall Replacement, Gary Merlino Construction Company Annexation: Trace Matthew, 154th Ave. SE & SE 139th Pl Community Services: Cost Recovery & Pricing Guidelines Lease: 720 Building at Airport, Rainier Flight Services LLC Transportation: Airport Master Plan, FAA Grant Transportation: Airport Master Plan, Mead & Hunt Inc Transportation: Growing Transit Communities Compact Utility: Emergency Sale of Water, King County Water District No. 90 Renton City Council Minutes Page 253 Mayor Law reappointed the following individuals to the Parks Commission for terms expiring on 10/1/2018: Cynthia Burns and Michael O'Donin. Council concur. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (LUA-14-000241) by Roger Paulsen, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/17/2014 for CAG-14-088; Runway Blastwall Replacement Project; three bids; engineer's estimate $979,501; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder, Gary Merlino Construction Company, in the amount of $1,252,565.24. Refer to Transportation {Aviation] Committee for discussion of funding. Community and Economic Development Department submitted King County 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 Department recommended approval of the Recreation Division's Cost Recovery and Pricing Guidelines. Refer to Community Services Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment #3 to 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 Systems Division requests authorization to execute a 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 Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with 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 Systems Division requested authorization to participate in the 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 Systems Division recommended approval of an Emergency Sale of Water agreement with King County Water District No. 90 in order to provide water to 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. 000625 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL 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 ~ppeal 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) Hea~ng Exami,ner's Decision (7/18/2014) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ Amount Budgeted:$ Total Project Budget:$ N/A Transfer Amendment: S Revenue Generated:$ I City Share Total Project: $ SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat was filed on August 26, 2014 by Roger Paulsen and Jason Paulsen/POA for Judith Paulsen, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat. 000626 D!')'.lis Law · Ma"yor . . Crty Oerk -Bonnie l. Walton . · ·.·• APPEAL FILED BY::· Roger Panlsen & Jason P~ (POA for Jtiditb. Paulsen) · · ,tY ,-. ~ . • • • ~ -)\;;\"',,' .. RE: Appeal ofHearirig-Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 reganUng tl:!eEnclave at- BridleR.idge located at-14038 156& -:\ve SE (File No. LUA-14-000241) . · _ .. .. -· To Parties of.Record: . ~ to Etle i\f; ~ 8, Renton CityCode of Ordi:nance5; written appeal ofthe h~ .. · •-exantjner's dedsi9n OP, Enclave at Bridle Rjdge land µse application has been :fijed wiili the City Clerk.. . · -. . . -. · . · · -. In ~dance with Renton Municipal Code ·si:ction 4:-8-H OF; ilie City Clerk-~ notify all . . · -• . parties of record of tl:!e receipt of tl:!e appeal. Other pa.ties of record .may sub~! lelters 1imited to · _ support of their positions .within ten (1 O)days C>fthe date of JD aiiing of the nof4icati6n of the . . filing-of the appeal. The deadline forsubnilision of additionallett= is 5:00 pm; Monc,iay, .-. ~eptember 8, 2014:-. ---. '.· . . . . -. -.-NOTICE IS HF:REJlY GIVEN that 1he written appeal and other pertinent docum~ will be . -reviewed by tl:!e Council'li Planning·and pevelopment Committee. The Council Liaison will. notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Coillillittee . meeting; If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend tl:!e meeting, please call the Council Liaison 81425-430--6501 for information.c The reco!llllleridation of the_ Committee will be presented fqr ·consi<leration by the iµll Council at a subsequent Council .. · meeting'.. -. · · ·· · • · · ·· · ' Enclosed yori will .find a copy of tl:!~ -app~ and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding .. appeals of Hearing Examiner· decisions orrecammendations. Please note that the City Council·. . _ will be COil$idering the merits 'offue ajlpeaJ bas()d upon the. ~rt.en record previously estabushed. _ · Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reascujably have been available · · ··at the prior hearing held_ by the Hearing Exarmner; no finther evidence or testimony cin this ' - matter will be · ted b the City Council. · · · · · · · ' -· . ,· ' accep__ y . ·. ' ' For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at.425-430-6504 .. • . _. . . . ' . -. . . . . . . . . . ·. . '· • Sii1~y,·· .. ···.~·.·,-~· ... · .. -' . . -·. . . . . ~ ' ' •. · on eth,·· . • . · ~ City Oerk _ -• .Enclosures . . . 1055 5~ Gracfy Way ; Renton. Washington 98057 • (425) ~1 o l F~ (425) 430,651 ~ ; n,nto~--g6v - 000627' i I i City of Renton Municipal Code; Trtle IV, Chapter 8, Section 110-Appeafs 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 Qty. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council-Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State Jaw or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, Oty 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 m;iy 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 Qty 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 (SJ days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the Crty Cleric 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 Crty 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 Crty Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the Qty 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- ZOU) 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and condusions 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 GS of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) 000628 CJTYOFRENTO~f' .APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION .. ,,,.,. AUG 2 6 ZD14 .).::fl, fw RECEIVED t= · 4 Cfn'.:j:LER~.Q~'il.:E APPUCATION NAME c'tlcllVf Ar tJ/ttJle t()("€ FITEN0LtJJl'f·O(li1,1.11 The ondersigned inrerested patty h=by files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land UseåExaminer, dated .J,</ Jvl/t . 20/.1_. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY '7j}()J f;,(L. Jll{}ff// {1tk.,Sy.} :a:~{lt;lSfAJ ~~fJ;J~~A) ~s: 6(/'l SF S1J/ It . Arldrcss: 3/ l>(Jf.l!HA 11$ UJ. · KEJl1i1~, W,l yiOJi . fJIJ~lllfU tJIJ 1f£53 PhoneN~ 'llf'-:J.J.(~/S&9 PhoneN~ Sv{-ffr-i't(D Email: K,off~M(J(.~f»e cs.u2w1 Email: ;/,fs~,J/Jffllll!FJJe. frfllLt .<.1111 2._ SPECJFlCATION OF ER.l?.ORS (Attach additional sheetll, if =essary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact npon which tliis appeal is based: -c~« "!f lCII@} 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is ·requested to grant the following relief: (Attach exp!an.ation, if desired) . . Rev~e the ~OD or recornroend~on and grant the following reliet (),&c _. IC Jbf/1 j Modify the decision or recamroendalion as follows: (.O' "f ' • ., Vlj Remand to the Examiner for furthe.i" consideration as follows: · Other: . Type/Printed Name NOTE: Please n:fcr to T"rC!c IV, Cliapt<r S. of the Rentoo Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-1 J OF. for specific appeal proccdu,:es. 000629. .. Cc ; .!A..,., l.i)U)u-1. I CA cm OF REhlTON August 25, 2014 Cl'\/f v;.a.n..t, ~ JlMSc,r' ~. eet> \/~.._ Vl'lbll., ~ S-lwc, k& I u:o AUG 2 6 20i4 z,:S'i;,.., RECEIVED City of Renton City Clerk <!A?J~ s .... tm-ll, ceu ~·.,i.,._ wt<~, c.tt) Phil 01t>recJ.~, lfl;t CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 5. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 .:1i1I Di "i • (!"' I> APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNOL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.UO{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 Oty'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 Rell 58.17.110(2){b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. 1 s,,) 000630 Lastly, we find that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, 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 (Eichibit 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 clifficult 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 Crty 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 localiied 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,0,c• system used in most other jurisdictions.n We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads: •However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 000631 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a deve.lopment proposal, and that the Crty properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact, the City's own policy governing site-specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and SB.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal ~t the 156th/ 142"d intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site-specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense.· The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 155th Ave. SE/ SE 142"d PL intersection currently operates at a failing level -LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that • .. .it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142"d PL/ 156th Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit I) 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, locallzed 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 000632 i) The Oty'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 Oty's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the Crty 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 Oty 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 Flnal Decision on Reconsideration {Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18: 1.n 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 Crtywere 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 Frfth 4 000633 Amendment. In fact, the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property-specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17) the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'/ 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 OOUNCIL, JNC., et aL "· "IAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. OO-ll67. ~edJanuary 7, 2002-DecidedApril 23, 2002 uMoratoria are an essential tool of successful development. The interest in informed decisionmaldng 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 foree officials to rush throudi the planning process or abandon the practice altogether.• Further, a careful reading of Tahoe-Sierro Pres. Coundl 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 OOUNCIL, INC., et aL "· "IAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. OO-ll67. 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 1llkings 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 lwrury few governments could afford.• 5 000634 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning. including project-specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings 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 RCVV 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.llO(la&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. o. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section, the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE SE/ SE 142nd Pl. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium.• Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 ls both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law, the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Tra·nsportation Element. - 6 000635 E. Page 4, Lines 25 -26: In this section the Hearing Examiner states that "Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service.• The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required 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 RON 36.70A.D20(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 000636 2;.1::i~ /Judith M Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton. \'(! A 98059 31 l\fazama Pines Lane Maz.'Ullll, WA 98833 Exhibits from the public record (included by reference): E.'Ulibit A fa:lul.iit B Exhibit C E."luoit D E."Wbit E Exhibit F R'<h.ibit G fa:hibit H fuhibit I Exhibit J E"hibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Neighborhood Detail Map from Paulsen CoII1II1ent Letter (24 Jun 2014) Original Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (18 Jul 2014) Request for Reconsideration of Hcm:ing E..,;aminer's Decision (30 Jul 2014) Fmal Decision on Rcconsid=tioo (13 Aug 2014) Response to Rcciuest for Reconsideration of SEP,\ Determination (16 1\ pr 2014) Revised SEP;\ Determination (19 llfay 2014) Report to the Hearing E."wiiner (24 Jun 2014) City of Renton 2014--2019 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Progrnm Traffic ImpactAnalisis-2"' Addendum (20 Juo 2014) Traffic Concurrency Test for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (l 8Apr 2014) Memo from C. Barocs to R. Mar (5 May 2014) SEP:\ 1lu:eshold Determination (31 l\far 2014) Cit:Ji of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development 8 000637 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I! 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat ) ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEP A Appeal ~ LUA14-000241 ) ) •-~--------------~ flNAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single- 16 family residential lots on the east side of 156a. Avenue SE between SE 139<h Place and SE 143nl 17 Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MONS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (''SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the 18 preliminary plat The preliroinary 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 addmg 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 SEP A appellants have raised valid and understaodable concerns about traffic congestion, but the 22 contnoution to that congestion falls within the level of service eLOS") standards adopted by the City Council LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic 23 congestion. The SEP A appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS .. 24 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 -I 000638 I only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (I) 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 co:ntnlrutes 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 g In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of 1he 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 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 11 13 14 this decision. RECONSIDERATION REQUEST 15 As previously noted, Roger and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014. The request is denied and 1his decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this 16 "Reconsideration Request" section. 1 7 l\.fr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideration. His concerns have already been addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only be evident to an experienced 18 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 l\.fr. Paulsen's first point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17.110(2) proluoits 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 deten:nination 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 000639 1 It could be argued that a finding of "adequate" public facilities is not the same as a finding of "appropriate" public facilities as required by RCW 58.17.110(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate such 2 parsimonious word play. "Adequate" within the City's regulatory standards for subdivision revicew 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 witli applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW 5 58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(I)(l). Consequently, to tlie extent poSS1ole, the subdivision criteria o 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$)(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 finds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met, so the required finding o 9 RCW 58.17.110(2)has also beenmade1• 1 O The remaining part of Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156 11 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl 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 be provided in this section in response to Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request 14 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 Pl intersection operates at WS 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 rcfcrcnce.< to "adequate" in this decision will also be modified to include "appropriate" to remove any doubt 26 on the issue. PRELIMJNARY PLAT· 3 000640 I significant limitations imposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make "growth pay for growth". The first limitation is proportiollality. 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 eXlllDf>le, 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 I 0% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SEISE 142nd Pl 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. Paillseu: (1) the City can pay for the remaining g costs of the intersection improvements itself, or (2) it can deny the preliminary plat application. 9 As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its Jong term transportation planning and simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid 1 O denying a prelimiruuy 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 1his 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 col.lllties 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'/ Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or 18 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 Pl 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 Pl 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 WS into the proper context. Although the Retrton 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 PRELIMINARYPLAT-4 000641 -----------------~-------------~---·--. 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 o 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 talcing claims. The LOS standaid 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 only' 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 IO 11 12 13 TESTIMONY SEP A Appellant Testimony :Mr, Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to !he 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 · 15 14 continually failed to inform the record oi the adverse impacts associated with this project Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEP A detemrinarion was misleading and unclear. His 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 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 follqwed 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 TraffEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for tbe project The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exh,1,it 2, 22 2 One other potential option that basn 't bccu add=sed due to space limitations is to reduce 1hc demity of the 23 proposed subdivision. The R4 designation does not bave a minimum density requircmc:at. Howeva-, the GMA requires cities to accommodate assigned 20 year population prqjccrlons and a city's zoning designations arc 24 designed to accommodat,, these numbm. Further, the GMA requi= residential dcvclopment within cities to occur at "urban" densities M>ich at a minimum is usually four dwelling units per acre. RolJDDdy reqoirlng reduced 25 densities to reduce traffic impacts would mguably violate these GMA principals. Further, in this case the int=cction at issue is already operating at WS F so that from the standpoint of "appropriate" roads it makes no 26 substantial difference if the subdivision has a density of one uni1 per aac as opposed to four UIIits per acre. PRELIMINARY PLAT -5 000642 f. i" i ! 1 attachment 12). The first analysis det=ined the number of trips generated by 1he 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 cine to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked Traf!Ex 4 to look at the two site access streets to 156th A venue and the intersection of 142nd and 15 6th 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 Traf!Ex 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. 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 than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th 8 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. 1 O operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that th~ 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 11 12 conditions (Exln"bit 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 southbouod queue on 156th would be significanrly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 13 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is 14 timed. · The south side access road to the enclave road is approximately I 7 5 ft. which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project 16 will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. 15 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 cine 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 PRELIMJNARY PLAT -6 000643 1 In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City 2 Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any oilier person attempted to become a party of record 3 and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen clanns other neighbors misund=tood 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 stmding Jo 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. 8 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter during the SEP A comment period (Exlnl>it 2, attachment 21). 9 Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic stndy guidelines, the 10 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 Ill 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 worlced at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning worlc in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In 16 some places she has worlced, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area In regard to lhe 156th and 142nd 17 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. The city took traffic counts at 18 the intersection and found a signal was warranted_ There are nine possible criteria that warrant a !9 signal, and two were met The two satisfied were lhe 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 lhe list The city condncted 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 wilh a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and lhe 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. Wrth 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 instaJled in the next 6 years. The study was based on 26 existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development Renton bases its stndies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, PRELIMINARYPLAT-7 -----,, 000644 l 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 "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be 4 required. 5 Under cross-exanrination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this co=ent and did not 6 deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEP A related questions. The 7 SEP A 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 IO because it was outside of her Department 11 Under cross-examination by Mr. Caison, Ms. Nair testified that when she references 1he 12 city's guidelines she is talking about the document ''Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development" Thls document is Exluoit 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 trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the 14 project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. . The policy uses five percent as a 15 guideline and allows Public Worlcs and Community Development decide if the departments believe fwther 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 oniy factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 17 18 Under redirect by Mr. N ewsorn, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received · after the comment period ended. The letter addressed con=n 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. Caison testined 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 contnoutes very few trips to the problem areas. 25 26 Appellant Response PRELIMINARY PLAT -8 000645 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 1he 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 co=ents cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present youc comments." Nothing in the document suggests .that a person waives their 4 right to comment on the SEP A determination by choosing to make their comments at 1he 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 SEP A review process which allows for the integration of 1he comment period into one g period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. 9 10 LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony 11 Till 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 cucrently zoned residential low--0ensity in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size 14 from 8,050sqft to 12,566sqft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sqft open space area There was a lot line adjustment processed concmrently which removed 30,l 75sqft 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 l 56th 16 Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de--sac turnaround. 13 This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a l7 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 ofthe~e trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day notice and comment period commenced on March loth, 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 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 l 42nd. 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 000646 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 storrnwater ponds; however, in tlris case, the strips are only 1 Oft and increasing the size would result 3 in the loss of a lot Staff recommends the 1 Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval 4 In regard to the curved road, Ms. Narr testified that she believes straight road alignments are 5 policy, not code. 6 Applicant Testimony 7 Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal g Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to 9 traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal The independent stwlies found that current conditions warrant a signal. 10 11 Public Testimony 12 Tom Onpenter 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 will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area 14 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 tlris 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 submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. · 22 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 Exln"bit 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 (Exluoit 9). He entered the city's 6- 25 year Transportation Plan into the record (Exlu"bit 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 PRELIMINARYPLAT-10 000647 ------------------------------~··=·······---·-····. 1 Toe 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 avai.lllb1e to the public. He submitted a 2 request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exlu"bit 11). He 3 entered the lettec 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 co=unity. 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. 8 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Co=unity 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, 2013 states that 156th A venue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the IO intersection with 142od is not straight The sight lines are temble. If you are turning left on 156th, l l 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. Toe 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 soutl!em boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures froni the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately I 19ft which is 14 less than the standard of 125ft. The entire conidor is in the I-4-05 plan and has been identified as 15 needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. Toe 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 conidor. 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 stonnwater 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 responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be 22 created by the project In regard to landscapiog, 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 aroorist report, PRELIMlNARY PLAT -11 000648 i' !. -----------~----------------,-,-----c~--~~----· ----. 1 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 Exlnoit 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 internection 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 will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a lO 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··· 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 I 5ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 1 Oft. 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 I9 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 24 APplicant Rebuttal 25 Maher Joud:i 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 26 believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 000649 -------------,-----------------~-=.------... 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 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 transportalion 4 analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With 3 regard to SEP A, 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 SEP A decision was appealed by Mr. Paulsen. Mr. Carson 6 believes that they have answered this during the SEP A appeal process because this signal will 7 actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. W rth reganl 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. Narr 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 deteaniuation. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this infonnation is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High' s 13 documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis 14 to make their conclusions. 15 16 17 Exhibit I 18 Exlnbit2 Exhibit3 19 Exhibit 4. Exhibit5 20 Exlnl>it 6 Exhibit 7 21 Exhibit 8 Exlnbit9 22 Exlubit 10 Exhibit 11 23 Exlubit I 2 Exhibit 13 24 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 25 Exhibit 16 Exlubit 17 26 Exlubit 18 EXHIBITS Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a-h Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 CV ofVmcent Geglia T raflEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation hnprovement Plan, Project Number 25 Tom Ca,penter comments Paulsen Comment Letter Petition submitted by Mr. Paulsen City of Renton Six Year Transportation Iroprovemeat Plan Paulsen second rcqnest for reconsideration City's denial of Paulsa,'s second request for reconsideration Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Map provided by Ronda Bryant Utility Map . 6/26/14 em.ail from Roger Paulsen to Till Ding 6/27/14 em.ail from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment 6/27/14 em.ail to Examiner responding to Paulsen comments PRELIMJNARY PLAT -13 000650 1 Exhibit 19 Exhibit20 2 3 4 Procedural: 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examine, from Jill Ding 711114 email to Till Ding from Roger Paulsen FINDINGS OF FACT 5 I. 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 Coi.mcil City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. 8 Paulsen, was given i.mtil June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July I, 2014 to respond and the 9 appellant July 2, 104 to reply. The record was also left open through Ji.me 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-familyresidential lots on the east side of 156,i, Avenue SEbetween SE 1391h 12 Place and SE 143rd Street An appeal of a mitigated det~on ~f n~nsignificance ("Ml)NS'1 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 156,i, Avenue 16 SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac a! the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the ruljacent property to the south at a 17 later date, i.mder 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 of20 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 000651 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II .. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer savice will be provided bytheCityofRenton. There is an 8-inchsewer main in !Ssh Avenue SE. 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 the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drain~ge. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exh!l,it 5) and drainage report (ExlnlJit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. The Engineer proposes to 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 engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located wi1hin 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 controi which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be· located at the southwest comer of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the · City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project 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 p=it application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. PRELIMINARY PLAT -15 . 000652 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .25 26 D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of par:k: impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-llS, which governs open space requirements for 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 open space. 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. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" or "appropriate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEP A) review is the WS standard. Without an WS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a fmely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton's system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36. 70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that " ••. prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ... " See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings baso:l upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well- functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. PRELIMINARYPLAT-16 000653 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 :, .. .:;,__ ...... An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic irnprovements that pmrent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the pennit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS ofC for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to an LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance identified in the preceding paragraph. R.enton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is . no A, B or C gradt:_assigned to intersections or_road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single-occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transport.stion Element, p. XI-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so Jong as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdic6.ons. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same_ issues directly affect project level mriew. 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 . a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no PRELlMlNARY PLAT -17 000654 , ·r /. ' ! I ' 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 development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutionaL The 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 congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes " ... the level of service on a locally awned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element ... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions -if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will . cause an intersection or road section that currently meets WS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards3 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 1561h Ave. SE/SE ! 42"d Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share · contributions is very limited because state law requires that 26 'The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board HighMV Capacity Manual to calculate LOS. PRELIMINARYPLAT-18 000655 I T l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex..13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Furiher, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the. City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEP A issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the sigrutlization of the 156"' Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection, would cause quening conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this. position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendwn was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is detennined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parlcing. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight 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 PRELIMINARY PLAT-19 . _,_ . .- 000656 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 mile from the project site at 1561h Avenue SE & SE 51h Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 1561h Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 1561h 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 (Exlu"bit 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 15~ Avenue SE at SE 51h Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 1561h Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require finther staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District, The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code .. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated wrth the proposal. Adequate 14 public facilities and drainage control are provided as det=ined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatI"bility of use is not an issue. 15 16 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-I30H 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 Exln"bit 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. SEP A 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 000657 1 April 16,2014. Ex.29. ThisrequestwasdeniedbytheCityonMayI9,2014. Ex.30. However,as a result of the request for reconsideration,· the City required 1he applicant to pay its proportionate 2 share of a signal for the 156111 Ave. SE/SE 142"" Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then filed the 3 subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. I. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEP A MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment 4 on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) 1he SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of the I 56'i' Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulsen 5 argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the a=s 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 9 Conclusions of Law IO 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner sball 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 Low Density (RLD). 14 15 SEPAAPPEAL 16 3. SEPA Review Criteria There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) 1here are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official I 7 has not uudertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEP A regulations. 18 Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. 19 A. Probable Significant Adv= Environmental Impacts. 20 The primary relevant inquiry for pwposes 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-l l-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 (3XaXviii). 25 B. 26 Adequate Environmental Review PRELIMINARY PIAT -21 000658 --------------------------~-=------·cc. --. • 1 The second reason an MONS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsiole official did not adequately 2 review environmemal impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEP A responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information 3 reasonahl y sufficient to evaluate 1he 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 Ass 'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 7.3 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the respo11S1ble 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 fucie rule and IO then applied it as follows: JI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 'The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEP A official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered ertensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures 011 the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have/ailed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information 19 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposar'. 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 det=ination is based upon infonnation 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 SEP A appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the l\IDNS 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 MONS prior to the comment exp.iration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -22 000659 1 The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Detemnnation 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 .... Jf 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 a),ove application", not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that"[qhere will 9 be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significar,ce- Mitigated (DNS-M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on IO commenting on the MDNS to seek clari:fication on when the :MONS 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 minding to pursue his notice issue. AB required in RMC 4-8-l 10(EX3), one oftl,e requirements for 13 standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant mu.st have suffered some injury in fact dne to 14 issuance of the decision under appeal· Mr. Paulsen does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on 1lie MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at 1he public · 15 hearing on the preliniinaty 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. AB 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 SEP A review and also that 1he queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access points to 1he proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEP A. review was 20 adequate and that 1he intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. 21 22 . On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), 1he standard is that 1he SEP A respoDSll>le 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 SEP A appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. Toe 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 PRELIMJNARY PLAT -23 000660 I legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site 2 and the si1e was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptJ.bility to contamination. 3 fn this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts p:rior to issuance of the MONS. 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 thou.gh the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an I.OS 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 und=ine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As home out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the 15 MONS, 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 MONS it was reasonable for the SEP A respoilSlb!e 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. Ibis finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the 20 determinations of the SEP A respollSl'ble official. The traffic report adde.ndum, Ex. 4, provides an 21 engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156"' Ave. SE/SE 142"" 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 oflaw. 26 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: PRELIMINARY PLAT -24 000661 I 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 impruvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 5 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage w~s. streets, alleys, other public w~s, 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 preven! any impacts to critical areas and will n,ot cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public I I facilities as required by RMC 4-8-080(B). 12 RMC 4-7--080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 13 of the Comprehensive Plan and o,k,pted standards ... 14 8. The proposed preliminary play is coosisteot with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined 15 in Finding I(!) of the staff report, which is iocotp0rated 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 hig~. 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(B): The location of all streets shall confonn 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 g1h Street, which is accommodated liy 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-~ or for easements to the City for trail 26 purposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT -25 000662 1 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 2 trail 3 RM:C 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in confonnance with thefollowingprovisions: 4 J. 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 .&:aminer considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 7 subdfvi.ded unless adequate safeguards are pravided 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 JO 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 thatprimarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greateras measured per RMC 4-3" · 050JJ a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 13 14 15 approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land 16 Clearing Regulations: I 7 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 "lo/ of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies i.sed should include an ove,flow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. 21 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 000663 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 44-130 as detennined 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 pravidingfees 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 tmd 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-ISO(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing 1 O 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 di.fined aruldesz'ffeJ.tedoy ihel5epartment -... 13 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the 14 only road connection posS1ole for the project 15 RMC 4-7-lSO(B): Alf proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 16 15. As conditioned. l 7 RMC 4-7-lSO(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or lg secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 19 16. The proposed connection to l 56 Ave. S. is the only connection possi"ble for the project. 20 RMC 4-7-lSO(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 21 alignment offsets qf 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 Depar!ment has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standanls. 25 26 RMC 4-7-150(E): PRELIMJNARY PLAT -27 000664 1 J. 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 roods 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 alignme11t 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. Ata minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future 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 alley(s) is not feasible ... 16 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 17 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due 18 to demonstrable physical constraints no fature connection to a larger street pattern is physically 19 possible. 20 21 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible fur the proposal. Alley access is not required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are looped as encowaged 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-lSO(F): All adjacent rights--0f-way and new rights-<>f-way dedicated as part of the plat. 24 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fall 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 000665 --------------------~·,~·~ ... 1 RMC 4-7-lSO(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. Ertensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a fall-width boundary street shall be 3 required in certain instances to facilitate fature development. 4 20. All conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension exteDds for a 5 depth greater than an average Jot 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. All 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 1 O access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 11 22. All previously determined, each lot has access to a public street 12 RMC 4-70170(q: Tlie siiii; shaj:,ii, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and Yvi.J:lth 13 requir-ements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the f)pe of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 14 provisions of this Chapter must be consi$tent with the then-current applicable maximum density 15 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 16 23. All previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zon~, which includes area, widlh and density. 17 RMC 4-7-170(0): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the 18 side lot lines intersect with the street right-cf 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 (35'.). . 21 24. All shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. 22 RMC 4-7-170(E): · All lot comers at inter.sections of dedicated public rights-cf way, except alleys, 23 shall have minimum radius offifteenfeet(15?. 24 25. 25 26 All conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 000666 i, i i l· ,. I RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, 2 watercourses, and similar comm,;nity assets. Such natural features should be prese,ved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 3 25. Trees will be retained as reqwred 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 Cily standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 8 eight feet (SJ into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision 9 10 development. 26. AB conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all 11 su,face water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of 12 sufficient length· to permit·fall-'Witlth· roadway and required slopes:-The' drainage· system ·shall" be · designed per the requi~ernents of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Su,face Water) Standards. The drainage 13 system shall include detention capadty for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include I 4 detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street pavingfor the plat. 15 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 stonnwatcr standards, which 17 are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance wi1h all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 18 19 RMC 4-7-200(q: 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 su,faces 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 su,face material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -30 000667 I 29. As conditioned. 2 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be wuiergrounded 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 impruvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of 5 trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well czy easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be home 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 ele\lation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specificaJinns to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 8 9 10 JI 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: 12 (:oncrete[!~ qir!tr911!191J~m'!ll/$ s@ll be established at each andsvery. controllirJgcomer of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys 13 shall be per the City of Renton sw-veying standards. 14 B. SURVEY: 15 All other lot comers 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 3 1. 20 As conditioned. DECISION 21 The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and descnbed in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditio.ns: 22 23 24 25 26 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Detennination of Non-Significance for the proposaL 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15). PRELIMINARY PLAT-31 000668 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. · Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended. to serve any building. The c.ost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land JJMl<;;r,_ The. appliCl.l!lt shall be responsible .only .. fur.conduit to.serve his dev.elopment...Conduit ... ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156"' Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure _safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary tum around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(0) if this is not already proposed. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination ofNon-Siguificance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a JO-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). PRELIMINARY PLAT -32 000669 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 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the riew single family residences. 14. 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 Aroorist). 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 va,y 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 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the cons1roction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as detennined by the City Arborist. 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction pennit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right--0f-way. The revised plat ·· map·-shall-be submitted-to tbe·Cwrerrt Planning Project""Mamfger prtono ~rdinjfofllie · final plat. 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter wmter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 20. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowoer'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 Planoing Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat PRELIMINARY PLAT -33 000670 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 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping requjred of the proposal. DATED this 13th day of August, 2014. • • .. ,.• .-.--, ..... .,.._._ __,. .. "-"_ -•·-•,-''"~-on·-. •-' -~' City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(l4) 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-l 10(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-IOO(G)(9). A new . .fql.!l1_~eri . .(14). -®Y ---~ . prood.. shall .... co=ence_ .. upon ... the_ issuance_. oL. the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7tJJ floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax pwposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMJNARY PLAT -34 000671 CITY OF RENTON July 30, 2014 City of Renton City Clerk JUL 30 2014 ~ RECEfVE:O J'.'• qf f' · 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 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. Evtnloet, Please accept this request forreconsideration of your July 18, 2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for Toe 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 rime 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 rnadc 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 cleady does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regwl., 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 firilure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156"' Ave. SE/ SE 142"" PL intersection cu=t!y operates at a failing level -LOS level ''F" 000672 b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdiv.ision will contnbute 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 fitiled intersection d) The City acknowledges that it may need to impose left tum restrictions on the access road from the proposed development e) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually imposstble 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 contnbute to, localized congestion. g) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic sigru,l at the 156"' Ave. SE/ SE 142"" PL intersection, and estimates the sigruu will improve congestion to an acceptable level -WS 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 ot the proposed traffic sigruu as 9"' on their Traffic Sigruu Priority List j) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP # 25) indicates that "on average, one new ttaffic sigruu is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed sigruu 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 sigruu installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEP A 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 tnecbanism 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 rime as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 000673 (,617SE s~ Pface Renton, WA 98059 2~:.::~ POA for.Judy M Paulsen 31 Ma,.ama Pines Lane j\fa7.am.,, WA 98833 ···-···----._ _____ -----··. ----·-·-------··-·----------·· 000674 .. -.. -... --·_ I i I JUL 2 ;i 2014 RECElVED CITY Ct.ERK'S OFFICE I 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 :: ·-···-·· --r;~~atandSEPAAppeal ___ }------·---·--------·--······ ) 13 ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--' 14 15 SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of8.8 acres into 31 single-fumily 16 residential lots on the east side of156"' Avenue SE between SE 139"' Place and SE 143.i Street An 17 appeal of a Mitigated Determination ofNonsigni:ficance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The 18 prelimjnary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. 19 The SEP A appellants have raised valid and understandable concans about traffic congestion, but the contribution to 1hat congestion fulls within the level of service ("LOS") standaros adopted by the City 20 Council LOS sets "Milli the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic 21 congestion. The SEP A 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 networlc. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the: only standard that can be applial in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (I) the state's Growth 24 Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to 25 the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financiaUy responsible for 26 the traffic impacts 1hey create ( e.g. if a project contnbutes to 20% of the traffic fur a needed traffic· PRELIMINARY PLAT -l 000675 ,. . . . / 1 2 3 improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unronstitutional de :fucto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates 1he constitntional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent wifu the transportation funding priorities set by the City CoonciI, unless some proportionate share improvements 4 can be required of the applicant. 5 In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of 1he 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 retnrned to 1he applicant It is entirely poSS1ole that 1hose monies will 7 not be expended in six years, but given 1he fuctors that limit the setting of an WS 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 fur1her 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. IO · 11 12 13 SEP A Appellant Testimony 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 internection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the 15 traffic c.onditions on 156th a primary c.oncem 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 SEP A detemrination 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 fuilures 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, 1he traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not 21 negatively impact traffic. 22 Vmcent 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 (Exluliit 2, attachment 12 ). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and petlormed 24 level of service calculations fur the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the 23 scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analy;.ed to fuose that will be 25 subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to 1he project. None of fue intersections in Renton meet this criteria; howev..-, as a matter of prefereru:e, the city asked TraflEx to look at the two 26 site access streets to 156thAvenue and the intersection ofl42nd and 1561h SE. This latter int=t:ion PRELIMINARYPLAT-2 000676 is a stop-controlled sign int=ection 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. TrafiEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied ar= and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue inte.-section. Once again, the 1 3 4 levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables I and 2 of the addmdurn dated April 29, 2014 (Exlnoit I, attachment d). G=lly, the pm peak houris worse 5 than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th_Place inte:raection 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 approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with 7 the traffic light have not bem anal)'Zed, 1hus TraffEx prepared a second ~ddeodum dated June 20, 2014 8 in order to analyz.e the poSS11'le new conditions (Exlul,it 4). With the traffic sigoa], the 142nd inle.-section would improve to level of =vice 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 1he am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations 10 are all subject to how 1he signal is timed. The southside access road lo 1he enclave road is approximately 175 ft which is north of 1he stop bar fur 1he signal. Wi1h the maximum queue calculated, 11 1his acxess area should not be afrected. 1n regard to the trips fur the project relative to the trips through .......... --·-12-llie a.ffeaea mteirections,-tlie project will iidd Tfups to ineamiieiik liour and 9 trips to the pm pea1c·· 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. 1n regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Gegiia noted that !)picaJly 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 1he code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in 1he proposal until after approval. 18 Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis consider;; both 19 queue time and opposing traffic. 20 21 22 23 Unda redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 perceot increase in traffic due to a project, and 1his increase does not occur fur 1his project It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. · City Testimony In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Gannon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attomey, 24 stated 1hat there is no evideoce that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were 25 droioi the opportunity fur submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulson claims other neighbors misunderntood the co~ 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 PRELIMINARY PLAT -3 000677 -:.:..;.:.~.--~ -·-- 1 because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. T1ris process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period 2 to obtain commems on the notice of application and likely thresbold. The notice poims out that the city 3 was relying on the optional code, and the established co=ent period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequare notice was provided of the process. 4 Till Ding, Renton Senior Plaoru,r, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during 5 the SEPA co=e:nt period (Exlnoit 2, attachment 21 ). · 6 Rohlni 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 pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level ill 9 Civil Engin= for the city. She reviews the engin=ing 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 IO Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in l 1 W asmngton, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 2 0 threshold . ··12 -ror inipacfsis notliigh tiasooonlier expenence--:-1n·someplacesshe'has -woikoo,-1:1ietl:iresholdlii-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 poSSiole 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. lf the project did not move forward, the city would J 7 still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exlnoit 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 1he 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 po:cent growth rate is used nnless 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 PRELrMINARYPLAT-4 000678 . -.~ .':'. :. : . ::.I·, .· .. ___ :·.:::::_ ... ·-... -.·-:·· ... after the close of the connnent period The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record The connnenl Jetter did not inclrule any SEP A related questions. The SEP A mitigation 2 included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its lair share of the traffic signal However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor reqwred to be installed as part of the project. I 3 4 Under cross-exaroination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing 5 the City of Remon 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan docuroent because it was outside ofhe:r Department 6 Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that 'Mien she references the city's 7 guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines fur Traffic Impact for New 8 Development" This document isJ:ixhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that gene:rally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five pe:rceot increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five peroent as a guideline aod allows Public Wozks aod Connnunity Development decide if the depai1ments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five P=t threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any am!ysis. The applicant 9 JO 11 12 a three percent growili1iictor m ,ts analysis. · -·--- Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comroeot letter received after the commenl period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto aod noted 14 concern about turning· out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention conoems about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response Jetta-into the record. The response noted that the connnent letter had become part of the record aod provided the time, date, aod location of the 16 review bearing. 13 15 17 Applicant Response 18 Mr. Carson testified that lhe 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 contnoutes very few trips to the problero areas. 20 Appellant Response 21 Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit I, 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 co=ents 23 cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, yon may still appear at the Hearing and 24 present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a pason waives tlteir right to comment on the SEP A detennination by choosing to make their cornmeals 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 sigoal by May 19 'Mien the city issued the DNS. Before May I 9th, there was notlung on lhe record to 26 ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELIMJNARY PLAT -5 000679 ...... _[ 1 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an 2 optional SEP A review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. 3 4 5 6 The notice states that thc-e will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA14--000241 Preiimiruuy Plat Application Staff Testimony 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 tracts (A arid B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size fi:om 8,050sqft to 12,566sqft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract Bis a 490sqft open space area. There was 8 9 a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which r=oved 30,! 75sqft from the subdivision. The removed area included a sing]e-fumily residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new IO subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of !56thAve SE. Thc-eis an additional extension to the southeast that !=mates in a cul-<le-sac turnaround. This road will extend wheu development begins to the south.. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a II 12 13 ea garage. These structures wilf6eoeslroyed. Tlrere are no critical areas on 1he site. Thc-e are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east propc-ty line. The 14-day notice and comment period commenced on March I 0th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional Jette-after the conclusion of the comment period. A 14 DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31st A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing con=n ovc-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 J 7 on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fuir 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 as•uming the applicant complies with all conditions, The city allowed the new road to be cwved 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. 3 5 trees will be retained and the rest will 20 be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to sc-ve the project The school district is able to acoommodate the additional students as well All stndeuts will be bussed. The applicant 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 stormwatc-ponds; however, in 21 22 this case, the strips are only I Oft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot Staff recommends the I Oft strips be approved and be installed as a I and scape visual barrier. In conclusion, 23 staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. 24 In regard to the carved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are 25 policy, not code. · 26 Applicant Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT -6 000680 ·-.-;·,.:-: I Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code 2 requires certam tangent lenglh&, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length fur .the reverse curve to meet RMC standards.. In regard to traffic, the project 3 does not create the .need fur the traffic signal The indfpendent studies fuund 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 utiliz.es fue transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it 7 implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will 8 inter=t with 156th. If Renton' s concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail conc:urrency. 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 oot use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing concwrency. In a letter when King County IO was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a con.cu=cy irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact ofvd:ricles on infrastructure. Renton has · 11 demonstrated an intent to do inter~urisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for . . . --ti "wneii""aevelopments mnst meet greaterrevi.ew siiirularosJStooliighoecause·n 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 fur I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city sbould 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 mnst be 15 addressed. He submitted his written comments asExlnoit 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 fue 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 (Exlul,it l 0). 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 P1blic. He submitted a request fur reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhroit 11 ). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exlnmt 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 fue 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. 2S She did not hear about fue new develOjlln<rt 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 000681 .. ::._::::: __ : ·., Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Commmrity 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 Droember, 2013 states that 15 6th A venue is straight 1hrnugh the access points which is tme; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight The sight lines are temble. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the 4 access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation fur the 3 p=t annual rate. I 3 There is no reference to oth..-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 preseotation packet shows that the intersection of I42ndhas a stop sign 7ft nor1h of the southern 6 boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approxnnately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire 7 corridor is in the I-405 plan and bas 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 91ft. There is no provision that adequate right--0f-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The 9 proposal that students cross I 56th 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 12 13 improvements. The Comprehensive Plan :fails to deal with the impacts of new _d_:"'e!opment. ______ . ___ _ In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton bas an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance 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 1he 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 3 00 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from 1 7 accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in 1he area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, 1he design standard say setbacks should not be reduced fur 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 fur 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 22 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. Ronda Bryant testified that she bas lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, 23 there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 14 2nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 24 impact analysis bas been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 1561h is considered a secondary bypass for 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 fur this light in. the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass 1hls light She estimated that over 2000 26 trips a day on these streets wilh these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELIMlNARY PLAT -8 000682 -.. _.·-:-'.-.· .. ,-~.-... l not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that inle.se:ction. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus st.ops. 2 People that come to catch the bns there are going tc try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for yearn and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard tc 3 the landscape plan, she is con=ed wuh the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. Ii, googling 4 infunnation on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but tcxic tc birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. 5 6 Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exlnbjt 33 of the 7 staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report Wrth regard to the landscaping 8 around the storm water pond, the 15ft reqtriremeot is not actually in code; it was administrative inu,,pretation. Tlris allows the city to reduce that requirement to l Oft. 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 l O are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list The city would not object to removing it from 1he list provided 1here was similar shrub available. Wifu regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard fur code. To 12 clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities conr:urreney policy is a aty-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywjde policy is met, 1he project 13 is seen as concnmm. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works departmeat and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 11 14 15 Applicant Rebuttal 16 Maher Joum testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell' s co=ent about her property on 14 2nd, the applicant is provimng a new sewer main across 142nd down tc 140th. The applicant beljeves 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 citywjde. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through 21 legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEP A, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with 22 SEP A 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 SEP A appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements 24 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 PRELIMJNARY PLAT -9 000683 . I l 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 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 3 4 transportation plaooiog 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 7 8 Exhibit 1 Exhibit2 9 Exhibit 3 EXIDBITS Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a-h Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 · CV ofVmcent Geglia TraflEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Renton Traffic Counts from Juoe, 2014 Exhibit 4 10 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 l2 Exhi1m8 11 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Tom ClllpCDter comments · .. -Paulsiiii Connnent Letter -----------. --.. -·--------·------..... --------.. 13 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 14 Exhibit 12 Exlnllit 13 15 Exlnbit 14 Exhibit 15 16 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 18 Exhibit 20 19 20 21 Procedural: Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvemenl Plan Paulson second request for reconsideration City's denial of Paulson's second request for reconsideration Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Map provided by Ronda Bryant Utility Map 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding 6/2 7 /14 email from Brent Carson with attaclnnents responding to public comment 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding 7 /1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulson FINDINGS OF FACT 22 l. Applicant PNW Holdings, LLC. 23 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEP A appeal was held 24 on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEP A 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 nntil July 1, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, I 04 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -l 0 000684 I to reply. The record was also left open through June 2 7, 2014 fur the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 2 3 3. Project Description. Toe applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-:fumilyresidential lots on the east side of 156"' Avenue SE between SE 139"' Place 4 and SE 143"' Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued . 5 under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A") 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, ternrinating in a temporary cul-<ie-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a !atec date, 9 under a future application fur development Toe preliminary plat also includes a stormwatec tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per aa-e. 10 Toe site generalJy slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of20 feet A geotechnical report for 11 the site was submitted containing information on the surfuce conditions, subsurfuce conditions and groiindwarer: -·111ina1eIS currently occupied oyasiligltnaniily resioence, aderachoo-garage, ·ana- 12 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. Adeguacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. Toe 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 fuund to be sufficient Specific infrastructure/services are 16 addressed as follows: 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewet main in 156th Avenue SE. 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 the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$4 79 .28 per single family unit This fee is paid at time of building permit =- C. Drainage. The proposal provides fur adequate stonnwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exlnbit 13) has been submitted with the application. Toe report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surfuce Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELIMINARY PLAT -11 000685 ;-. .::-:· -·· .- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply witlt City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located witltin tlte Lower Cedar Riva Basin and bas a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County bas been provided a copy of.tltese plans and reports that tlte project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on tlte City's flow control map, this site fills within tlte Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic wata quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control fucility is typically sized to match the pre-<leveloped rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of tlte 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The enginea has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the soutltwest 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 ofRenton Amendments to the KCSWD M A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the ------project-Appropriate-indivi<lnal-lot--flow contr-ol-BMPs will-be required-to-help-mirigate-fue-· - new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report mnst be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary re,~ew may be required for the pond with both structural enginea and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building p=it issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for miat serves as "adequate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEP A) review is the LOS stmdard Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represerrts a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate respol1Sloility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infi:astructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 000686 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 a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afuul of one if not all of 1hese factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation fimding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localiz.ed congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges ofRenton's system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessazy. LOS standards for transportation fitcilities are required by the Growih Management Act, Chapter 36. 70A ("GMA "). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that " ... prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ... " See RCW 36. 70A.070(6)(b )(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency . •' -·.'"' --=dmarn:e?);--urfurtlreJraI1Jce.oft:hiscrequirenreat;,:,oost-ci·ties-and counties adoptWs-for------- specific arterial ink:tsections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-functioning intersection or road segment and F is a m:iiing intersection or road segment An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (I) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) fuce denial of the pennit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows fur a very localized a ssessrnent of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the co=cy ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. Renton' s LOS standards don't allow for this localiz.ed assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to inte:rsect:ions or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon 1he total number of miles one single-occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit velricle can travel in 30 mim1tes. See PRELIMINARY PLAT -13 000687 ' i, 1'. .-.:-'.·;.?··, .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, ie. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles fur a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that tlris standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 4 2 index value. 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. However, in the ,<bsence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and dehberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though tlris may mean that speciiic portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the ----absenee--ef-Bity-planmng-6r-fimding--<lirectives-to-lower-severe--oongestien-in-a-partioolar---··· area, in many if not most cases it will not be poss,1,le to impose a stricter congestion standard 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 required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's conCUITency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one bas disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes " ... the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element ... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions -if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELIMINARYPLAT-14 000688 1 2 3 4 5 6 _-.--.!. provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to filil them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an interse.ction currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concnrreocy because the intersection already fitils to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recogniz.ed standards' to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the i.nternections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primazy measure for as.sessing congestion impacts at 7 project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developa-s. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic stndy, 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 142"" Street internection. 10 However, it needs to be recogniz.ed that the abili1y to rely upon these proportionate share 11 contnoutions. is very limited because state Jaw requires that mitigation funds be expended ----4-----wi1!hin:-five-years--e~ee-R-GW-8;M~meaas-!ha~- 12 balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers 13 within six years the mitigation money mnst be returned to the developa-. 14 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In calculating projected impacts to affected internections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who preseme.d a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicini1y. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth fuctor 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% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by !he City engineering dq,aronent Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is fuund more compelling. One of the SEP A issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intffllection improvement required as mitigation fur the project area, the signalization of the 156" Ave. SE/SE 142"" Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. 26 1 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Bo3Id Highway Qrn•city Manual to calculate IDS. PRELIMlNARY PLAT -15 000689 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back np to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or concln.sion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contraI)', the 3Meodnm' s concln.sions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementa,y, McKnight :Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new s1ndmts from the proposed IO development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile 11 from the project site at 156'" Avenue SE & SE 5'" Place. The proposed project includes the ---1--------·instaYatien-ef-Il'eetage--mlj'!ffivements-along-the-l-S~Aveaue--SB-fulmage,-insluding--- !2 sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156"' Avernie SE north of the project 13 site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exln'bit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-0f-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (wlrich 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 bns is traveling sonth smdents 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. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing; so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-fumily lot, will be required in ordec 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 fumily residence. 5. Adverse Im mets. There are no adv= impacts associated with the proposal Adequate public 24 fucilities and drainage control are provided ru>detetmined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single fumily development so compatioility of use is not an 25 ISSllC. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-16 000690 l There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 44-130H requires thirty percent of the trees sball be retained in a residential developmea:rt. When the required nomber of protected trees cannot 2 be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacemeat 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 detennined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exb.tbit 15), and 46 would be !orated 5 in tbe proposed roadway resulting in a total of200 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 instaJJ 150 2-inch caliper replacement~ 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 (''MONS") was issued for the . 10 proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result 11 of tbe request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a --1-2 --1-si~·gn,---a'l r:fo-'r',the.-:-.:15"'6,,,,..-A.-::v=e-. "'SEIS""'Er-il"4""20!!7S;::'tI',-ee-,-t~int-;-c-er.aectJ.=z·o==n.~Mr-=.,p"'a=ucn::'-:;,ccc'-,.,'"Tcerc-su,-,-.c.ec-=t~..;p_,:...--1-.----- appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. l. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice forthecommentperiodon 13 the SEP A MDNS was coufosiug, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit heariog; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of 14 the! 56th Ave. SE/SE 14200 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 aMeodnm to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups 16 caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. 17 18 Conclusions of Law 19 I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a bearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grams the Examiner 20 authority to review and make final decisions on SEP A appeals. 21 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Desi!!Illltions. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling 22 units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is R.esidmtial Low Density (RLD). 23 24 SEPAAPPEAL 25 3. SEPA Review Criteria There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (!) there are unmitigated probable significant adv= environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 000691 I 2 3 not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as reqwred by SEP A regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental ;rn,pru,ts. 4 The primal)' relevant inqui,:y for purposes of assessing whethec 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 adv= environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a tlrreshold determination, the determination made by 7 the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight WAC 197-Jl-o (3)(a)(viii). 8 9 JO l1 12 B. Meguate Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold deternrination. The SEP A respollSlole official must make a prima :fucie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a 13 showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a primafacie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State 14 Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wa 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responstole official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adv= environmental impacts. See, e_g_, Boehm v. City of Vancouver, I JI Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima fucie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA 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, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project be/ore finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the recard demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. PRELIMINARY PLAT -18 000692 --~- _--·-.• ~ c: ~ "·-.. l WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold detemunation shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane 2 County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing,s Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The 3 standard of review on adequacy, therefo.e,, is that the SEP A respoDSible official must make a prima fucie 4 showing that the detennination is based upon infonru\tion 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 met submitted commems 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- Significance-Wtigated, att. H to Ex. l. The first page of the Notice provides that "[c]omment periods 10 for th.e 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 .... Jf comments cannot be submitte in writing by t e 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 l 4 on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearu,g on the J 5 application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in thls regard_ However, the sentence allowing fur 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 "[t] here 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 citi= intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek 18 clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. 19 The language on the MONS 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-l!O(E)(3), one of the requirements fur 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 cornmeals at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. 23 In point offuct Mr. Paulson submittednnmerous cornmeals on the MDNS on March22, 2014, prior to 24 theissuanceoftheMDNSonMarch31,2014. SeeEx.AtoEx. l. 25 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Fmding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulson asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements reqnired of the developer were not adequately assessed in 26 the SEP A review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELIMINARY PLAT -19 000693 I 2 3 points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEP A 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 in nmnerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no cowi has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site 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 was located in a critical aquifer area with high suscepnoility to contamination. 5 6 7 8 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 w to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of nips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to nigger an LOS analysis 11 under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering --... 'department:-'Fhe-advisory--notes---to--the--MBNS,Ex. 18, identify-silt----transportation-issae~that were+- 12 assessed by City engineering staff. 13 14 15 16 17 All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient'' to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a 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 level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the l\IDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson 19 20 presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEP A responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. 21 22 23 24 25 26 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the SEP A responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a PRELIMINARY PLAT -20 000694 ::·_. \ :·-: ·-·· 1 qualified traffic~ establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156"' Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intc,:r,;ecjion will not imerfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulson 2 provided no evidence to the contnuy. 3 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 5 standards are quotfd below in italics and applied through corresponcling conclusions oflaw. 6 RMC 4-7-0SO(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 7 J. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 8 9 2. Access: Establish access lo a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied IO 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 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 full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as weJl A!; 15 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 adequately designed to prevent any 16 impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. A!; determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, 17 the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 18 RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 19 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 20 21 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(l) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be 22 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by swfaced road 23 or street (according to City specifications) wan existing street or highway. 24 9. As shown in StaffReport 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 lo any adopted plans for streets in the City. 26 PRELIMJNARYPLAT-21 000695 I IO. 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 possi"ble for the proposal would be to 2 an extension of SE 8"' Street, w!Jich 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 6 7 8 9 IO 11 purposes. 11. There is nothing in the record .to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official des!:gnated trail RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in confonnance with the following provisions: 1. I.and Unsuitable for Subdivision: I.and which is found lo be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the fature residents (such 1-=__J.IJ.lllis_adY.ia1£e~_j]QQJfing,~ep slope£ or rock fonna~ad .. :w1w;}Llhe_ 12 Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against th'ese adverse conditions. 13 not be 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the .approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCWbefore the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%} or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050Jl a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. I.and Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and I.and Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: 24 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, 25 26 and wetland areas. PRELIMINARY PLAT -.22 000696 1 2 3 b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream_ bed. c. Cu/verting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed onry 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 fur a subdivision as the stoonwater design =res that it will not contnoute to flooding and fuere are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling ot' 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/and or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the -----l~bze.=~'/fecis.'---'!f-'duei:l!'~e]lan.'P-n"'mieenritt..Juqpwo!l!n__/Jfb!ue'---Eer:tisfr:/Jtin,ng~.Pna<IJrr.ilr:....<a<lln:d.d:....C.reetc:r_~e.eaa;titu·o,n_..re,rri,c:e._.le:,,el!'..-Jl.e-+-·--"-·-·----1 12 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mi.tigation 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 £3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department 18 19 14. As shown in Sta.ff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possiole fur the project. 20 21 22 RMC 4-7-ISO(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-ISO(q: Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 23 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 24 25 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possiole fur the project. RMC 4-7-150(0): 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 000697 l 2 3 4 5 6 : ·.-.;-:-.-:-·c:-:~--.· .. alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 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. . RMC 4-7-lSO(E): I. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect e:risting and new development and shall be the 7 predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 8 9 10 11 2. linkages: linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within.and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads 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 Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. ~~--1-3-.clixceptions;:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow fature corinectivity. 19 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 ZO RC. R-J, 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. 23 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Qfficial where due 24 to demonstrable physical constraints no fature connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 25 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible fur 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 000698 I looped as encouraged by 1he criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as 2 encouraged by 1he criterion above. The criterion is met 3 RMC 4-7-lSO(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 fall width and the pavement and 4 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 5 Planning/Bui!.ding/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 6 19. As proposed. 7 RMC 4-7-lSO(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offature 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 fall-width boundary street shall be 9 required in certain instances to facilitate fature development. IO 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, 1he stub road extmsion 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 lotlmes shall be at nghtang/es to street Imes or~ ia to curved street lines. 13 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in oonfonnanre 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 J 6 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 fer the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 20 provisions of this Chapter must be consisll{nt 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 1he zoning standards of the R-4 zone, which includes area, width and densi1y. · 23 RMC 4-7-170(0): Wuith between side lot lines at their foremost points (z.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 000699 l 2 3 twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street cun,e or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. 4 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public nghts-ofway, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 5 6 7 8 25. As conditioned. RMC 4--7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be presen,ed, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 9 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as det=ined 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 ----1--and-lh~ng..(;eunty-lkaltk-Departmenl,sanitary--sewer-s--shall-he-pr-ovided-by-the-developer--af-n(}--------~ 12 cost to the City and designed in accordance ·with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 13 eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision 14 15 16 17 18 development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit fall-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 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include 19 detention capacity for fature development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 20 21 22 23 2 7. The proposal provides fur adeqnate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as detennined in Fmding of Fact No. 4. The City's storm.water standards, which are incorporated into the technical infurmation report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 24 RMC 4-7-200(q: 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 000700 .. I 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is asrured during final plat review. 2 3 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved su,faces shall be installed, including all 4 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any su,face material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedesfills 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 s a be responsible only fbr conduzt to serve /tis development. Cotuiu,t eruissna!H5e etbowed to 12 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 18 . 19 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established al each and every controlling comer of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. · 20 B. SURVEY: 21 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying stilndards. 22 C. S1REET SIGNS: · 23 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 24 25 26 31. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT -27 000701 ::/.";: .·._-· -.·.·.·-;-::-:_:;:,, I DECISION 2 The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and descnbed in this decision is 3 consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Det=mation ofNon-Significance for the proposal. 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'). 4. Side sewer lines sball be installed eight feet (81 into each Jot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision sball be placed underground. Any utilities 11 installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the ---+---_,,l,lll'ltiftg ef treesc4hese-ntilities-to-be--leeated--beBeath-paved--swfaees--sbaY-be--iastalled; 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 l4 Department of Public Works. 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. Any cable 1V conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each Jot Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each Jot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve bis development Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156111 Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. PRELIMINARY PLAT -28 000702 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary tum around as required by RMC 4-7- l 50(G) if this is not already proposed. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures. issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a IO-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 11 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect --------;~-------ilic:lrees;avai!a6Je1orreti~lascileffiminooo;yllieUyotReiifon":i'irooristf."""'Jlliei-~. 12 y n 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 fue Final Plat 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I 5. 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 I 6. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 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 final plat 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 19. Site grading sball be limited to the summer months. If1he 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 20. The applicant sball be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 000703 l 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 21. responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development A draft of the documen1{ 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 Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 18th day ofJuly, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-11 O(EX9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council RMC 4-8-J 10(E)(9) 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 e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(0)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7fu floor, ( 425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change 10 valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -30 000704 ( --CITY OF RENTON CARE SEP O 8 2014 RECEIVED CoW.Wllti'l.ily A:llic.\~ce -to Reach. C>L.lt , tl\9CA9e CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Renton City Council City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 September 8, 2014 206.888. 7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com 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 1561" Ave SE, so there will~ 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 fil'fil 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 Iha~ after much public inpu~ Renton Staff detenmined that the nearest (and most problematic) intersection of 156'" Ave SE and SE 142"" Pl 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 -LUA 14-000241 000705 "-" 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, pied and urged that adequate planning be implemented during the interim period in the usual boom and bust of the development business cycle. I am personally devastated that my 5 year volunteer commitment on the Planning Commission failed to achieve much more than a requirement of minimal palette of exterior paint colors. Now we have developments of every color of mud! But the actual functional impacts that negatively affect the shared experience of the many thousands of our neighbors continues unabated. What a literal shame that there appears to be nothing that can or will be done. Please consider our pleas! Please return the Enclave project to staff with instructions to reconfigure the plat to minimize the traffic impacts in the 1561 " Ave SE corridor. Thank you, Gwendolyn Gwendolyn High CARE President CARE The Enclave at Briole Ridge -LUA 14-000241 000706 -- CARE Co\\\MMi+y Alli,o\ce to Reach Ou.t ~ 'El\9age P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 206.666.7152 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 ODES file No. L01P0016 and L01TY401) Liberty Grove Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DOES file No. L03P0006/L03TY 403) Liberty Grove Contiguous Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC DOES file No. L03P0005/L03TY401) Nichols Place Preliminary Plat (KC ODES 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 LUAOB-097) Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (KC DDES file No. L04P0034 and Renton LUAOB-093) Heritage (KC ODES file No. L07P0009) Saddlebrook (Renton LUA12--077) CARE has represented the needs and concerns of the East Plateau residents since 2001, as a group of concerned and likeminded neighbors. We incorporated and were recognized as a 501c4 nonprofit in 2003. We have an email list of over 400 households. CARE households own properties and reside in the community surrounding the proposed project. There is considerable potential for this community and the environment to be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is permitted without adequate conditions to mitigate increased traffic, light and stormwater. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 000707 -- 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: Staff's 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.· This is a true statement, but it is insufficient to fully describe the situation. SE 142"' PL is not straight at this location and has terrible sight distance. When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 1561h Ave SE, any vehicle waiting to tum either right or left from SE 142 PL onto 156'" AVE SE will not be able to see. This will be particularly dangerous when vehicles is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project. The driver will be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of the stop sign and the southbound car, and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street. In a scenario with a southbound vehicle turning left into the project, the driver will be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation. If the tractor trailer truck that lives at parcel# 5336700015 is parked where is usually is -the driver will see that truck and very little else. Please see the accompanying Sightlinelllustration.pdf. TraffEx TIA page 4: "A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years.· There is no citation to support these assumptions, we therefore ask that the following questions be answered and considered in evaluating the reliability of these unsupported assertions. • Where did this data come from and by what standard is ii 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 -LUA 14-000241 000708 '-"' ,_, 'The south site access is located approximately 250ft north of the 156"' Ave. SEISE 142"" 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 156'" 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_lmpact_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 Janes 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-<:ie-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 156'h Avenue SE & SE s'" Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156"' Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156"' 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 156'h Avenue SE at SE !fh Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156"' Avenue SE and board the bus. New sidewalk from this project will only extend less than halfway to SE 5"' 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 <CBames@rentonwa.gov>, Ron Mar <Rmar@rentonwa.gov> CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge. LUA14-000241 000709 ...... ._, 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-sffe 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.pd!): "[h]istorically, on average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed eve,y 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 Cffy of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemete,y 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 Cemete,y 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 exis~ 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 156'" 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 Bumstead Co. is putting 14 homes, Maplewood Park Eas~ 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 140"' St. • There is 2 lot short plat at 156th Ave SE and SE136th St. • There are 46 homes planned for the Copperwood project which is slightly southwest of Maplewood Heights Elementary. The listed address for the project is 5001 SE 2nd Pl. The project sign is on SE 2nd Pl just west of where it intersects 144th Ave SE • . And there are 4 plats being actively developed at 21 O Duvall Ave SE CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -LUA 14-000241 000710 --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 deficrt will remain for decades. Virtually all of this traffic will traverse the corridor from the intersection of 154th Ave SE & SE142 Pl (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 1561 h Ave SE and SE 142"a Pl all the way through the intersection of 156th Ave SE and SE 1281 h St. The proposed new connections to SE 1561 h 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/DRAINAGE; Report to Hearing Examiner page 11 under Public Services at the bottom of the page; "The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners 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. ERG 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 fiood 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 Jack 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 Ill 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 Alderwocd 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 wrth this situation, but every time a new project is cleared, new measures have to be installed. Level Ill drainage mitigations should be required here, too. LANDSCAPINGfTREE RETENTION; Report to Hearing Examiner page 6: Proposal to plant Heavenly Bamboo, which is an invasive species with berries poisonous to native birds and should not be used in a plat landscaping plan. http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboroflndex.ssf/2013/12/heavenly bamboo the red berrie.html (Heavenly bamboo .htm) CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -LUA 14-000241 000711 ._. -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 000712 - 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: I. 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 4"' 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"" 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 "stonmwater 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 -LUA 14-000241 000713 --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 9/17113 Summary: For two months, the residents on SE 4th Place had to deal with overly bright LED lights that were completely inappropriate to the neighborhood. This disrupted people's sleep, made yard use unpleasant and in some cases was a safety hazard (blinded while backing out of garages). Neighborhoods should have a choice/say in the types of lighting used and a study of existing neighborhood houses should be considered. Lighting should also be appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood with minimal light pollution to disrupt the natural world. Marsha Rollinger From: <deleted> To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Jun 201411:08:14 -0700 CARE Gwendolyn: I live at <deleted> 152 PL SE and regularly come up from the Maple Valley Highway to access my home. That involves a left turn at 154th Ave SE and SE 142 PL It is a challenging enough intersection with limited sight visibility, no left tum 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 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -LUA 14-000241 000714 From: <deleted> To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: 1 ODO+ new trips, Wild Babies, and Meeting Monday Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:39:25 -0700 CARE 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> The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -LUA 14--000241 000715 I Van Ness Feldman LLP crrv OF RENTON SEP O 8 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 8, 2014 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY AND EMAIL City Council City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104-1728 206-623-9372 vnf.com Re: Applicant's Response to Paulsen Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Dated July 18, 2014 Regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge (File No. LUA-14-000241) Honorable Councilmembers: I submit this letter on behalf of PNW Holdings, LLC, the Applicant for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge ("Enclave" or the "Project"), a 3 I -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 156'h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Place. Ex. 2, Attachment 30. Mr. Paulsen appealed the reissued DNS-M to the Hearing Examiner. Ex. 11. The Hearing Examiner, after a full public hearing, and after giving Mr. Paulsen the opportunity to provide additional written testimony, denied the Paulsen SEPA Appeal and approved the Project. Hearing Examiner Final Decision, July 18, 2014. On July 30, 2014 Mr. Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration. On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner reaffirmed his decision to deny the Paulsen SEPA Appeal and to approve the Project. I 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 tltis letter. 000716 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: I. 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.B. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "conform to ... adopted plans for streets in the City." • RMC 4-7-I 50.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: S6814--4 000717 Renton City Council -3 -September 8, 2014 - • The new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right-of-way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. • As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. The Project's access onto 156 1h Ave. SE is 250 feet north of the 156 1h Ave. SE/SE 142"d Place intersection. Ex. 12, page 4. If, in future, there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156 1h Ave. SE, the City traffic operations may impose left tum restrictions at that intersection. • To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 1561h Ave. SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot roadway, per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. • Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. See Exhibit 2, page I 0. 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 Xl-17. The City does not regulate intersection LOS. Decision, page 17. 4. The intersection of I56'h 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 )75 trips passing through the intersection at ! 56'h Ave. SE/SE 142nd 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 1561h Ave. SE/SE 142"d Place is LOS F, this intersection is not a high accident location. Since 2009 there has only been one accident 56812-4 000718 Renton City Council -4 -September 8, 20 I 4 - 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 1h Ave. SE/SE l 42"d Place intersection. Ex. 30. 9. Federal and state constitutional limitations preclude any City from imposing conditions on a development when there is no nexus or reasonable relationship between impacts from the development and the proposed condition and where the proposed condition is not roughly proportional to impacts caused by the development.2 Here, where the 156 1h Ave. SE/SE I 42"d 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. I 0. 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 1h 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); Nol/an v. California Coastal Comm 'n. 483 U.S. 825, 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 ( 1987); Benchmark land Company v. Bartle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999) Bur/on v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 ( 1998). 000719 Renton City Council -5 -September 8, 2014 - One of the fundamental misunderstandings in the Paulsen Appeal is the relationship between the state subdivision statute, Chapter 58. I 7 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. I 7.110. 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 coriformance with chapter 58. l 7 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 ofRMC 4-7-080: A. Purpose: The procedures regulating subdivisions, including segregations of ten (]Oj or more lots, are established to promote orderly and efficient division of lots, avoiding placing undue burdens on the subdivider and lo 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. I I 0(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. I 7.110(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/or the public· health, safety, and general welfare and/or 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 000720 Renton City Council -6 " September 8, 2014 - sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions/or students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the plalling 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; thal orderly growlh, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be ensured; that proper provisions for all public facililies (including circulation. utilities, and services) shall be made; that the site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set forlh in lhe Cily Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan shall be insured. Additionally, the Renton subdivision code at RMC 4-7-08.B reads: A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles ofacceplability: 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/or each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision/or drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. By reviewing the Project under these subdivision code provisions, and finding that the Enclave plat satisfied each of these requirements, the Hearing Examiner confirmed that the requirements of state subdivision law have been met. The Project Fully Complies with Renton's Adopted Level of Service Standard, which is based on City-Wide time of travel, not Intersection Congestion Paulsen misunderstands the City's adopted Level of Service Standard and its relationship to the review and approval of this plat. The Gro""1h 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 -~6812-4 000721 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. Jn 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: ~6ll!Z-4 • 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.B. The Project, as approved, contains streets that "conform to ... adopted plans for streets in the City." 000722 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 fulJ 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 l56'h Ave. SE is 250 feet north of the l56'h Ave. SE/SE 142°d Place intersection. !fin future th~re are significant concerns re~arding left turns to and from the south loop of the mternal public street onto 156' Ave. SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. • To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in J 56'h 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 I 0. 56812,4 000723 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 156 111 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 156'h 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. I, Attachment D. The Addendum added an AM Peak Hour evaluation and a queuing analysis. In the AM condition, the intersection of 156'h Ave. SE/SE l 42"d Place was found to operate at LOS F with or without the Project, with the Project adding only 1.1 seconds of delay. At the intersection of SE 5th Pl/l 56'h 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 156 1h Ave. SE/SE l 42"d 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 I 56'h Street. No adverse impacts from the traffic signal were identified. 56B 12-4 000724 Renton City Council -10 -September 8, 2014 - The three TIA's were subject to review by the City's Engineering Department who voiced no objections to their methodology or conclusions. Decision, page 19. Neither Mr. Paulsen nor any member of the public provided any engineering analyses or other traffic studies to address the adequacy of roads, traffic impacts or compliance with City road standards. Id. As such, the conclusions from the Applicant's traffic studies were properly taken, as verified, and supported the determination that the Project met the City's adopted street standards. Id. These traffic studies confirmed that the Project will have a minimal impact on traffic operations and that the Project has been designed for compliance with adopted City traffic standards. There is simply no basis for Paulsen to claim that the Project fails to meet adopted City standards. The Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact Support the Conclusion that there are Adeguate Provisions for Streets to Serve the Project Paulsen's' argument that the Findings of Fact do not support the finding of adequate streets is ludicrous. Finding of Fact 4 expressly found that "the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services ... ". Decision, page 14. Concerning streets, subsection E in Finding of Fact 4 presents four pages of detailed explanation on the adequacy of streets based on the City's adopted code provisions. Decision, pages 16-19. Of particular note are the Hearing Examiner's findings with regard to the City's city-wide Level of Service Standard. Id. The Hearing Examiner went to considerable length to address Renton's unique Level of Service standards and how these standards are applied in reviewing proposed developments in Renton. He specifically contrasts Renton's city-wide Level of Service standards with those in other jurisdictions that may allow for a localized assessment of Level of Service at specific intersections. "[T]he [Renton J 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. 568!2-4 000725 Renton City Council -J I -September 8, 2014 - Moreover, the Hearing Examiner's Decision demonstrates that the public interest is served by approval of the plat. The Examiner found that the Project is in compliance with the zoning code (Finding 1(2) of the staff report was adopted by reference (see Decision, page 25)), in confonnance with the general purposes and adopted standards of the Comprehensive Plan (Finding I(]) of the staff report was adopted by reference (Id.)), and in compliance with the specific provisions of the City's subdivision regulations. Id. pages 25-31. To suggest that the City Council must reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision because the specific words "in the public interest" are missing from the decision is absurd. Nonetheless, we request that the City Council, based upon the record, supplement the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and include the following additional Finding of Fact: The public use and interest will be served by the plaiting 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 ofthe 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. S6812-4 000726 Renton City Council -12 -September 8, 2014 - 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. Nol/an 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, 5 I 2 U.S. 3 74, 39 I, 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); Bun on v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 5 I 6-17 (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 (SEP A), mitigation measures can only be imposed to mitigate specific adverse impacts and those mitigation conditions must be "reasonable." RCW 43.2!c.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 & Counlry Real Estate, LLC, I 61 Wn.App. I 7 (2011 ). The Hearing Examiner correctly noted in his response to Paulsen's reconsideration request, that the City was constrained by this body of Jaw 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'/ 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. S68 I 2-4 000727 Renton City Council -13 -September 8, 2014 - 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. BC:jes Enclosures cc: Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk Client Appellant S6812-4 Very truly yours, VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP Brent Carson 000728 - APPENDIX A 000729 APPENDIX A Amended 09/19/11 Excerp~from Renton Comprehens~e 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 LOSE, 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, dynam·,c 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: Xl-15 000730 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 Xl-16 000731 Amended 09/19/11 Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990 -2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. With the 2002 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions 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 ofTransportation (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 LOSE) 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 Xl-17 000732 Amended 09/19/11 - SOV, HOV, and transit-oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway system. Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi-modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7. The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit 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. Xl-18 000733 ,. .. Sandi Weir From: Sent: To: - Julia Medzegian Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:28 PM Sandi Weir Subject: Attachments: FW: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council 154th-156th Arterial Corridor 2014-08-31 RCC Written.pdf, A nooool.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.gov> Subject: Party of Record comments for Enclave Preliminary Plat appeal to the City Council Marcie, I'm not sure whether the Planning and Development Committee or the Transportation/Aviation Committee will get the appeal. The good news is your on both so you get be the contact. I'm a party of record, and the attached adds no new data to the official record, other than describing my support regarding the Appellant's submittal. I'd appreciate it if you'd make sure this got into the official channel for the appeal. Thanks Tom Carpenter 1 000734 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 24-Feb-14 18-Dec-13 10-Dec-12 22-May-14 23-Jun-14 18-May-14 Type Letter Letter Resolution Flyer Letter Map Map Map Description Tom Carpenter to Renton Hearing Examiner; The proposed Enc/ove development along 156th Ave SE Jennifer Henning (Renton) to Josh Peters (King County); Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 City of Renton, Washington Resolution No. 4165; Request to King County for an lnterlocal Agreement regarding Renton Potential Annexation Areas. WA State Department of Transportation Interstate 405 Corridor Program Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects Chip Vincent (Renton) to Roger Paulsen; Enclave at Bridal Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP, ECF King County (failing) Travel Shed 12 with Transportation Needs Transportation Road Corridors 154th Pl SE/156th Ave SE Arterial 3-Jun-14 Map 154th Pl/156th Ave Corridor Arterial The submittals focused on: • The holistic corridor context (i.e. crossing jurisdictional boundaries) of the Enclave development, and • The intent of the City of Renton's relationship with King County for Transportation Concurrency and joint planning relevant to the Enclave development area. The Holistic Corridor Context • The Enclave development is within feet of unincorporated King County, and is adjacent to an arterial that crosses in and out of King County and Renton jurisdictions multiple times over it 1.8 mile length. • The corridor's entire length is within, or immediately adjacent to, Renton or one of its PAAs. • The corridor is part of the Interstate 405 Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, and is an alternate route for 1405 from SR167 to the Factoria interchange. • All the unincorporated urban area, and the neighboring rural King County areas are in an area failing King County Transportation Concurrency. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139111 Place, Renton, WA 98059 1 000735 • 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 PMs, 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 PMs. • 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 I LA or concurrency. I stand in general support for the appellant I suppott the appellant's stand on adequate mitigation for the 3-way intersection. I suppott 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 suppott any assumption that the appropriate mitigation for the 3-way intersection is a stop light. That proposal was developed without the benefit of a holistic plan for the arterial corridor, and based only on the guidelines used by the Renton Transportation Utility department. Given the 1.8 mile arterial corridor is part of the 1405 Program, and functions as a significant traffic connector (the only north route off SR-167 between Cedar Grove Road and 1405), a holistic-based analysis could determine a stop light was not the appropriate mitigation. What's needed is a comprehensive plan (e.g. connector, safety, local access, multi-modal), with no firm mitigation decisions or further development permitting allowed until that plan is developed and approved. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139"' Place, Renton, WA 98059 2 000736 August 27, 2014 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) )§ ) 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). SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 27th day of August, 2014. 000737 Denis Law -c· fY _ __:.M:ayor-----~· 1~IitrJtl City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton August 27, 2014 APPEAL FILED BY: Roger Paulsen & Jason Paulsen (POA for Judith Paulsen) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 18, 2014 regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge located at 14038 156th Ave SE (File No. LUA-14-000241) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing . examiner's decision on Enclave at Bridle Ridge land \l5e 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 ofrecord of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The reco=endation 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, rTV'LA ' \ --ti on -~·f!V Enclosures cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 43o-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwaQ:00738 -.._. City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110-Appeals 4-8-110(4 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-llOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012} 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070H1, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012) 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection GS ofthis Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) 000739 "-"2PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNClw"' OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION CITY 0< RENTO~ AUG 2 6 2014 ;i::,1-ir' . §.J RECEIVED J::.J. ,4 =-r "NOL1/)TY,~f:.L0,E'.lf~,Q~.7lfE APPI.JCATION NAME c,v'C (AVf Ar IJ/(t~ /()("f <.I.LC _C/1.lf '1· _11..ill!_"J_I The undersigned interested pany hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated J,"/ Jill/f , 2[J/'/ . 701 ~;,ll. :rrJorr,1 flv,stJJ l. IDENTIFlCATION OF PARTY APP~ .tJ~ Name: ~UfJ(Jfl.) A~s: 6(17 Sf StJ/ /t, · KeJ.lfn#l, W.I t{iOf; . ~=:~~.y Address: 3/ !Jf/t/PIA /JA}(.> UJ • l'HJ~AIHA WI 1f£53 Phone Number: [,Jf. ff("~ f'/(() Email: 'JA$#µ(J/fhlf.[FJJ~ ~l'IIJt .(./IJI 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional shee!li, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: ($ff IJ'f(Gtl@) 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED Toe City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) ( · Rev~e the ~~ion or recommen~on and grant the following relief: 5t6 ,l(f'f IC I/{'/) J Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: . U Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other. . Type/Printed Name NOTE: Please refer to Title N, Chllpter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code. and Section 4-8-11 OF. for specific appeal procedures. 000740 ''C , I., • .,, ' . ,, -""" CA.· L,.. ' ,..._"'-,11 i,v_,._ , CITY OF -~ENTON August 25, 2014 C/11p v,.;.a.,,i..t., c;,p ::;~y:,r ~. c.er> \)::u.,..,55,c Ptribee., IJ,ef) s fuie., kc., cep AUG 2 6 2014 z,;::f'if,_, City of Renton City Clerk ~~ Bu~"'-ll, ~ ~111\CL-W'<~, c.d) Ph,·1 01i,ru.i,t.s1 H-1;" RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 .::riU p-,.,'J, Ce'l> APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.llO{F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal ofthe 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 51 h Place adjacent to the proposed plat (See Exhibit A), we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at-large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and (b). The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of "appropriate provision" with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. 1 000741 "ii,) Lastly, we find that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal 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 Leve I 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 ofthe 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 000742 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City 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 155th/ 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 155th Ave. SE/ SE 142"d PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that " . ..it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 155th Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142"d PL. / 1561h Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit I) 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 1561h 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 000743 i) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP# 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE/ SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes refere nee 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 DJ: 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 000744 Amendment. In fact, the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property-specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17) the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'/ Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de-facto moratorium and runs 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. 00-1167. Argued January 7, 2002--Decided April 23, 2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development. The interest in informed decisionmalcing 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. 00-1167. Argued Janwuy 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 000745